Yesterday morning the Board of Westminster Theological Seminary had an emergency board meeting to discuss the issues surrounding Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation.
It is with a heavy heart that I read the following announcement sent to the board, faculty, and students of Westminster:
March 27, 2008
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. After a full day of deliberation, the Board of Trustees took the following action by decisive vote:
“That for the good of the Seminary (Faculty Manual II.4.C.4) Professor Peter Enns be suspended at the close of this school year, that is May 23, 2008 (Constitution Article III, Section 15), and that the Institutional Personnel Committee (IPC) recommend the appropriate process for the Board to consider whether Professor Enns should be terminated from his employment at the Seminary. Further that the IPC present their recommendations to the Board at its meeting in May 2008.”
In order to provide the entire Westminster community with a more complete understanding of the Board’s decision and to offer an opportunity for questions and dialogue, the Chairman and Secretary of the Board will join the President on campus for a special chapel on Tuesday, April 1 at 10:30 am. Students and staff are encouraged to attend and participate. Following that special chapel, they will hold a separate meeting with the faculty.
Our concern is to honor the Lord Jesus Christ and assure a faithful witness for Westminster for years to come. To that end, please pray for everyone involved during the next two months.Jack White
Chairman of the Board
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.
Westminster will never, ever be the same.
27 March 2008 at 2.40 pm
wow… Inspiration and Incarnation has easily been one of the most influential books in my academic process. Enns provides conservative intellectual options and I’m also (although not nearly as much) saddened by WTS’s decision. I will continue to pray for WTS and Dr. Enns’.
Earl
27 March 2008 at 3.02 pm
not quite in tears yet… but this is awful awful news. I can’t even process it right now.
27 March 2008 at 3.38 pm
Truly regretable. I wish Pete the best for him and his family.
27 March 2008 at 3.47 pm
I bet you do, Darryl.
27 March 2008 at 3.49 pm
Chris: Take it easy. I am taking Darryl at his word. He and I have our run ins and our theological differences, but Darryl is a kind man who loves the church and does not deserve your rude comments.
27 March 2008 at 4.00 pm
Really? Go to this recent post, scroll down to the bottom and read for yourself his thoughts. You’ll see why I not impressed with his sympathy. Don’t mean to be unkind, just not really impressed at all with what appears as shaking a hand while knifing the back:
http://tinyurl.com/ywndoz
That is all I wanted to say.
Thanks,
Chris
27 March 2008 at 4.07 pm
Chris: I read that post and, as one can guess, had severe disagreements with it. I do not fool myself into thinking that Dr. Hart is supportive of Peter Enns.
But one does not have to be supportive of someone in order to wish them the best and to regret their situation, which is that I took Dr. Hart’s comment as. As Christian brothers and sisters we can have disagreements about theological issues, while still wishing the best for the other person. I think this is what Dr. Hart was doing.
I apologize if I came across a bit harsh towards you. As you can imagine, I am a bit on edge this afternoon.
27 March 2008 at 4.10 pm
Thanks for your updates over here; I will continue to keep WTS/P and the Enns family in prayer.
27 March 2008 at 4.24 pm
Well said Art, and that’s an even more important point now that the board has met. There is no reason to assume that those who agree with the board’s decision must therefore hold an attitude of disfavor or ill-will toward Dr. Enns. I would hope(and expect) that most people close to this situation would give each other more credit than that. Right or wrong, there is a rift due to this board-meeting, and healing is needed. It is my fear that many some will adopt an attitude now that “Westminster is beyond saving”. That would be a dangerous overstatement, and it would undermine the task that now faces the WTS community.
27 March 2008 at 5.46 pm
wow. I’m really sorry. Inspiration and Incarnation has been an extremely important book for me as I work out my own ideas on the Hebrew Bible. I’m honestly amazed that the Board of WTS would take this route. I had hoped we, in the evangelical community, were past this.
27 March 2008 at 7.21 pm
this is a huge disappointment. It is so sad to see academic scholarship squelched. If you cannot deal with these issues at Seminary, then where can you do it?
27 March 2008 at 7.47 pm
Who said this new WTS is part of the “evangelical community”, Calvin? The side that hates “New Life Presbyterian Pietists,” CCEF, and cultural renewal does not regard itself as part of the evangelical world, and that side seems to have won the day.
The Board’s actions are clearly an embrace of narrow, polemical confessionalism.
27 March 2008 at 8.08 pm
I am not ready to be gracious yet, but I know I need to… I am just pissed.. no other way to say it… simply pissed.
the idea of reconciliation is going to be key and extremely difficult. what I am trying to fathom is how this will work out that 12 (possibly 13) of the previously faculty led school will be perceived for supporting and finding I&I to be orthodox. since the board find Enns to be heterodox what does this say about 66% of the voting faculty? that seems to be a larger issue if they remove one “for the sake of the seminary”, what does this really say about the majority of the professors?
honestly… I tend to be a bit reactionary… I have already looked into other schools in the area… I am too late to apply to Princeton… Biblical is more costly and further commute… any other options? I don’t think so… but the only “vote” or influence that I, as a student, have is to vote with my tuition… but I am lacking suitable alternatives in the Philly area….
I am also facing the need to take classes from many of the 8… respecting their teaching is going to be difficult and is something I am going to need to wrestle with.
27 March 2008 at 8.21 pm
At this special chapel which will offer “a more complete understanding of the Board’s decision and to offer an opportunity for questions and dialogue” I imagine there will be out spoken individuals.
All of you young and ardent leaders of the future will need to be some of those outspoken. Consider and weigh what you will say and tell it like it is; like here in Arts blog. To do any less will be suppress critical factors which will serve to shape the future.
I hope to read something about this special chapel here. Something.
27 March 2008 at 9.36 pm
If his book questions the validity of scripture, then the decision was correct. He does not belong there.
27 March 2008 at 9.46 pm
Steve L: So you think that after yesterday’s decision Tim Keller would no longer be welcome at WTS?
27 March 2008 at 10.08 pm
Marianne: You are incorrect. He does not question the validity of Scripture. Perhaps you should actually read his work before you leave such comments. If you have read it, you completely and utterly misunderstood it. Peter Enns does not “question the validity of Scripture.”
If you feel you can demonstrate that he does, be our guest. But you can’t, because he doesn’t…so don’t even bother.
27 March 2008 at 10.19 pm
Since I started blogging, I’ve learned about the New Perspective on Paul and all that surrounds that issue. Can someone tell me what what about the book caused Westminster to dismiss Dr. Enns? And what similar thing would cause the seminary to distance itself from Keller?
27 March 2008 at 10.46 pm
Longing: I am simply a student at Westminster Theological Seminary. Apparently spending tuition money to keep the seminary alive also means that students are not made aware of the reasons why one of their professors can be unjustly forced out of his tenured position.
“Officially” the board and administration has not yet made known the reasons why Dr. Enns was suspended. There is a chapel service on Tuesday where there is supposed to be a full report. If it is consistent with what the student body has been presented with throughout this conflict, it will be a whole lot of nothing with a few sanctified comments thrown in (see the above quoted letter for a case in point).
The central issues surround Enns’ use of the incarnational analogy (which others, like B.B. Warfield, used) and the theological conclusions Enns draws.
Just between you and me and everyone reading, Enns is not heterodox nor is his book heterodox.
The best place to check it out would be Peter Enns’ website. On it he has a complete section of essays written defending the book. It’s well worth reading.
27 March 2008 at 11.04 pm
Thanks. Will review.
28 March 2008 at 3.59 am
I’m not sure about the propriety of this request, but would it be possible for someone to record that chapel for those of us who can’t be there?
28 March 2008 at 6.26 am
Hi, saw the teaser for your post on the main page and had to surf in to see what’s going on in my old hometown. I’m a seminarian from the far end of the state — Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry — so I’m coming from somewhat outside this debate but…. wow. I’m saddened to hear of this.
Treading as gently as possible… I checked out Mr. Hart’s blog and it seems the central issue is here:
“This is arguably the biggest dilemma facing the current faculty and administration at WTS – how to restore the original consensus at the seminary that balanced the fruits of biblical theology with Reformed polemics and strict Presbyterian ecclesiology. The defenders of Enns do not see the need for Reformed polemics and Presbyterian ecclesiology. [...]How to get the proponents of biblical theology to see the need for polemics and ecclesiology is the $64,000 question of the hour.
Speaking as a former Presbyterian, and someone who has been working in the Presby church as a musician for the past 15 years, this is the core reason why I continue to resist re-joining the Presby church. I have to question: are Calvin and Reformed Theology being placed above scripture? Are the scriptures being forced into a Reformed mold? Are people so sure Calvin’s interpretation of the faith is the only true one? Are we putting a mere human on a pedestal and treating him as Jesus’ right-hand guy? Are we guilty of the “I follow Paul – I follow Apollos” division-causing thinking that Paul warned so strongly against? Are not all Christians in Christ and called to follow Jesus only?
When I read this story I thought about our own faculty — all of whom are excellent, much loved by the student body, and some of whom are Reformed Calvinists — and I can’t imagine the pain it would cause if someone higher-up came along and said “these teachers aren’t Anglican, out they go”.
Sending up a prayer that God’s truth and love win out….. all the best……
28 March 2008 at 7.27 am
I’m, obviously, coming from outside the area. I’m a student at Gordon-Conwell up in Boston, and we of course have our own share of issues. I’ll just say again that as much as I’m disappointed about this decision, I’m more sorry for you all at Westminster. I, like some others who have posted, honestly have no idea what I&I contains that would make anyone think there is a problem with it as regards orthodoxy.
28 March 2008 at 8.01 am
Nice banner Art.
28 March 2008 at 9.00 am
Peg: First, I do not have a blog. The blog on which I posted belongs to the good Presbyterians of the RPCNA (www.deregnochristi.com).
Second, did you ever consider that some of us think and believe that Calvin and Reformed theology are (dare I say the most) biblical? That’s what Machen, Van Til, and others thought. At least you might concede that folks at the school those men founded would continue to argue such.
28 March 2008 at 10.27 am
Art, You are well within your rights as a student at WTS to think that “…Enns is not heterodox nor is his book heterodox.” It looks as if the Board who clearly have the right to suspend and fire teaching faculty think differently.
28 March 2008 at 1.05 pm
I, too, find the board’s decision to be heartbreaking and incredibly disappointing. I have enjoyed my time at WTS immensely, and OTI was one of the most theologically formative classes that I took there.
I grieve for the seminary, for the churches whose pastors are trained there, and for the students at WTS who will be deprived of Dr. Enns’ excellent classes.
CP: It is not only Art, myself, and many other students who have found Dr. Enns’ book to be fully orthodox, but also the majority of the faculty, who, dare I say, are probably more qualified than the board for judging such things.
28 March 2008 at 1.46 pm
Religion suppresses opinion again… yawn.
28 March 2008 at 3.20 pm
CP: “It looks as if the Board who clearly have the right to suspend and fire teaching faculty think differently.”
I would like to reiterate Nathan’s comment for you CP: the faculty voted on Pete’s orthodoxy. They voted he was orthodox.
He was voted as orthodox according to the faculty, which is comprised of top shelf Reformed scholars and theologians.
28 March 2008 at 3.36 pm
Art if you look at the composition of the Westminster Board, you will see OPC and PCA pastors and elders, godly men who have thought and prayed about these issues for a long time. I would encourage you to look at the composition of the Board which is posted on the WTS website before you accuse these men of being unable to properly judge these matters.
I know the faculty voted to give him a pass but the Board have the final say. You may find this unfair or unjust but it is the simple fact and this is not new. When Shepherd was dismissed the number of Faculty who supported him was even greater than those who support Enns.
28 March 2008 at 3.42 pm
CP: I never commented about the board of Westminster. I simply pointed out that the faculty, comprised of top shelf Reformed scholars and theologians, voted on the orthodoxy of Peter Enns.
I do not doubt that the members of the board are Godly, pious men. I have never said anything otherwise. I have also not accused them of anything. I would appreciate if you would extend me the same courtesy of not accusing me of saying something that I have not said.
28 March 2008 at 3.49 pm
Anonymous – this isn’t simply a matter of “religion” in general suppressing opinion and free thought.
Reformed Theology was birthed in a time of angst and stress against all Protestant movements. Due in large part to “stunted growth” where all new thinking has first to be processed by old (’is this ‘confessional’ enough’)the Reformed movement has always been its own worst enemy – shooting down as seditious all movements which seek to reincorporate historical breakthroughs, linguistic turning points, and social mores that span a generation before (or behind) Geneva, 1564.
28 March 2008 at 6.22 pm
The development of this story saddens me greatly. Our prayers are with you all at WTS. I fear the damage that this type of visible disunity does to the world at large. We are clearly not living up to Jesus’ prayer in John 17 (’that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.’). Not that it is any consolation but this development and your coverage of it on your blog has put Inspiration and Incarnation at the top of my reading list. I had not heard of Peter Enns prior to reading your blog. Blessings to you all at WTS.
29 March 2008 at 6.17 am
I was at a fundraiser banquet for a pro life charity in Lakeland, FL the other night. Over 1000 in attendance, over 300000 raised, Cal Thomas was the speaker, Steve Green the music…
Probably 200 different theological viewpoints in attendance…Charasmatics, Baptists, Black Churches, Catholics, Episcopals…they were all there, most of the Pastors too.
I thought, this is cool, that we can unite for the cause of Christ.
I get that a seminary board needs to keep their boundaries tight, really I do. The collateral damage I am reading here sadens me. I hope we get back to the main thing soon.
29 March 2008 at 8.05 am
As an outsider, after reading this post and comments, it appears that Westminster Theological Seminary is on its way to becoming a tiny little Reformed ghetto with no meaningful impact for Christ on the generations to come. This is so sad.
29 March 2008 at 10.15 am
I was a WTS PhD student with Pete Lilback (we carpooled to class) during the time when the Shepherd controversy was being discussed by the OPC and WTS. I listened to hours of the discussion and apart from which side I supported personally I appreciated the decorum of the process (as I observed it). It made a deep impression on me.
A school has the right to set their doctrinal standards and require professors to function within those standards. A professor has an obligation to present what he believes is biblical even at the expense of his position. WTS was born out of Machen’s reaction to the theological compromise and decline of Princeton. Machen was defrocked and dismissed from his denomination and faculty position. God raised up WTS and the OPC.
Machen, I believe, would not want the Board of WTS to compromise their convictions. He would not want Dr. Shepherd or Dr. Enns to adapt their convictions to retain their position.
As a WTS grad and a Calvinist I firmly believe that God will accomplish His purpose in this chapter at Westminster. All involved have my prayers. I especially pray for wisdom in response to the decision and in addressing the hurt and frustration in has resulted.
29 March 2008 at 12.13 pm
Dr.SteveJ: I listened to hours of the discussion and apart from which side I supported personally I appreciated the decorum of the process (as I observed it). It made a deep impression on me.
The same cannot be said of the current situation. Why Dr. Enns was suspended and what charges were formally charged against him have not been made known to the student body. The decorum of this process has been secretive and in the shadows. Nothing was made known to the students. How to deal with theological disagreements has not been modeled for us as a student body…unless the model is to conduct things in secret and then make an announcement of our conclusions.
I guess it is the same in that it has also left a deep impression on me as well. Only my impression is completely negative.
Machen, I believe, would not want the Board of WTS to compromise their convictions. He would not want Dr. Shepherd or Dr. Enns to adapt their convictions to retain their position.
I understand your statement and this is where the debate has been raging: is Dr. Enns book truly outside of the bounds of the confession? Like I have said before to CP: the faculty of Westminster, comprised of top shelf Reformed scholars and theologians, voted that Peter Enns was orthodox.
And this ties in with the decorum of this situation as opposed to the situation you experienced: us students do not have the option of listening to hours of discussion regarding this issue. WE HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN MADE AWARE OF WHAT THE ISSUES ARE.
The only thing we do know is that our faculty voted on Pete’s orthodoxy and they affirmed it. Fast forward three months, Dr. Enns is suspended by the board.
There will be a presentation made by the Chairman and Secretary of the Board as well as the President of the Seminary this Tuesday. Hopefully that will clear some things up.
But I’m afraid it is too little, too late.
29 March 2008 at 12.37 pm
Thanks for the response.
As I recall, the proceedings I attended were not Seminary proceedings but OPC proceedings conducted on campus.
Hopefully, there can be more clarity.
A few months back when I learned that Pete was now president of WTS, I thought to myself, “I am so glad I am not in that position.”
I pray regularly for my friend, it is a huge, complex task.
My prayers for you too, aboulet, and your fellow students.
Steve
29 March 2008 at 1.32 pm
DrSteveJ: I thank you for your prayers. The entire WTS will need them in order to deal with the fall out in the near future.
30 March 2008 at 12.47 pm
[...] my library « sad day in history [...]
1 April 2008 at 6.52 pm
[...] hoping that the smoke-filled rooms of WTS will soon blow some good rational for the termination of Peter Enns… and perhaps some good reasons for alienating of so many of us who learned to think about the [...]
2 April 2008 at 2.45 pm
Just listened to the mp3 of the meeting Tuesday:
http://www.digitalbrandon.com/?p=194
My prayers for all intensify. It is a most difficult situation.
In Him,
Steve
3 April 2008 at 8.32 pm
Darryl,
Just back from a business trip and catching up….
re: First, I do not have a blog. Sorry, newbie error. :-}
Second, did you ever consider that some of us think and believe that Calvin and Reformed theology are (dare I say the most) biblical?
I take it as a given that people believe in their own traditions. What troubles me is when Christian leaders appear to not be listening to those who present new or different ideas, and/or when Christians describe themselves as following men (”I follow Cranmer”, “I follow Luther”, “I follow Calvin”, etc.) We follow Jesus if we are Christians at all; everything else is secondary.
8 April 2008 at 7.10 am
[...] piece, sharing a series of reflections on the situation at his blogsite. Pray for Westminster and Sad day in history and Peter Enns, Westminster Seminary, and Graffiti and Christianity Today’s Follow [...]
8 April 2008 at 6.50 pm
Peg,
You still didn’t understand Mr. Hart. When he says he believed Calvin and Reformed are the most Biblical, the key emphasis is BIBLICAL and NOT Calvin nor Reformed.
I for one also agreed with Daryl Hart, that the Reformed Tradition is the most consistent Biblical expression of Christian Faith.
Peg, allow me to be blut, but your answers reflected a few disturbing presuppositions:
1) You think anyone that rejects “new ideas” are just blind followers of the past and don’t read the Bible for themselves. That is not so, believe it or not I do read the Bible and don’t “blindly follow” Calvin, Hodge, Warfield, and Van Til if you will. But after carefully reviewing what they said and compare that with their “competitors” and yes that includes competitors both “old” and “new” that I come to the conviction that they are right and the new ideas are lacking.
2) One needs to be careful of this mentality of “we need to move forward” kind of thinking regarding the Church and its Theology. Remember Reformation is not something new, but a return to the belief of the apostles and Church Fathers (but not blindly following the Church Fathers as ultimately the standard of measurement is the Bible.) Yes it’s Reformed and Always Reforming, but when you are Reforming you do not destory the past but you build on top of the past. Unlike softwares when there are newer versions we throw away the older versions, in Church our faith is just as much Historical as it is Contemporary Applicational.
9 April 2008 at 11.32 pm
Hi RS,
With all due respect I didn’t say any such things. What I said was: I expect Reformed folks to be Reformed and Catholic folks to be Catholic and Baptist folks to be Baptist, etc. etc. What troubles me is when the dividing lines between these schools of thought become more important than Christian unity and charity, and/or more important than open exchanges of ideas. Christians need each other — in the words of Paul, “the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’ and the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!’ “ We’re all part of the same body. I can understand taking pride in one’s own part — “let’s hear it for the hands!” — but saying one’s own body part is the only thing to be is unscriptural. That’s all.
10 April 2008 at 8.11 pm
Peg,
God seeks those who worship in Spirit and Truth (Jn 4) so it is important that Truth be not compromised for unity. Likewise in seeking Truth we should display the fruit of the Spirit.
My 2 cents.
DrSteveJ