Peter Enns’s suspension from Westminster Theological Seminary
Westminster Theological Seminary has apparently decided that Peter Enns‘ views on inspiration, as described in his book Inspiration and Incarnation disqualify him from have caused too much controversy to allow him to continue* teaching at that seminary. You can conveniently start with a recent Christianity Today blog post for the basic facts; to explore further, visit Brandon Withrow’s blog. I jumped at the chance to read and review Enns’s book when it first came out, and I found it refreshing and encouraging. As I wrote in my review (Restoration Quarterly 48.2 [2006]: 119–120), any criticisms I have would center on Enns being too evangelical, and thereby imposing on the Bible certain theological claims that I don’t think the Bible itself really supports. That said, I recommend the book, and commend Enns’s considerable success in combining evangelical sensibilities with critical honesty. Coming from the other side, the powers-that-be at Westminster now consider Enns to be insufficiently orthodox too controversial,* due to his understanding of inspiration—so they have suspended him from teaching there.
While I don’t begrudge Westminster the right to shape its faculty as it sees fit, Enns’s suspension saddens me. I feel bad for Enns himself, and wish him well in finding a new teaching position somewhere else, if that’s the course he chooses to pursue (I hope it will be). I must also confess that my opinion of Westminster has gone down more than one notch as a result of these events. Continuing in this personal vein, I will add that Enns’s experience makes me appreciate all the more the non-creedalism of my native Churches of Christ. Not that we don’t occasionally have our own questionable firings and heresy hunts, but at least in such matters the core questions center on biblical interpretation rather than fidelity to the Westminster Confession of Faith or some other creed. Unfortunately, that doesn’t help Peter Enns right now.
* Please see Art’s comment below and my response to it for an explanation of these edits.
16 comments Christopher Heard | religion, teaching and learning
[...] If you know of anything I should add to this list, feel free to leave a comment. Update 3-29-08: Westminster comments on suspension of Enns. Reviewer of I&I, Christopher Heard, comments on suspension at his blog Higgaion. [...]
[...] If you know of anything I should add to this list, feel free to leave a comment. Update 3-29-08: Westminster comments on suspension of Enns. Reviewer of I&I, Christopher Heard, comments on suspension at his blog Higgaion. [...]
I suggest that those who see the problems in the move by WTS, drop Enns a quick e-mail and let him know he has our support at what must be a difficult time of transition. I am sure he would appreciate it.
I’m planning to post eventually on this myself. Until then, I’ll say this: I’m ashamed of WTS. (I’m a grad, MAR 1997, who studied with Enns, Longman, Groves[†], and Green.) And I second Chris’ reaction; WTS has dropped several notches in my book.
One of the fallouts I foresee with this is even more reluctance to admit their masters students into NT/HB-ANE PhD programs with a more open (read: intellectually curious and honest) academic policy.
[...] a little too strict to begin with. In a monumental event, it seems that Jim West and Chris Heard actually agree with me (and consequently each other) on this, although Esteban Vázquez views the [...]
FWIW, Shawn, I did that before I posted here.
WTS East should be ashame of themselves. Here are my thoughts on the matter..
http://cdero.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/bible-monopoly/
[...] a veritable explosion of epic proportions in the blogosphere over the issue of Peter Enns’ suspension (I’m sorry, I ran out of adjectives or other ways to lengthen my already over long [...]
“Westminster Theological Seminary has apparently decided that Peter Enns‘ views on inspiration, as described in his book Inspiration and Incarnation disqualify him from teaching at that seminary.”
This is not factual in the least. The facts of the matter is that the boards decision was not concerning Peter Enns’s view on inspiration. The board’s decision concerns the disunity of the faculty. This is explicitly stated in a public statement released by Jack White, Chairman of the Board.
Your statements regarding the situation are patently false.
Art, Mr. White’s exact words as quoted by Christianity Today were: “Thank you very much for your prayers for the special meeting of the Board of Trustees that was held on March 26 to address the disunity of the faculty regarding the theological issues related to Dr. Peter Enns’ book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament.” But whence does this disunity arise, if not from charges that Enns’s book lays out an understanding of inspiration incompatible with the Westminster Confession of Faith? Still, I see your point: Technically, the WTS administration has not suspended Enns for being unorthodox, but for being controversial.
“But whence does this disunity arise, if not from charges that Enns’s book lays out an understanding of inspiration incompatible with the Westminster Confession of Faith? Still, I see your point: Technically, the WTS administration has not suspended Enns for being unorthodox, but for being controversial.”
I see your point as well. I apologize if my previous comment was too strongly worded. It’s been a long week!
[...] Christopher Heard at Higgaion writes: “I jumped at the chance to read and review Enns’s book when it first came out, and I found it refreshing and encouraging. As I wrote in my review (Restoration Quarterly 48.2 [2006]: 119–120), any criticisms I have would center on Enns being too evangelical, and thereby imposing on the Bible certain theological claims that I don’t think the Bible itself really supports.” [...]
Chris
Isn’t that the point? WTS IS a confessional Reformed seminary and all faculty members must take a pledge ‘ex
animo’ declaring their personal fidelity to the school’s confessional stance. You may not like it but Westminster was founded by men like Machen with a determination not to see what happened at Old Princeton happen again.
Chris, I think the faculty and board ‘split’ demanded that something had to happen. I have a couple of former students there now who echo Art’s confusion — no idea of what’s *really* going on, and yet everybody can sense the heavy elephant of conflict from the faculty right down the student body.
It’s sad but division happens, and bodies that draw their ‘confessional’ (or non-Confession Confessional!) circles much broader than the Westminster Confession have the same kinds of divisions. [Even Paul and Barnabas had to go their separate ways...and their problem (whatever it was) wasn't adherence to the Westminster Confession.]
As much as I feel personally bad for Pete, I think it was inevitable. What are the other options? He stays and teaches under the burden of 8 faculty members and 18 board members that want him gone? [I don't know that that's good for them or for him!] Do you remove the 8 that strongly disagree with him?
Pete’s a Kugel-trained Harvard grad, and I suspect once the squall blows over he’ll have a new teaching post somewhere…while WTS will still be arguing about what this means for its future.
With the times we are living in, I believe more of this will take place — saddly, I might add.
Rex
[...] A review at Higgaion by Christopher Heard (see also his review in Restoration Quarterly 48.2 [2006] 119-120). Heard also weighs in on the current situation on his blog, Higgaion. [...]