There have been different reactions to the suspension of Peter Enns. Here’s the Chris Crocker version:
“I just want to say that I am extremely disappointed (to the point of tears) with my seminary and the action they are taking. Peter Enns has meant so much to me over the past few years at Westminster and even beforehand when I read his book.”
http://aboulet.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/sad-day-in-history/
Permit me to dry my mascara before we proceed.
Moving along:
“Westminster will never, ever be the same.”
One can only hope.
Actually, I assume the purpose of this action is to restore Westminster to the status quo ante, as the heir to Old Princeton.
“It is important to clarify what ‘heterodoxy’ means within the context of the current discussions, especially for those onlookers who are not part of the Reformed, confessional world. Within the evangelical Christian world at large, the term ‘heterodoxy’ concerns the divergence from either the core tenets of the Christian faith (virgin birth, Trinity, bodily resurrection, etc.) or from the Church’s ancient Creeds (The Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, Chalcedonian Creed).”
Traditionally, the inerrancy of Scripture has also been a core tenet of Evangelicalism.
It’s striking how his cut-off date eliminates the creeds of the Reformation and post-Reformation era.
“Within the world of Reformed Confessionalism, ‘heterodoxy’ concerns the divergence from the Westminster Confession of Faith, not the core tenets of the Christian faith or the Church’s ancient Creeds.”
http://aboulet.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/peter-enns-westminster-seminary-and-graffiti/
So the Westminster Confession is only concerned with peripheral issues rather than core issues.
“This is important to keep in mind as some are claiming that Pete’s views are ‘heterodox’ by (falsely) equating him with known liberals such as Charles Briggs.”
I wouldn’t necessarily equate his views with Briggs. He may be somewhat to the right of Briggs. But the point is to irradiate the cancer before it reaches the terminal stage.
“The argument brewing does not concern whether Peter Enns’ work is within the bounds of Christianity. All would agree that it is.”
I, for one, disagree. If you’re out of bounds with Scripture, then you’re out of bound with Christianity.
“(And if they don’t, then my mind does not have a paradigm for such a person…’extremely far right and narrow’ is the closest category I have, which would be a compliment to such a person).”
“Narrow”? Sounds familiar. Hmm. Where have I heard that before? “Narrow is the gate…”
Yes, I guess I can live with that.
“The argument that has been brewing concerns whether Peter Enns’s work is within the bounds of the Westminster Confession of Faith.”
The argument has been framed in those terms insofar as Enns is teaching at a Reformed seminary where the faculty are sworn to uphold the Westminster Confession.
This doesn’t mean that you and I are limited to that framework when we evaluate his orthodoxy.
“This is important to keep in mind and to clarify for all of those who are not part of the world of Reformed, confessional Christianity.”
So, for Art, all that matters is whether Enns is in technical conformity with the Westminster standards. How ironic considering Tremper Longman’s recent comment in support of Enns:
“I remember talking to one colleague, for instance, who told me that if I felt the Bible taught something that the Confession did not that I had to side with the Confession. That’s not the Reformed approach to the study of the Bible that I know and love. However it is a perspective that I think has only grown with time.”
http://saveourseminary.com/#comment-80
Good post.
ReplyDeleteCompletely off-topic, but in case you haven't already seen it:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/machine-video/
Traditionally, the inerrancy of Scripture has also been a core tenet of Evangelicalism.
ReplyDeleteAaaaaaaAAAAAAaaaaaAAAAAAA-men!
Many folks are given to navel-gazing inspection as to what, why, and how evangelicalism went wrong and how the term is just about vacuous and devoid of useful content. Well, I would submit as exhibit A that abandoning the inerrancy of Scripture, and its related doctrine, the Authority of Scripture, is the reason why evangelicalism as a technical descriptor is so meaningless these days.
You have mainline liberals who say they're evangelicals even though they despise the doctrine of inerrancy.
My solution: You don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, then you don't have any business identifying yourself as an evangelical (or as a Bible-believing Christian). Just call yourself a theo-lib.
That way we can recover the word "evangelical" so that it can mean what it meant before.
Knee-Jerk reactionary talk rarely accomplishes anything. This doesn't benefit anyone.
ReplyDeleteI remember in my Church History class during seminary when the issue of what an evangelical came up the place of inerrancy was primary. The use of Gospel as self-identification was tertiary at best, now these seem to have reverse in the mass of professors out there, but that was way back in the dark ages of the fall of 2000.
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying when Jesus said the path was narrow he meant if you don't sign on to reformation and post-reformation creeds you're off the path? I hope your inflammatory comments are more about getting attention than they are your actual beliefs. Your kind of thinking is what is wrong with presbyterians. It's just squabbling over doctrinal nuances in idolatrous prideful ways.
ReplyDeletedoxxa.wordpress.com said...
ReplyDelete“So you're saying when Jesus said the path was narrow he meant if you don't sign on to reformation and post-reformation creeds you're off the path?”
I see that an adult attention span is not your forte. Art was the one who originally suggested that to be “narrow” was to be off the path. I simply pointed out that his use of “narrow” as a pejorative adjective is at odds with dominical usage.
“I hope your inflammatory comments are more about getting attention than they are your actual beliefs. Your kind of thinking is what is wrong with presbyterians. It's just squabbling over doctrinal nuances in idolatrous prideful ways.”
Aside from the fact that I’m not a Presbyterian, your characterization of my position (“idolatrous,” “prideful”) is pretty “inflammatory.”
I hope that’s more about getting attention than about your actual beliefs. Otherwise, your kind of thinking is what is wrong with theological moderates and liberals.
BTW, do you think that the faculty members like Gaffin and Poythress who were opposed to Enns (or so I’ve read) are prideful idolaters?
Nice to see you exemplify the charitable discourse which you are so eager to urge on your opponents.
doxxa.wordpress.com said...
ReplyDelete“It's just squabbling over doctrinal nuances.”
Enns seemed to think far more was at stake than squabbling over doctrinal nuances. So do his many of his supporters.
Steve, you're absolutely right. I was speaking in anger earlier and I shouldn't have resorted to name calling type tactics. I apologize. When commenting in the future I'll try to model how I'd like others to disagree with me.
ReplyDeleteClarification - what's happening at the seminary is amongst presbyterians. It IS a pattern among reformed folk to divide over what is in my view and many others are small nuances. John Frame has a good article about this issue but I can't remember the title.
ReplyDeleteIt just seems sometimes like for some people faith is only about forming tighter and tighter doctrine rather than missional engagement. I do believe in dividing for doctrinal purity. Just not over what Enns book contains.
This also isn't why he's being terminated. He's being terminated because of disunity, not theology.
Meade and Doxxa are the same person.
ReplyDeletemeadebaker said:
ReplyDelete"He's being terminated because of disunity, not theology."
But the disunity is due to his theology, as expressed in his book.
And this may involve the technical grounds for his suspension. There are legal issues when a tenured prof. is terminated.
But that's not necessarly the underlying reason they may fire him. It goes back to his book.