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).

Right off the bat, first I would want to question your wording of how things currently stand. Specifically, you write the following:

“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.”

My question is: where did you get the fact that the board recommended his termination. Right on the wts homepage the following is given as the result of the board meeting:

“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.”

If you read carefully, the IPC is to recommend a process for determining whether or not Dr. Enns should indeed be terminated. Your post seems to indicate that this recommendation has already taken place.

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.

Second, you state that WTS encouraged the resignation of Steve Taylor. You need to know here that you are doing interpretive work. I am not disagreeing with you, but I don’t think you can point to any tangible evidence for this conclusion. Professor Taylor’s contract was up. He chose not to renew it. I am not saying that it would have been renewed had he sought renewal, but lack of seeking is not the same as denying renewal. I think you can see the point I am trying to make.

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.

Third, I do have to disagree with you on your point regarding heterodoxy and fundamentalism. In order for you to sustain your point, you have to posit a third category of “against the confession, in the Bible.” This category is not recognized by those in this confessional environment. If it is outside (against) the confession, it is outside (against) the Bible. In any confessional environment, heterodoxy will always (de facto) be in relation to the confession. It is indeed the very purpose of having a confession, of being a confessional institution. As such, I do not think this should not be placed in the category of “separation from Biblical error.”

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).

Fourth, this is just my opinion, but in cases like this, I think love and wisdom demand that all possible effort be put into bring about a resolution before separation becomes necessary. I think this is the Biblical model. Separation is never the first step and never something to be done quickly. The model is one person, two people, the Church then separation. I know that what is in view here is false teaching, but the principle remains the same. We must first clearly establish that it is indeed false teaching that the teacher will not recant, will not repent. Separate is a last ditch effort always.

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.