The Ironic Suspension of Peter Enns from Westminster Theological Seminary
Last week the Board of Westminster Theological Seminary voted 18-9 for the suspension of Dr. Peter Enns from the faculty effective at the end of the schoolyear. The Board passed the issue to the Institutional Personnel Committee (IPC) reccommending that Dr. Enns’ tenured position be terminated.
Peter Enns was educated at Messiah College (BA 1982), Westminster Theological Seminary (M.Div. 1989), and Harvard University (Ph.D. 1994). He has been teaching at Westminster since 1994 and was the editor of the Westminster Theological Journal for five years. Just after earning tenure at Westminster in 2005, he published Inspiration and Incarnation, which is at the heart of the current controversy. Dr. G. K. Beale’s review does better justice to the book than I can. Simply put, many orthodox scholars are critical of Enns’ integration of post-modernist perspectives into the doctrine of Scriptural inspiration. The fear is that a lowered view of inspiration leads to a disbelief in Biblical inerrancy.
The decision to suspend Peter Enns is conflicted:
1) While the President (Peter Lillback), the Chairman of the Board (Jack White), and a majority of the Board supported the decision, a third of the Board, including the Vice Chair (Peter Jansson), backed Peter Enns.
2) In Fall of 2007 the faculty of Westminster were asked if they supported Peter Enns’ position on inspiration. The majority of the faculty sided with Enns, voting 12-8 in his support.
Here is the central irony of Peter Enns being suspended from Westminster: a more “liberal” faculty, 20 of whom voted, has been overruled by a more “conservative” administration.
In the 1920s the 17 member faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary found itself in an awkward position. The faculty, led by J. Gresham Machen, was more conservative theologically than the Modernist-influenced Board of Trustees. As a result, in 1929 Machen and three other faculty members left Princeton to found Westminster Theological Seminary.
It is indubitably ironic that eighty years later Westminster now faces the inverse situation. The paralells aren’t exact, i.e. Machen left somewhat voluntarily whereas Enns hasn’t much say in the matter, but I find the comparison interesting.
I listened to the audio from a meeting on April 1st where the Administration answered student questions about the proceedings against Peter Enns. Several aspects of the dialogue stand out:
1) There are connections to the New Perspective on Paul controversy. President Lillback explicitly mentioned the 1982 dismissal of Norman Shepherd from the Westminster faculty. Shepherd’s work on covenental nomism was controversial enough then, but the ideas he espoused have grown into a major debate over the nature of the Pauline understanding of justification. Westminster recently encouraged the resignation of another faculty member, Steve Taylor, over the issue.
2) Enns was accused of “heterodoxy.” His lack of conformity to orthodox beliefs was not described as being Biblically unsound, rather his position was not found in accordance to the Westminster Confession. Many conservative evangelicals and moderate fundamentalists will undoubtably see the Enns case as evidence of a diminishing gap between the two movements, but this opinion is problematic since Enns’ dismissal is based on confessional separatism rather than in opposition to ecumenical cooperation. He has not been “Reformed enough,” which is different from not being “Evangelical enough.”
3) There is significant potential for continuing controversy. The studentbody was audibly perturbed and at least some of the students are markedly disatisfied with how the issue has been handled. One student remarked that he could not believe that such “bad fruit” could be produced by a “good tree.” When asked who would answer the questions of students who had been influenced by Enns, Chairman White said that the President and faculty would be responsible, a doubtful approach since a majority of the faculty supported Enns. Also, the President desired to take more time to discuss Enns’ beliefs than had been given 25 years prior to Shepherd. I wonder if it is possible that the prolonged dialogue has and/or will create more tension than just “ripping off the bandaid.”
The article that tipped me off about the whole situation provides a good summary, though the journalism is suspect in one area. At the beginning of the second page the author writes about Steve Taylor in such a way as to imply that Taylor is leaving the seminary in reaction to the decision on Enns rather than because of his adherence to the New Perspective on Paul.
I do not know enough about Enns to make a personal call on the matter, nor have I read the book. I first became aware of Enns when a dear friend mentioned his book to me in Janurary and proposed several questions about the orthodox doctrine of inspiration that I have also wondered about. So I don’t have an opinion about who is right or wrong and to what degree. I do feel kinda bad for innocently posting about the Church History program at Westminster last week while all this was being revealed…a bit like kicking a man while he’s down.
I hope you will join me in praying for our brethren at Westminster, that the Word of God will dwell richly in their hearts and school, and that both sides will appropriate God’s grace in this trial.
A friend had some questions and criticisms on this post that I’d like answer point by point:
My source for the reccomendation issues by the Board for Enns’ termination was President Lillback. On the audio of the special meeting President Lillback mentions that he only reccomended to the board that Enns be suspended. He then said that the Board went a step farther than his own reccomendation and used language supporting Enns’ termination, though the actual authority to terminate Enns belongs with the IPC. Just going on what was said. The public notice on the website won’t reflect internal opinion until the matter is settled one way or the other. Actually I was quite impressed that Westminster was willing to put the full audio online so quickly and without (apparent) editing. Makes the journalist/historian’s job easier even if not always a good PR move.
You are correct. I do not have any tangible evidence that his resignation was forced beyond the opinions of some Westminster students with which I am acquainted. Maybe Taylor saw the writing on the wall, forsaw the evil, and hid himself at Biblical Theological Seminary. Either way, my point is that based on the timeline and Taylor’s New Perspective advocacy, and contrary to the Christianity Today article, it does not appear that Peter Enns was the proximate cause of Taylor’s resignation.
I heartily concur. My point, which I did not make clear in part because I needed to think about it more, is that I do not believe this to be a case of Fundamentalist separation. This is an evangelical inhouse dispute that Fundamentalists have had little to do with since the parting of the ways in the 1950s. Within New Evangelicalism there has been a running battle between the “infallibilists” (no spiritual or significant errors) and the “inerrantists” (no historical or scientific errors). The best documented example is that of Fuller Theological Seminary in the 1960s provided by George Marsden in “Reforming Fundamentalism.” The infalliblists (D. Fuller, Hubbard, Ladd) drove out the inerrantists (Archer, Smith, Lindsell) who found shelter at schools like Trinity Evangelical, the inverse of what has happened at Westminster today.
So anyways, I agree that confessional separation is very different from Biblical separation. For example, Enns is not being called “anathema” or condemned as a false teacher. It seems more a parting of the ways; his views no longer conform to the stated beliefs and didactic goals of the institution.
This is not Al Mohler driving out modern day modernists (wonderfully ironic sounding, eh?). There is not really any grist here for the convergence folks (young fundamentalists and such).
Once again, I agree, but how hard is it to establish what he believes? He published it in detailed form. In all the blog posts I’ve read about this no one seems to dispute what he believes, rather they dispute whether it is worthy of censure. What I wonder is why the inerrantists should take so long to act? It appears open and shut. Go one, go two, the Synod, then separation…and that takes a full year? Since I’m not a college administrator nor a church leader I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; they are undoubtably better men than I.
I think this is a case of poor analogy… saying that Enns is NPP because he was compared to the last time WTS had to dismiss a prof is logically ridiculous - or even worse, comparing this to the Machen controversy. I don’t understand how you can post on this if you haven’t read the book, or have heard Enns, or are even remotely familiar with the issues… Ummm….. duh, not every faculty disagreement is exactly the same, if it were, they’d have it figured out by now. My point is only that if you’re trying to take this on as a historian/journalist you are making some harsh jumps of analogy. It’s a good practice to read or listen to people (i.e. Enns) before writing about them…. The lack of investigation is why separation is often laughable.
First, I did not refer to Machen as an analogy like you suggest, nor do I think Enns and Machen are particularly similar, as I pointed out in the original post. What is interesting is that both are in a similar position, but with the votes of confidence reversed. Make of it what you will, and it appears you make nothing of it, but I find it ironic.
Second, I mentioned Sheperd because President Lillback did. While it is true I’m not intimate in the proceedings, I can only imagine the President of Westminster is. What’s more, he is the one who first intimated some connection, not I.
Third, I’m more concerned with my logic than any [missing] analogies. If the dictionary definition of analogy is “a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification,” than I did not employ an analogy since the example of Machen was not meant to help explain or clarify what is currently happening with Peter Enns. I employed Machen at Princeton to compare and contrast.
Fourth, I am very interested in reading “Inspiration and Incarnation.” I believe one of my buddies at Westminster owns a copy and used it for class so I’ll have to see if I can borrow it from him (hint, hint S.). However, I do not think it necessary for me to have read the book to have written this post. Why? Because I did not take a position on the contents of the book or on the rightness or wrongness of either side in the controversy. I merely attempted to analyze the proceedings and draw out some historical ironies.
Fifth, as I mentioned in the first comment on the post, I don’t think this is a case of Fundamentalist separation, rather the fight between errantists and fallibilists has been an internal New Evangelical affair from the 1960s on. If there was a comparison I’ve made for you to criticize it would be the Fuller example; the Fuller fallibilists were more liberal than Enns on inspiration and on other issues.
Sixth, as honored as I am to be lumped in with hasty separatists the world around, I purposefully did not take a “side” in the ultimate issue because I do not know Enns nor have I read his book (refer to last several paragraphs in the original post).
I just wanted to add that is seems strange to me that Westminster is selling Inspiration and Incarnation on their website.