The documents that were prepared by the Historical and Theological Field Committee against Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation as well as the response to their report by the Hermeneutics Field Committee (in favor of Enns) were handed out to interested students yesterday. Today, they have been released on Westminster’s website.
Along with these reports are also the Edgar-Kelly Motion, the Faculty Minority Report, and an essay by Dr. Peter Lillback.
These documents are extremely enlightening. I’ll be sure to weigh in on them in the near future.
24 April 2008 at 4.24 pm
Thanks for linking to all these things, Art. It’s been helpful in keeping abreast of everything going on.
24 April 2008 at 7.29 pm
Thanks for keeping us updated Art.
24 April 2008 at 9.06 pm
When I first heard about this controversy, I was blissfully unaware of the extent to which matters had deteriorated. I signed SOS a couple of months ago, but I didn’t have any idea at the time just how bad things were.
Then I heard about Enns’s suspension, which really surprised me, and I started tapping into the blogosphere (this blog, especially) to see what I was missing. I could not believe how personal things had become.
Well, today marks another step in my journey of horrific discoveries. I get to see the dreaded documents, and now I am more fully aware than ever just how BITTER the relations are among the faculty. Those documents reveal an absolutely shocking level of distrust. I could not believe how the HTFC and Lillback essays, in particular, show a total lack of desire to read Enns in a positive light. The more I read, the more I felt a knot the size of the Philly cheesesteak hoagie in my gut.
Then, finally, I came across that “Germanic courage” business at the end of Lillback’s essay (complete with a reference to Ein Feste Burg) and I was sent completely over the top.
Now I need to pray. I need to pray that I myself am not embittered by this whole sorry affair. And I need to pray for dear Pete Enns, who has obviously endured much more than I could have ever imagined.
24 April 2008 at 9.58 pm
Manlius: I agree. The 90th footnote in Lillback’s essay is the most frightening to me regarding the current situation. To say that Enns is any where close to Open Theism is absolutely ludacris and completely and utterly awful scholarship.
24 April 2008 at 10.24 pm
Just to be clear here, is it okay to read the HTFC with diistrust? If so, why is the HTFC more worthy of distrust than I&I?
24 April 2008 at 10.36 pm
No, Darryl, it’s not okay to read it with distrust. And I did my best to read it with an honest and open mind. I even share some of the concerns expressed about the doctrine of the incarnation (although my agreements on incarnational theology lead me to different conclusions on the doctrine of scripture).
Don’t get me wrong. I believe you can read Enns and still end up with sharp criticisms. But what I have just read this evening, particularly Lillback’s essay, seems to me an attempt to take every opportunity to paint what Enns says in a negative way. Correction: not just a negative way, but the worst possible way. And that’s unfair.
24 April 2008 at 10.41 pm
Oops – in my haste I posted under my church blog name, wardhillchurch, because I was logged into my wordpress account.
25 April 2008 at 9.34 am
[...] of the Westminster documents are available in PDF here (Thanks: Conn-versation; Between Two Worlds; Art Boulet, where comments are [...]
25 April 2008 at 1.59 pm
Dr. Hart: Manlius did not say anything about reading the documents with distrust. Rather, he said that the “documents reveal an absolutely shocking level of distrust.”
He did not bring up distrust in the context of how they should be read, but, rather, what they convey.
25 April 2008 at 5.31 pm
Also, Dr. Hart, there is currently a 70 page document (the HFC Reply) that convincingly shows that the HTFC document engaged in uncharitable and untrusting readings of I&I. To put that another way, in many ways the HTFC document has been shown to be worthy of mistrust in certain ways.
If you would like to disagree with such an assessment you can feel free to respond to the specific points of the HFC document.
26 April 2008 at 10.46 am
Art et al, my point was only what it would look like to read the HT report charitably. It might actually lead to asking hard questions of Enns and his colleagues. Why does that seem inconceivable among Enns’ supporters?
26 April 2008 at 12.44 pm
Dr. Hart: There were some ‘hard questions’ raised by the HTFC document, which is not inconceivable to me (and I’m sure Stephen would agree as well). If you read the HFC document (charitably) , you will see that there are places in I&I that should have been clearer and some places that should have been nuanced. Enns himself admits this. You will also see just how poorly of a job the HTFC did in their critique; from not understanding the intended audience to comparing Enns with Barth via a flat out misquotation.
I wonder if the board had the opportunity to read the HTFC’s critique and the HFC’s response? And if not, why not?
26 April 2008 at 1.34 pm
Dr. Hart,
Have you yet read the HTFC document and the HFC reply? If so, what did you think of them?
27 April 2008 at 9.40 pm
I did read the documents and would likely have written the criticisms differently, though I was generally impressed by Lillback’s piece. (I know that will meet howls on this blog. But remember, I’m no fan of PL’s historiography of America’s founding. So I am not simply a Lillback echo chamber.) Lillback saw the difficulties of Enns’ view for theologizing that I have pointed out here — the important paragraph on p. 169. Whatever the problems I&I raises for the doctrine of Scripture, Enns’ extension of Conn’s views on contextualization would appear to relativize all theology — the Westminster Standards and the Council of Chalcedon . . . even the defense rendered by Bib. Studies.
One thing that stands out is the Bib. Studies interaction with Warfield on concursus and Kuyper and Bavinck on the doctrine of Scripture. I wonder why that wasn’t in I&I. And this is especially germane to the matter of the intended audience — a point that I feel is a red herring. If Enns were writing for evangelicals who have a deficient appreciation for the humanity of Scripture, why not assume the role of instructing evangelicals in the Reformed doctrine of Scripture, which is what former WTS faculty have done. Instead, I read I&I as if Enns were himself an evangelical who needed to be reassured and didn’t turn to the very tradition that the Bib. Studies faculty turn to here in their response.
I also continue to be baffled by the Christotelic approach which seems to find Christ everywhere in the OT but assumes that the messiness of the Hebrew Scriptures will not upset the clarity of the New Testament in revealing Jesus. If both the NT and the OT are messy, is there really a Christ that we find there?
28 April 2008 at 12.50 am
Dr. Hart: I am currently preparing a post that is centered on Lillback’s essay. I echo Joel Garver’s assessment of Lillback’s work: “Frankly, I think the essay is an embarrassment…in my opinion, Lillback’s essay is a disservice to the integrity and reputation of WTS.”
I can’t put it much better than that.
I’m pretty sure that Warfield’s concursus along with Kuyper and Bavinck weren’t mentioned in I&I because it was written to lay-level evangelicals, not to TRs. That was one of the HUGE things brought up in the HFC report. And that point is not a red herring in the least. The book was not about introducing a Reformed doctrine of Scripture. Maybe that is what you would have wanted, but it’s not fair to critique a book along the lines of what you wish it would have done or what you wish its aim would have been.
Enns needs to be reassured? Then go ahead Darryl: call him up and reassure him.
These rhetorically affective, yet unsubstantiated claims about Enns need to stop. The HTFC’s report and Lillback’s horrid excuse for an essay are prime examples.
What would be nice would be if you could write a book to show how both the OT and NT aren’t messy. That would clarify a lot of things for every serious Biblical scholar in the world who is obviously seeing these “messy” parts of the OT and NT, but are really being fooled.
If its not messy, then please explain all of the messiness in such a way that shows us that its not really messy.
Suggested places to start:
—the theological diversity inherent in Proverbs and how that theology contrasts (or falls in line) with the theology presented in Job (and then after you clear this up, you can focus on Ecclesiastes)
—the theological diversity in 1 Sam-2 Kings contrasted (or harmonized) with 1-2 Chronicles (I’m especially interested in what the exact words of Nathan were to David after the Bathsheba incident)
—the MT text vs. the LXX text of Jeremiah
—Matthew’s genealogy vs. Luke’s genealogy
—the suicide of Judas
and on and on and on and on and on.
I’d buy 200 copies of this book if you ever wrote it.
28 April 2008 at 4.06 am
[...] Garver’s full post. Art Boulet’s blog also has a few comments [...]
28 April 2008 at 10.07 am
Art, are you meaning to say that evangelicals are so dumb they couldn’t understand the Reformed doctrine of Scripture? I still don’t understand why an evangelical audience couldn’t be taught Reformed theology. Does this also mean that the audience always sets the trajectory for our writing? Isn’t it possible to write for a broader audience and work in a little Reformed leaven? Believe it or not, Art, it is.
As to the messiness of the Bible, then why does it so reliably yield the god-man Jesus Christ? Why isn’t your affirmation of the Bible’s attestation of Christ simply a leap of faith over the hard questions that come from looking at the humanity of Scripture all the way down? The implication, obviously, is that Enns’ supporters fault Enns’ critics for failing to look at the hard questions. But why do the hard questions stop at the incarnation? Is it possible to put the genie back in the bottle once you’ve started asking the hard questions?
Remember, Art, on the Lillback report, be charitable, and be humble.
28 April 2008 at 11.46 am
Darryl: I never said anything about evangelicals being too dumb for anything. They could be taught Reformed theology and someone could write a book to Evangelicals and “work in a little Reformed leaven.” But Enns chose not to do this for the purposes of his book. Once again, you cannot critique Enns for writing for a broadly evangelical audience. He had goals when writing and, I think, hit those goals well. You obviously wish he had different goals. We could sit around and wish all day, but, at some point Darryl, you have to actually deal with what we have, not what you wish we had, in Pete’s book.
So, the OT and NT aren’t messy then?
You say that the Enns’ supporters fault the Enns’ critics for failing to look at the hard questions, and yet you fail to even approach an answer to any of the messy things I brought up in my last comment.
In other words, you just proved our point.
28 April 2008 at 4.41 pm
Dr. Hart,
This is one thing that really seems problematic. With all the rhetoric concerning the Enn’s situation, I dont hear any scholarly refutations coming out against the book which engage the subject material. Rather there seem to a score of responses which establish a slippery slope and procede to push Enn’s, (and by extension McCartney, Kelly, Green, Smith, and the rest of the BT department sans Poythress) down this slope, showing how they begin with an incarnational analogy and end in faithless liberalism.
This seems to be precisely what your last post does. (As well as Helm’s, Beale’s, Lillback’s and a score of other negative reviews)
Not all slippery slopes are invalid, but this one decisively is; especially in light of Enn’s repeated affirmations that the messiness of scripture is “precisely how God intended it,” and “in every place it is the word of God” (E.G. God has inspired every word) If someone accepts his analogy “in toto” (scripture is fully human and yet fully divine) the slippery slope does not exist. Rather it is only a danger for those who focus only on the human side and ignore the divine side of his argument (ironically this seems to be precisely what negative reviewers are doing…focusing on the human side, and ignoring his affirmations of the divine nature of the text.)
You may not address half an argument and argue that there is a danger of a slippery slope, but you must (to obey the philosophical mandate of charity) address the whole argument.
By analogy, these slippery slope arguments against Enns are akin to a person who states that they believe in one God in three persons.
IMAGINARY DEBATE
Mr. Orthodox says – “I believe in One God who exists in three persons.
Heretic Detractor says – “If we allow for three persons, then why not three gods and if three gods then thats polytheism! Where does the slippery slope end Mr. Orthodox, how can we put this genie back into the bottle?”
This would be an unfair reading (and a logical fallacy of a slippery slope) because it only addresses half the argument. If indeed a person only affirmed three persons who are “god,” without holding that they are One God, they may be on a slippery slope to polytheism. Yet this is not what Mr. Orthodox has stated and the Heretic Detractor is either too zealous or too uncharitable to see this. His argument is fallacious, as are the arguments against Enn’s on the basis of a slippery slope into liberalism.
Pax Christi…Nick
28 April 2008 at 9.33 pm
Art, boo!
If evangelicals are smart enough why not introduce them to the Reformed doctrine of Scripture? Your answer, that’s not the book Pete wrote. Well, duh. I can see that. But if the problem is the humanity of the Bible and evangelicals not being able to reconcile the humanity and divinity, then why not trot out bits of a tradition that has done this remarkably well — that is, affirm the humanity and the divinity of the Bible. Come to think of it, this is exactly what HFC did in its response to HTFC. When Pete looked to be in danger of missing the proper balance of the humanity and the divinity, they reclaimed Warfield, Bavinck, and Kuyper. If you channel Enns as well as you appear to, maybe you could answer that one — why he didn’t use the Reformed doctrine of Scripture in his book. It really does seem to apply — even Pete’s colleagues in HFC think so.
Also on the messiness, Art, in case you missed it I doubled down on you. That is you can’t pull Jesus out of the hat if the entire Bible is messy and Jesus is simply a nice truth that early Christians believed in but may or may not have been God and man. I’ve tried to ask you why Jesus resolves the messiness of Scripture when Jesus is part of the messiness. Why not ask the hard questions of the basis for a Christotelic reading? At least you could point me to the place in the Bible where messiness need not ooze. But if the Bible really is messy, then how can you be sure it reveals Jesus?
Nick, I’m not sure how to respond to your comment. I’ve been trying to respond to the substance here and at other blogs, and in the NTJ. You may think that all this is only pointing at implications and that Enns doesn’t actually say these things. But believe it or not, that is what academics do all the time — they ask hard questions of books and authors because of the implications of a book or an argument.
28 April 2008 at 10.11 pm
Dr. Hart
You might respond by actually telling me how taking half of enns argument and responding to it is being charitable. He affirms the deity and humanity of every jot and tittle, but your “slippery slope” only goes after the idea of the humanity of the text. Its not that you look at an implication, but that you only look at half the implications, and ignore the half which destroy your fallacious argument.
Pax Christi…nick
28 April 2008 at 10.22 pm
Dr. Hart:
This is where your misreading of Pete’s book shines. To quote Pete: “The problems many of us feel regarding the Bible may have less to do with the Bible itself and more to do with our own preconceptions” (15).
Pete’s book shows how if our preconception is the the human side of Scripture is a problem, then our preconception is wrong. It’s not a problem. It’s the way God chose to give us his word.
This goes back to the book’s purpose. The book’s purpose is not simply to develop a doctrine of Scripture in the abstract, but to bring the human side of Scripture, the “messiness,” into conversation with our doctrine of Scripture. Pete nailed it on this goal.
In retrospect, Pete had made clear that he should have made some clarifying statements at some points. Perhaps he would have included some Bavinck or Kuyper if he had to do it all over again. But just because he didn’t does not mean that he is not in agreement with their doctrine of Scripture. Pete’s inaugural lecture shows how he is in full agreement with Old Princeton and WTS.
I thought we had been through this before, but apparently it didn’t stick. The messiness of both the OT and NT (which is something that you cannot possibly deny, and if you do you need to prove it because all of the evidence flies in your face) do not negate the fact that Scripture clearly presents Jesus to us.
For instance, the theological diversity of 1 Sam – 2 Kings and 1-2 Chron has nothing to do with the clear declaration by the NT authors that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, died for the sins of his people, rose for our justification, and ascended into heaven from which he will return to judge the risen and the dead.
The ANE parallels for Genesis, Deuteronomy, Proverbs, Psalms, etc. have nothing to do with the clear declaration of the Gospel and the living Christ.
The suicide of Judas has nothing to do with the fact that Jesus is Lord.
The contradictory genealogies of Matthew and Luke have little or nothing to do with the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.
In other words, there are “messy” parts of the OT and NT, which Pete points out and which you cannot deny. But there is also clarity, such as in the birth, life, death, resurrection, assumption, and future coming of Christ, through which you can find unity of the whole.
There was something said on an ancient road to Emmaus that was similar.
29 April 2008 at 8.20 am
Art,
Just to be sure, I think you should change your following statement. You wrote “But there is also clarity, such as in the birth, life, death, resurrection, assumption, and future coming of Christ, through which you can find unity of the whole.” Instead of “clarity”, I think you should used the typical (read “approved/sacred”) word “perspicuity”. Afterall, the only way it appears one can be Reformed is to use the appropriate Reformed terminology.
29 April 2008 at 8.22 am
That smiley face emoticon should not be there, but it does fit the context well… I am not sure what to say at this point, is it divine providence, or human/computer error?
29 April 2008 at 9.54 am
To those more in the know, why don’t we have documents that deal with issues other other I&I? If the HTFC document is right, then Enns is guilty of writing a bad book. But that is certainly not enough for the suspension, is it? Are there any lectures, other writings, you know, hermeneutical skeletons in the closet? What is REALLY going on here?
Point 5 of the Edgar-Kelly motion is very reasonable when it states: “Aware that Professor Enns has already articulated a number of annotations, clarifying some of the more controversial statements in his book, we also hope he might consider publishing these and similar clarifications in more accessible venues to broader readership. This will significantly help the readership, both within and outside of WTS, better to understand his beliefs and methodology, as well those shared by other faculty members at WTS.”
In a way Enns already did this when he signed onto the HFC document, which does a fine job clarifying many points. Why isn’t this acceptable? Why must the pound of flesh be taken?
Here is where Garver is obviously right. On the surface, everything about these documents is I&I, I&I, and more I&I. But barely beneath that surface, it is obvious that I&I is simply a cover for more fundamental and profound divisions among the faculty and constituency.
And that being the case, I hardly see how the hyper-critique of I&I and the suspension of Enns do anything to bring healing to the divisions or foster a new era of unity.
Unless, of course, there is a more deliberate plan taking place … have a few retirements, dump Logan, have a few more retirements, make things significantly uncomfortable for people like Taylor, suspend Enns, which makes a few more like him uncomfortable, maybe one more final purge and then … welcome to the new Westminster. If you think that sounds too conspiratorial, go back and read the Lillback essay. And don’t forget the footnotes! Believe me, you can’t miss ‘em.
29 April 2008 at 10.14 am
Oh, and that business about grafitti on the wall? I hear it was actually a Lillback footnote that got away.
29 April 2008 at 2.52 pm
Nick, you might be correct about a lopsided interpretation of I&I if Enns had added three other chapters on the divinity of Scripture. But his point was precisely about the humanity of the Bible. So it is more than reasonable to ask what this emphasis in I&I means for the divinity of Scripture. If you can find passages in I&I that I’m missing where Enns works out alternatives to the questions Protestants have given regarding the infallibility of Scripture, please do so. I admit that some of them are there. But the point of the criticism is that Enns’ affirmations of the Bible’s divinity look weak, susceptible to abuse, and remarkably different from the usual answers.
Art, Enns is not simply talking about harmonizing different chronologies in the OT, or about using the right manuscripts. If that were all he was doing then he’d be an answer to Harold Lindsell, only thirty years late. No, Pete makes some fairly provocative claims about myth, for instance, that suggest the historical reality of the OT is less important than what the OT says about the uniqueness of God. One could reasonably ask, so what? So the God of the OT is unique? Does that make the OT worthy of belief? Isn’t some sort of historical accuracy important to the binding address of Scripture? You’ll also see that in the section on the OT and ANE lit. Enns raises questions about whether OT teaching is binding on 21st centruy Christians because its culture is so different from the modern West. I know you don’t want to hear this Art, these were the same sorts of questions that led Schweitzer and others to raise questions about the mythological character of the NT and whether its teaching was binding on 20th century Christians. Do you, Art, think that Jesus needs to be historical? Or is his story a way of saying how unique Jesus’ God was? Again, I do wonder if the title page of the NT is a sufficient barrier against the cultural conditioning that Enns affirms for the OT.
I can’t help but think that part of what draws Enns’ supporters to the book is the bigness and boldness of the claims — the way it rocks the boat. But then when critics point out how much the boat is rocking and that it may be taking on water, the defenders claim I&I is simply a rubber ducky in the tub. Which is it? Is I&I provocative or is it squarely in the mainstream and so vanilla?
29 April 2008 at 3.53 pm
Darryl,
Enns rocks many evangelical boats in a way that WTS in its noble tradition always has. Of course, it shouldn’t
rock the mighty WTS ship very much. It has, most obviously, but there is no good reason for it.
For me, as just one among many proud alumni, Enns’s work is yet another example of how the Reformed tradition as expressed by Westminster Seminary can be a bulwark for the faith while not shying in the least bit from any difficult questions.
29 April 2008 at 4.12 pm
Dr. Hart:
I’m sure Art will be forthcoming with a response to your post, but I cannot help weighing in on some of the questions you are addressing to him.
Your question “Isn’t some sort of historical accuracy important to the binding address of Scripture?” cannot be answered a priori, but must be answered after we examine Scripture with respect to the genres of the various parts. Nothing a priori requires God to reveal himself in a historical genre as opposed to, for example, the genre of parable. In submitting to the divine authority of Scripture, we must look at Scripture and at its genres to determine what kind of truth we are submitting to. The truth of a historical record, for example, differs from the truth of a parable with reference to historical referent. As we all know, Scripture in fact employs both genres; submitting to the divine authority of Scripture means submitting to the human genre in which it comes. Historical accuracy is important to affirm of the parts of Scripture that are in the historical genre, and even then the concept of “accuracy” must be defined by the ancient genre itself and not by modern standards of historiography.
The discussion of myth in Genesis arises from genre indicators that Dr. Enns and (many) others have found in the text. Perhaps he has misread those indicators. If that is the case, I would like to hear a convincing explanation of the raqi’a, for example, that doesn’t see it as an accommodation to ANE cosmology.
The problem with those who have seen myth in the NT is also a matter of genre identification. As I believe Art has already pointed out in other posts, it is a genre mistake to see legend/myth in the Gospels. Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, is a masterpiece of careful genre identification; the Gospels, including John, bear the marks of a genre based on eyewitness testimony to historical events. The notion that the gospels contain the genres of myth and legend has been thoroughly discredited.
If something in Scripture presents itself in a historical genre, we want to submit to its divine authority in terms of that genre. If something in Scripture presents itself as a parable, we want to submit to it as to a parable. If something in Scripture presents itself in mythological genre, likewise. Is this provocative?
29 April 2008 at 6.53 pm
Nick, you might be correct about a lopsided interpretation of I&I if Enns had added three other chapters on the divinity of Scripture.
But that wasnt the focus of his book. Thats precisely the point. You shouldnt have to say everything in three chapters for it to be established. Enn’s also doesnt have three chapters on the Virgin Birth, and the Trinity, and the Deity of Jesus and the Resurrection (although he briefly mentions them.) Does that mean that he denies them because he doesnt devote three chapters to each? Also, why suspend him? Im sure he would be happy to write a whole book on the divine inspiration of scripture (he has said as much).
But his point was precisely about the humanity of the Bible. So it is more than reasonable to ask what this emphasis in I&I means for the divinity of Scripture.
But he affirms it in multiple places.
If you can find passages in I&I that I’m missing where Enns works out alternatives to the questions Protestants have given regarding the infallibility of Scripture, please do so. I admit that some of them are there.
Then if you admit they are there, I dont need to find them for you. Are you implying Enn’s lied when he made the statements affirming the divine inspiration of scripture?
But the point of the criticism is that Enns’ affirmations of the Bible’s divinity look weak, susceptible to abuse, and remarkably different from the usual answers.
As this whole fiasco shows, in my humble opinion, these charges of liberalism, barthianism etc, are within the minds of the detractors not on the pages of I&I. This is a theological version of Don Quiotxe fighting windmills. Enns affirms the divine inspiration of the scriptures, unless one is formally taking him up on charges for lying and offending concious, then there is no logical argument against his book. It is sheer irrational emotionalism to claim that his book implies things he explictly denies.
Oh and by the same criteria, I neglected to find three chapters in your book “Seeking a Better Country” where you affirm that the american presbyterian church bodies ought to reject Federal Vision. Does that mean you affirm Federal Vision? (don’t answer, thats obviously a cheap rhetorical trick)
Pax Christi…Nick
Pax Christi…Nick
29 April 2008 at 8.23 pm
I’m with Dr. Daryl. Dr. Pete makes our boats rock too much.
Tobe safe I’ve decided to take the boat out of the water & put in my cow pasture.
Built me a good fence around it though. Then a tent over the boat.
Ain’t noboddy goin’ rock it & ain’t no water comin’ inside.
30 April 2008 at 7.08 am
Mr. Motes, maybe you could rock the boat with The Who. That way you wouldn’t get fooled again.
30 April 2008 at 8.54 am
Hey Doc, I’m with you. Why here in the EOPCASGaS(That’s the ExtraOrthodox PresbyGodterian Church in America South Georgia Synod. I’m in the Polk County Branch) we don’t allow No exceptions. You take an exception you lose a finger. Why one preacher thought we were kidding & he’s walking around w/a nub.
We don’t go for none that RocknRoll worship. We sing our songs and hymns just like Jesus and Moses and Calvin did.
Why that Doc Enns better no come snooping around the Polk County Synod.
30 April 2008 at 3.15 pm
Mr. Mastnjak, isn’t it a bit of genre confusion to take the Bible as the word of man? Isn’t it also the Word of God? So isn’t a question of balance, with Enns’ critics thinking that I&I did not give enough credit to the divine side of Scripture? (I know, I know, that’s not the book he was supposed to write. But the lesson of the debates over the incarnation would suggest that if you’re going to talk about Christ as human you also need to affirm his divinity. A further lesson is that if you appeal to the analogy of the incarnation, you talk in some sort of meaningful measure about the humanity and the divinity of Scripture.)
Actually, I’m not sure you’re right that God need not reveal himself in a historical fashion. The very idea of Why God became Man suggests that God would have to enter history to redeem his people. Some sort of accuracy about that history would appear to be pretty important. Otherwise, why not believe the Book of Mormon?
Nick, silence may imply consent as the HFC argues. And yes, Enns affirms that the Bible is the word of God. But he does so in a way that seems much more pietistic than theological. He stresses how much the OT is like other ancient literatures that the Bible is no longer unique because of its contents. What makes the Bible unique is the God who superintended its messiness to reveal Christ. So behind the mess, Enns appeals to the notion of Scripture or canon, and also to the idea of the second person of the Trinity. These two doctrines keep the train from going off the rails. The OT and its contents may not be accurate –and anyway, the notion of accuracy is so way Enlightenment — but God is in control revealing Christ. Sorry, but that seems like a leap of faith that jumps over the hard questions.
One of those hard questions is why these books? What makes them canonical? If they are like so many other books from the ANE, why are these special other than the historical/religious conventions of the Jewish people?
The same question runs to the Second person of the Trinity. The NT accounts aren’t on the surface any more rational than the Book of Mormon, just a whole lot older and possessing a lot more associations with the venerable traditions of Christendom and the West. If you really approach the Bible critically, as most of the academy does, you don’t get an account of the Son of God apart from faith.
So why can Enns rely on systematic theology as his get out of jail free card? The doctrine of Scripture that implies a canon and the doctrine of the incarnation which implies a seond person of the Trinty are there to bail us out from the messiness. Is it not ironic that theology, a provisional and situated and culturally conditioned discipline is finally necessary to keep biblical scholars on the orthodox path?
BTW, on the question of cultural conditioning and being situated, in the context of WTS and its polemics against liberalism and Barthianism, if you make arguments that sound a wee bit liberal or Barthian it is expected that you say yes, this may sound a bit off but that’s not how I mean it.
30 April 2008 at 3.49 pm
Dr. Hart, in reference to the final paragraph of your most recent comment: I was incredibly embarrassed, as a WTS alum, to find that some of my profs (Enns’ opponents on the HTFC) had inserted Barthian catchphrases into quotations from I&I, basically making it sound more like Barth than it might have really sounded. A WTS student would face very serious consequences if caught doing this on a paper.
The HTFC went on to base a significant chunk of their argument on this misquotation, yet when the HFC caught them doing this and nailed them on it, they didn’t retract their statement, or re-edit their paper to soften their accusation of Barthianism (or, if they couldn’t re-edit it for reasons of historical record, at least insert brackets that said: “this part was off-base and should be ignored”). The academic misstep here is an egregious one, and makes me sad for the state of Reformed scholarship.
30 April 2008 at 3.58 pm
To clarify that comment: I’m not accusing Dr. Hart of the misquotation, since he wasn’t part of any of these committees, but I am responding to part of his comment, by wondering if some of Enns’ opponents are SO ready to see neo-orthodox tendencies in Enns that they actually misread the evidence.
30 April 2008 at 8.38 pm
Dr. Hart
Ill try to post again by the weekend, have much to say in reponse, but first I must finish an exegetical paper for NT 123
Pax Christi…Nick
30 April 2008 at 9.27 pm
Hazel… are you for real?
30 April 2008 at 11.32 pm
Sure am real. Hazel Motes TE of the Extra Orthodox Presbyterian Church in America South Georgia Synod. We’ll be having our General Assembly up in Deepstep, GA at the Heart of Deepstep Inn & BBQ Hut. (we were hoping to ask Doc Daryl Hart to speak to us but since I just read his post & didn’t understand a word he said I’m gettin’ a little suspicious of him.)
The hot topic is the recent split from the Extra-Ordinary Orthodox Presbyterian Church of America LA Synod. (thats Lower Alabama). We left them for their apostate ways. They had a little too much boogie woogie in their Psalter.
1 May 2008 at 8.41 am
So I sit down this morning to read the Spring 2008 “Westminster Today” magazine/advertisement, and I see that Pres. Lillback puts a footnote on his welcome page! And the footnote includes a pun about “feet”!! AM I DREAMING?
Peter “Kevin Bacon” Lillback is “footnotelosse, footnoteloose, kick off those presidential shoes…yeah, yeah…” And be careful out there folks: some of his footnotes are tame, but others attack.
Do you think Pres. Lillback’s real problem with I&I is that it doesn’t have enough footnotes. If Pete Enns had just used a few more, perhaps this whole controversy could have been avoided.
Of course, maybe Lillback has simply got an aversion to Enns-notes.
1 May 2008 at 11.24 am
Dr. Hart:
As the word of God Scripture comes through the words of men. Just as we have to learn human, not “divine,” language to understand Scripture, so we also have to understand it in terms of human, not “divine,” literary genres. You might even say the written word of God is incarnated in human literary genres.
The historicity of some of the genres used in the Bible is a fact that comes after, not before, we look at the actual pieces of writing. In addition, the nature of the historiography of a piece of historical writing cannot be determined a priori, but only after it has been allowed to speak for itself as a piece of ancient human writing that is divinely inspired but not for that fact less a comprehensible production of the historical and cultural context.
2 May 2008 at 6.26 am
It appears that there may be a split at WTS. This issue with the over reliance on the Westminster Confession over Holy Writ has been simmering for the past 30 or so years.
Scripture must interpret scripture-not Scripture must be interpreted through the fallible lenses of the Westminster Confession.
I wonder what they are going to name the next break-off seminary? Perhaps they should call it Westminster Confession Seminary.
2 May 2008 at 7.10 am
Wow! I am speechless and somewhat baffled. After reading the WTS documents (especially Lillback’s very poor article), I must say that these scholars have nothing better to do than snipe at each other.
If heterodoxy is not an issue, why is there an issue here?
The standard is SCRIPTURE–not infallible humans that created the Westminster Confession, not fallible humans such as Kuyper, Van Til, Old Princeton, Old Amsterdam and whatever scholar Lillback unearthed to do a hatchet job on Enns.
It is the Sripture and only the Scripture. Perhaps they should stop teaching Greek and Hebrew at WTS and just concentrate on Old English in order to plumb the shallow and muddy waters of Westminster divines. Who needs to learn the scriptures, theology, or whatever when you’ve the INSPIRED Westminster Confessions, which seem to have more power and knowledge than Scriptures.
Perhaps the new Seminary should be called Ultra-Orthodox Westminster Confession Seminary?
2 May 2008 at 8.42 am
Mr. Mastnjak: you write, “The historicity of some of the genres used in the Bible is a fact that comes after, not before, we look at the actual pieces of writing.” Does this mean that everytime you sit down with ancient writings you have to decide whether they are part of the word of God or not? Chances are you sit down with the sixty-six canonical books and don’t hold a little synod with yourself — though maybe Mr. Motes’ church would be willing to welcome your synod — to decide whether they are canon. In other words, before you read, you rely on conventions in the history of the church as well as determiniations by synods and councils about what has been regarded as the canon. That means, that an assumption about the divinity of the Bible is well at work before you read it. You don’t use Macabees as authoritative, but you do Chronicles. The point then is that it may be a kind of genre confusion to overemphasize the humanity of Scripture and treat it simply the way students of ANE do. At some point, if you’re relying on the conventions of canonicity, you’re treating it the way theologians do (or anyway did).
Justin: I wonder how your concerns about the unfairness of charging Enns with Barthianism fit with the reality that Enns is friendly with John Franke, and as I understand, had a hand in Franke’s provocative article for the WTJ. Franke is known to have good things to say about Barth. Maybe Enns has counseled Franke about the dangers of Barthianism. And perhaps this comment is close to guilt by association. But the point is that it is not unthinkable to conceive of Barth in reading I&I. Franke has written for the WTJ. So resemblances to Barth are not necessarily irresponsible but reflect recent debates at WTS over Franke’s proposal. Because of the affinities between Franke’s affirmation of postmodernism and Enns’ ideas about the culturally conditioned and provisional nature of theology — not to mention their apparent friendship and mutual regard — I don’t see why Barth could not happen at WTS. It already happened at the WTJ.
2 May 2008 at 9.26 am
Dr. Hart,
I am concerned regarding your post. It appears that being friendly and jovial to an individual means that you fully agree with them. In this case, we would have to argue that Jesus was a prostitute…. Which you and I would both highly argue against. Please realize what you are saying when you make statements such as “not to mention their apparent friendship and mutual regard”. This is irrelevant, seeing as I have many friends who I do not fully agree with.
As far as why Barth could not happen at WTS, I am sorry but I can give no reply to this statement. I have not been given the opportunity to read Barth at WTS, but have heard many damning critiques… I remain ignorant on the subject.
What is clear, however, is that in this debate, the question is one over context. How much do we allow context to encourage our interpretation of scripture. Would it be fair to take Luther’s latter writtings and brand him as a life long AntiSemite? I don’t think so, but putting his latter writings in context help us to understand Luther. What about Paul and the Galatians? I realize that this is currently a huge debate, but allow me to input something that has always troubled me while at WTS. Turretin, that great bastion of Reformed thinking, argued that creation was concluded in the fall. Should we still follow this, knowing that he was culturally conditioned, and realizing that he did not have out current understanding of the world, and climate zones. As I read a map, Eden was most likely in a tropical envrionment, and therefore had no fall, but a wet and dry season. What are we to make of this?
And how about the WCF, which as Art points out in another post, that does not include Aramaic in its notion of which languages Scripture was written in? Do we ignore the Aramaic portions of Ezra and Daniel, simply because it would appear that these portions are outside of the bounds of the WCF? I realize you would say “no”, but where does that leave us in regards to how we understand the WCF?
Import these questions back into the nature of scripture. They all have to deal with context, and how we read certain passages. Now, we can either look at scripture, and ignore the context that God has brought to our attention through the redemtpive part of history that we are currently living in, or we could ignore it. If we get to pick and choose which parts we get to pick and choose, how do we go about this process, and are we allowed to go back into the Reformation and see that almost all of the Reformers studied law, and thus saw scripture through a law framework? Is this appropriate, or are there other ways to look at scripture that do not end up in huge misunderstandings (Paul and James)?
2 May 2008 at 11.04 am
Dr. Hart,
I have to ask it again-do you really believe that such slander, presuming Enns guilty by happenstance and association, has any place in a disagreement between Christian brothers. Maybe you need to put down the volumes on Church History, and the WCF, and Barth and begin to read again the Holy Scripture, whose inerrancy you so fervently defend. I believe no one here would debate that it would encourage you to let no unwholesome word come from your mouth….but that which is useful for edification. Have you edified your brother, Pete Enns this morning???
2 May 2008 at 6.14 pm
when i first read enns book i felt immediately that he was not aware of kuyper-bavinck’s discussion, particularly herman bavinck. after some people had commented to him this omission he wrote a correction type article in the calvin journal. my guess is that enns and his real audience are by and large very conservative presbyterians and a book like that of enns is just too much for them to appreciate. westminster has two schools in it-the reformed side and the fundamentalist side. But now that herman bavinck’s four volumes are all out perhaps the westminster profs etc should start to read them.
2 May 2008 at 11.26 pm
Miss Dawn, I think u need to apologize to Doc hart. Why he’s right u need to stay away from all them unorthodox and foreegn theologies. In the EOPCASGA we don’t low no unorthodox or furoiegn theologies whether they come from Germany, Italy or New York. Esp New York.
All 5 of the churches of the EOPCASGa are committed to purity. Thats the churches of HAHIRA, Deepstep, Toomsboro, Ty Ty & Bartow. (although we’re startin to have doubts about the church in Ty Ty).
We even put one elder out cuz he was goin to the Olive Garden just a little too often. He wuz startin to get some Papist leanins. You got the support of the EOPCASGa church Doc Hart. (again thats the Extra ortodox Presbyterian Church in America South Georgia Synod)
4 May 2008 at 5.30 pm
Hazel, have you heard this one?
How many members of the EOPCASG does it take to change a light bulb?
It’s not funny.
4 May 2008 at 7.47 pm
Hey Doc Me and all the members of the Extra Orthoxdox Presbyterian Church in America South Georgia Synod stand with you and we know that rooting out libaralism is no joking matter.
You’re right Doc Enns should be thrown out since he’s buddies with a liberal.
Why in the EOPCA SGaSynod we don’t tolerate no body being buddies with liberals or those noorthodox teachers.
You might find our tool for doing it useful. We call it the 6 degrees of Builtmann. If any teacher or elder can be connected to sumbody like that no good liberal builtman then he is out.
We don’t just use the connection to Builtmann it can be any liberal, no-orthodox, or Papist.
Thats why we had to throw out the Cordele, GA EOPCASGa church & their TE Enoch Emery.
Why we could could connect Enoch to Pope Bendick in 5 moves.
Thats why we don’t have nothing to do w/Westminster Seminary and we don’t allow nobody from Westminster to teach at Toomsboro Theological Seminary. Both teachers we have there are pure. We were hping you could be an adjunk professor?
4 May 2008 at 9.54 pm
Hazel, that’s some funny bleep. You sure have a bead on conservatives and Southerners. U da man.
4 May 2008 at 10.26 pm
Thats a compliment comin from the favorite theologian of the EOPCASthGaSynod.(well make that the favorite yankee theologian).
By the way we avoid the word conservative. we like to call ourselves extra pure orthodox reformed Christians.)
4 May 2008 at 11.01 pm
A List of all the Extra Orthodox Presbyterian Church in America South Georgia Synod Churches
HAHIRA TE Pastor Asa Hawks, Andalusia Presbyterian Church Hahira Presbyterian Church, Connor Hwy.
Deepstep TE Pastor Hazel Motes, Taulkenheim Presbyterian Church, Millegeville Hwy
Toomsboro TE Pastor Mason Tarwater, Sewanee Presbyterian Church, Piggly Wiggly Shopping Centre
Ty Ty TE Pastor Tom T. Shiftlet, Westminster Presbyterian Church, Parker Rd.
Bartow TE Pastor Onnie Jay Holly, Greenleaf Presbyterian Church, Sheppard Ave.
WIK leader (Women Only in the Kitchen) Ruby Turpin
Toomsboro Theological Seminary, President & Theologian Rufus Johnson
4 May 2008 at 11.40 pm
I’m all for humor, but this might be getting a bit out of hand.
4 May 2008 at 11.58 pm
I’m all done. I enjoyed corresponding with Doc hart.
5 May 2008 at 8.55 am
Dr. Hart:
Yes, I assume the divinity of Scripture before I read it, but it is a mistake to conclude that the literary genres are somehow unique (this would be a mistake similar to the old Holy Spirit language theory). But what does genre identification have to do with canonicity? God can inspire Scripture in whatever literary form he wants, and my study of the forms has nothing to do with assigning canonicity to some books over others. If he inspires a parable form (which he has), I want to understand it as a parable. If he inspires a historical form (which he has), I want to understand it according to the rules of ancient historiography. If he inspires a mythical or midrashic piece of literature (which he might have), then I want to understand that too.
5 May 2008 at 10.00 pm
Mr. Mastnjak, as I understand the Reformed doctrine of Scripture, inspiration has everything to do with canon. Only the books of the canon are inspired. Only they qualify as the word of God. That makes the 66 books different — certainly not deficient — from other writings. So when we open the Bible we read the word of God. To regard the Bible as more words of men than word of God would be to confuse the genre.
5 May 2008 at 10.57 pm
The genres of God’s Word are found in the words of men. That is plain. To regard God’ s Word as the words of God is to confuse the genre, just as one may confuse it as the sheer words of men. Darryl Hart, what are you wanting to say? Our Confession says too much, as our Confession says too little. Without man God’s words are meaningless.
Thanks, Danny, I mean Flannery, I mean, Wise Acre full-of-Blood for your humor. It was all it was meant to be and so much more. Your mocking persona precedes yourself, even as you meet yourself in a sharp right turn.
6 May 2008 at 7.10 am
D. Jones: I’ve actually been reading and recommending Warfield on concursus for 25 years. So I understand that the Bible is the words of men. What I’m not hearing in this context is what happens if you don’t also say that the Bible is the word of God. Without that those sixty-six books are pointless (though amazingly well preserved and overly scrutinized).
As for genre confusion, it is a genuine instance of confusion to take Hazel’s comments for humor. Grotesque maybe. But funny? Maybe if you’re Rob Bell.
6 May 2008 at 12.05 pm
Dr, Hart,
I take it that you are saying that inspiration produces genres that are unique from the genres of all non-inspired literature. The problem I see with this point of view (if this is, in fact, what you are saying) is that when a piece of literature turns up that appears to be generically similar or even identical to a piece of inspired literature, then you would have to say that in fact there is a genre difference even though it cannot be seen on the literary level. The basic proverb form is far from unique to the Bible, for example. I find it much more persuasive to argue that the genre is similar or identical to the non-inspired pieces of literature and to understand God as simply using existing literary genres in the same way he uses existing languages than to argue that the genre of this piece of literature is, despite appearances, unique.
6 May 2008 at 1.15 pm
Dr. Hart,
“So I understand that the Bible is the words of men. What I’m not hearing in this context is what happens if you don’t also say that the Bible is the word of God.”
Aren’t we all then agreeing, the Bible is both! The Word of God expressed in the words of men-by various authors in various literary genres each ordained by God Himself…-I don’t believe that anyone here, or in I&I, has denied the infallibility and inspiration of the Word of God, we just believe that it is both…as did Warfield, Bavinck, Kuyper….and if I have not misunderstood your quote above, so do you.
Don’t we really all have so much in common on this??
Isn’t the real conflict here over emphases more than actual content?? Couldn’t we really work toward a language/emphases we could all agree on, instead of beating one another up?