# Peter Enns



## Ephrata (Sep 1, 2014)

Hello, my friends!

Peter Enns was recently recommended to me by a mentor when I expressed difficulty figuring out what to stand for and how to stand for it in an evolutionary geology class. Done a little research myself, and it is rough, to say the least. What do you folks have to say about him?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 2, 2014)

charted his own course. I don't know whether some of his more recent public positions were already in his mind while he was teaching at WTS, but he was raising eyebrows there. His trajectory seemed to be going away from certain "givens" that are part of the Confessional vows one takes when he takes a teaching position at that school. And so, eventually he was asked to leave.

I think the saddest part of the whole tale is how quickly he moved even further from the moorings, once he was unconstrained to remain where he was. Was his employment actually keeping him closer to the historic truths of his Confession? Keeping him from going further off the reservation? Or was he closeting his convictions already, crossing his fingers when he subscribed annually to the historic Confession of Faith?

If you know anything about Presbyterian history in the USA, you may remember the Auburn Affirmation Auburn Affirmation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Westminster,--which was in some sense founded to take the place of Old Princeton, to supply the Presbyterian Church with ministers who would not eviscerate their ordination vows by a pretended allegiance--needed to make an Old Side (another historic allusion) style move to preserve its essential _raison d'etre_. If Enns had stayed, the school was effectively reorganized, even unofficially, just as Princeton had been officially (being an organ of the Church).


----------



## JonathanHunt (Sep 2, 2014)

Avoid, avoid, avoid. That's it. I hope some others can give you positive book recommendations but my mind is blank in this area.


----------



## Edward (Sep 2, 2014)

Ephrata said:


> What do you folks have to say about him?



Find a new mentor. If your mentor is pushing Enns, you probably need to look elsewhere for guidance.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 2, 2014)

Tori:

I've not seen anything from you in some time. How are things going at the school to which Mr. Edwards went and at which he taught?

I am not sure why your mentor would recommend PE, but I fear it's for no good reasons. I've known PE for many years and I can assure you that his path is not one which you wish to take. You may PM me if you like as I don't want to say more in a public fashion about this. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## David Pope (Sep 2, 2014)

If you're interested in modern examples of standing faithfully for biblical truths while being assailed by opponents, I recommend Stonehouse's biography of J. Gresham Machen and the book Defending the Faith by D.G. Hart.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 2, 2014)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think the saddest part of the whole tale is how quickly he moved even further from the moorings, once he was unconstrained to remain where he was. Was his employment actually keeping him closer to the historic truths of his Confession? Keeping him from going further off the reservation? Or was he closeting his convictions already, crossing his fingers when he subscribed annually to the historic Confession of Faith?



I tend to agree. Whether Presbyterian, Baptist or otherwise, this phenomenon seems to repeat itself all too often when faculty who have moved to the "left" and cannot sign the confessional statement without crossed fingers have to leave. I haven't read all of Enns' blog posts by a long shot. But I've been left wondering why he continues to call himself an evangelical at all at this point unless it's simply to try to have a greater influence or whatever from the "inside". Liberal commenters have basically asked him to drop what they see as a charade and to go ahead and dump the evangelical label in favor of progressive or liberal Christianity or whatever label is preferred. (Post-fundamentalism probably fits too in at least some cases.) 

This is not unlike certain other authors and bloggers who continue to identify with the evangelical label when their views are much closer to what mainline liberalism has taught about the Bible for the better part of a century. But continuing to identify as evangelical (even though you don't even meet Bebbington's definition of one and perhaps even lack church membership altogether) helps you get on CNN and into the mainstream papers and magazines. Of course, the mainstream media are all too eager to play up a generation divide in evangelicalism where the younger ones (Millennials and younger Gen Xers) are in open rebellion against Biblical authority, much less rebelling against things like passing out voter guides and trying to get everybody to vote Republican the way their parents did. And it is "safer" for troubled internet surfers and readers to approach an "evangelical" source when looking for alternatives to their "fundamentalist" or legalist upbringing. 

If some Facebook comments that I've seen in recent years are any indication, there are some folks in the PCA who still think Enns got a raw deal at the hands of "TR's" or "fundamentalists" and appear to continue to be fans to some extent. If that's true, then the reader can connect the dots with regard to how that bodes for the future of the denomination.


----------



## Ephrata (Sep 2, 2014)

> I've not seen anything from you in some time. How are things going at the school to which Mr. Edwards went and at which he taught?
> 
> I am not sure why your mentor would recommend PE, but I fear it's for no good reasons. I've known PE for many years and I can assure you that his path is not one which you wish to take. You may PM me if you like as I don't want to say more in a public fashion about this.



Dr. Strange, I've got many stories, some wonderful and some that make me weep for this resplendent institution. May actually detail some of the former on a separate post, as they involve a few opportunities that might interest some of you, as well. I hope to PM you soon.



> If you're interested in modern examples of standing faithfully for biblical truths while being assailed by opponents, I recommend Stonehouse's biography of J. Gresham Machen and the book Defending the Faith by D.G. Hart.



Thank you, that is immensely helpful!
---
My friends, forgive my constant questioning, but I hope to extend it one step further: the other recommendation from said mentor was Tim Keller's "A Reason For God". Does anyone have wisdom on the book/Keller's work?


----------



## Edward (Sep 2, 2014)

While many of us would have concerns about Keller, particularly in the area of creationism/evolution, I would not put him in the same bucket as Enns and do not consider Keller a heretic. He should be approached with discernment.


----------



## ZackF (Sep 2, 2014)

Enns continues to lurch to the left at an ever great pace.

I don't have a lot of place for ex-Reformed types. For my non-Reformed reading, I would rather read J.H. Newman, C.S Lewis or even Buddhists, Jews and atheists than a someone like Enns or Clark Pinnock.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 2, 2014)

Tori:

Here is a link to the issue of the _Mid-America Journal of Theology _ in which I reviewed Keller's book that you asked about. Just scroll down alphabetically to "Keller" and there you'll see my (short) review, which my be described as "sympathetic-critical:" http://www.midamerica.edu/resources/journal/19/bookreviews19.pdf.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 3, 2014)

Being a former follower of Biologos at the same time (maybe a little bit after) Enns' book came out let me chime in. He used to be their head of Biblical studies there but, was subsequently let go and according to him it was because they wanted more conservative people to reach out to the SBC. That may give you some indication to where he is headed if he calls that organization conservative.
Anyway, his book was touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread and it caused me to wonder if his ideas were true and I had to work through them. I have since abandoned Biologos since they tout a gospel of 'believe evolution with Christ and you will be respected by the academics!' To Enns however around this time he said it is better for a person not to be a Christian than not believe in evolution (I hope that came out right).

In short, Enns is nuts. I couldn't careless if he has his PhD from Harvard, many from there don't know a dang thing anyway. Run away from him and those who are directing you to him.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 3, 2014)

I can tell you, for certain, that he influenced some young(ish) minds in the PCA. It reminds one of the fact that Arminius received ringing endorsements from some prominent Reformed men prior to his apporintment and his teaching had a profound impact upon the Church. It wasn't merely Enns but other men in his time pushing the Christotelic view of the OT. Some seminarians came to question their trust in the Scripture under his work while others have reported they were threatened with dismissal by ranking officials if for making waves about the open heterodoxy being propounded. I consider what he did to Christ's Church when he wasn't outed to be more reprehensible than anything he's done since there was no longer any fear that he had to keep up appearances to retain employment.

Gaffin's response at the time of Enns' dismissal: A Word From Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. | Green Baggins


----------



## Ephrata (Sep 3, 2014)

arap said:


> I have since abandoned Biologos since they tout a gospel of 'believe evolution with Christ and you will be respected by the academics!'



Bingo. That, plus the use of classical arguments to back up various other principles of divinity, and a heavy appreciation of using the literary to replace (not accompany) the literal, seems to be the battle-cry.


----------



## lynnie (Sep 3, 2014)

Last time I read about this subject ( maybe a year ago) Keller still held to a literal first Adam and a literal fall of that first Adam and a literal reality of what Paul talks about in Romans with a first and second Adam. Keller's Adam and Eve is not some myth or some symbol, but a real man and woman who disobeyed and sinned and fell. I happen to think he is very wrong about how that first Adam came to be ( evolution, primates, and God breathing the first human soul into one of these evolved creatures.) .

Enns on the other hand, well, his view of scripture is far from orthodoxy whether or not you believe in evolution. Last I read he was even questioning the virgin birth, and Jesus catered to the misconceptions of his day in some of the things he said.


----------

