Dr. Peter Enns suspended from WTS
- Thread starter raekwon
- Start date
- Status
Josiah
Puritan Board Senior
This is good news indeed. Underlying todays events, I hope that WTS PA moves back toward its militant stand for confessionally reformed Orthodoxy. In my humble opinion We need more men like Stonehouse, Murray, Machen and Van Til. I love my friends who broad evangelicals, but I want to persuade them of my theological convictions, and not to become more like them hoping they will except my views on soteriology. May the lord grant the men at WTS PA wisdom and humble hearts in how to proceed.
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
My brain hurts. I forgot how detailed Helm can be.
anyway, good move for WTS.
anyway, good move for WTS.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
These kinds of discussions are grievous. During my college days at Westmont, I lived through the theological Sturm und Drang when one of my profs (who had been one of T.F. Torrance's students) was judged to be too neo-orthodox, so he ended up at Fuller (where he became my teacher again). Then, my major prof in college (32 units of courses and the one who officiated at my wedding!) was voted out of the Evangelical Theological Society (a few years after my graduation) for publishing a Midrashic interpretation of Matthew's Gospel.
Times have changed. Now, the broadly evangelical movement appears totally tone deaf to matters of heterodoxy and breaches of boundaries. One cannot even get voted out of the ETS for holding Open Theism views! From what I see in recent seminary grads from several of the standard broadly evangelical schools, we have reason to fear that, inch by inch, profs are erasing the theological boundaries and expanding the zone of acceptable uncertainty.
So, part of me grieves whenever any institution feels compelled to suspend or terminate a prof for the breach of theological boundaries. And, Enns' work is largely unknown to me (other than a couple of reviews). However, along with Josiah, you have to admire an institution that takes its confessional commitments seriously. Without vigilant trustees, we would be only a couple of generations away from rank heresy and even apostasy.
For those of you who know WTS, what do you expect the outcome to be in this case? Were his views truly outside the pale?
Sydnorphyn
Puritan Board Freshman
What!
How can you say this? He is a brother in the Lord with a family...
concerned,
John
How can you say this? He is a brother in the Lord with a family...
concerned,
John
John, are you sure what is behind Rev. King's comments? A seminary professor may indeed be a brother in the Lord with a family, but he influences others who also are brothers in the Lord with families. I am not speaking specifically of Peter Enns, but of any teacher of the word of God that replaces truth with error. WTS-Philly is handling this matter and we pray they do the right thing in the sight of God. Perhaps it is because he has a family that his suspension does not begin until the end of the term.
Sydnorphyn
Puritan Board Freshman
humm...
Bill
I am only responding to the words on the page, nothing more.
John
Bill
I am only responding to the words on the page, nothing more.
John
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Someone being suspended even if they are wrong is a grievous occasion. Sometimes things like this have to be done, but it is sad. The temptations for gossip and gloating can be all too strong.
Alas.
Alas.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
This is good news indeed. Underlying todays events, I hope that WTS PA moves back toward its militant stand for confessionally reformed Orthodoxy. In my humble opinion We need more men like Stonehouse, Murray, Machen and Van Til. I love my friends who broad evangelicals, but I want to persuade them of my theological convictions, and not to become more like them hoping they will except my views on soteriology. May the lord grant the men at WTS PA wisdom and humble hearts in how to proceed.
Which is why having Carl Trueman in charge over there is a great thing.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
Then perhaps you should have taken a look at the reason Bill said what he did before you commented?
jaybird0827
PuritanBoard Honor Roll
Question: Does this thread allude in any way to the current issue?
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
A brief review is found here at the OPC website.
A longer one with much more substantive discussion of the book's problems, at Reformation21.
jaybird0827
PuritanBoard Honor Roll
The review on the OPC website is most helpful. The Reformation21 critique is also excellent. Thanks!!!
Blueridge Believer
Puritan Board Professor
In each of the three main sections of the book, readers will be provoked by the extent to which Enns is willing to embrace the Bible's humanness. He says the opening chapters of Genesis exemplify mythical history (pp. 39-41, 49-50, 53, 55-56). "[God] adopted the mythic categories within which Abraham - and everyone else - thought. But God did not simply leave Abraham in his mythic world. Rather, God transformed the ancient myths so that Israel's story would come to focus on its God, the real one" (pp. 53-54). Enns defines "myth" by saying, "Myth is an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where do we come from?" (p. 50). He says the distinction between myth and history "seems to be a modern invention. It presupposes - without stating explicitly - that what is historical, in a modern sense of the word, is more real, of more value, more like something God would do, than myth" (p. 49). This is another way of saying that some things in Genesis (and beyond?) are not necessarily factually true. How much historicity is being denied?
So Genesis is a myth and the bible is partly human.
So Genesis is a myth and the bible is partly human.
Blueridge Believer
Puritan Board Professor
I also believe the OPC link is most helpful. I have no issuse with saying that the Bible has a divine and human author, because God certainly inspired men to write Scripture, but Enns go far beyond this. The whole issue of regarding the history of Genesis as myth is purely old liberalism. I think what he does is redefine his terms and place them within "evangelical" language. I am afraid that much of modern evangelicalism like the culture redefines classic terms, but no matter how you redefine it a myth is a myth. I know (not personally) the names of a number of the men on the board of WTS-Philadelphia and they are solid, so I have confidence in their judgment. There has been concern by many about the direction of WTS-Philadelphia, so I wonder if the dismissal of Enns is the beginning of spring cleaning.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Amen!!!
SEAGOON
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi All,
I sincerely appreciate the wise words of R.S. Clark and Jim Cassidy on this subject.
Having been a student at WTS, here are my own ruminations:
My experience at WTS was slightly different from Jim's. In 1997 I made the decision to quit my job as a System's Administrator in Washington D.C. and begin attending seminary full-time. Because I had been taking extension courses at the RTS campus in Washington D.C. and because my theological development had been so profoundly impacted by R.C. Sproul, my first inclination was to attend RTS-Orlando. My wife and I went down and visited the campus and sat in on some classes. By doing this I quickly figured out that I simply hadn't been built for the constant heat and humidity of Orlando, and also that I was considerably more conservative than many of the professors and most of the students. In particular, the frank answers I received to questions I asked about adherence to the Westminster Standards and the Regulative Principle quickly convinced me that this was not the seminary I was looking for. So having read about Machen and his struggle to form the OPC, and having heard from many people that Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia was conservative (a pastor in my church at the time actually tried to convince me it was too conservative) I decided to check them out. I sat in on a class (I believe it was Systematic Theology) and was very impressed by what I heard and saw. I then went to lunch with a member of the administration and was as clear as I possibly could be about what I believed about scripture and the Reformed confessions. I made it clear that I was very conservative and asked if he thought that was going to be a problem. He answered "not at all" and indicated that "we believe what you believe, we are still the seminary of J. Gresham Machen".
Thus assured, I enrolled in the seminary and my wife and I quit our jobs, gave up our happy home in VA, and moved up to Hatboro, a suburb of Philadelphia. My first year was one of confusion. While I found that there were some profs who were conservative and committed to staying within the parameters of confessional orthodoxy, others weren't, and that what I had been told about the position of the seminary being compatible with mine was definitely not the case. Nowhere was this more true than in the Old Testament department.
Now to be fair, I am terrible at languages in general, and Hebrew in particular. I will freely admit that I can barely understand the structure of the English language, and break out in a sweat if asked to diagram anything but the most simple of sentences. So a department entirely oriented around the teaching of a subject I'm no good at was never going to be my favorite. As for the OT professors themselves, I found them to all be witty, highly educated and intelligent, and very personable and approachable. Although I was born in England, I too grew up in North Jersey (Short Hills/Millburn to be exact) like Jim and Pete, so I had no problem understanding the way they communicated (at least when they were speaking English). What I did have increasing problems with were their views of scripture, ecclesiology, and the confessions. There, sadly, I wasn't the only one. During my time at WTS, I watched as the faith of several students in the inerrancy of scripture was effectively dismantled by the biblical studies department and some even fell away from the faith. The crisis became so bad at one point that I recall a professor holding talks about it. I remember one OT prof pleading with students that regardless of doubts they had about scripture, they needed to keep their faith in Jesus "in an untouchable box" as he indicated he did. I remember my jaw dropping at that remark. I struggled through classes in which Genesis 1-3 were presented as an "Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology" and the structure was taught as a highly primitive and symbolic view of the universe. One prof illustrated what he thought these primitives believed about the universe complete with pillars etc. Another boldly discussed his thesis that Judges was a political work designed to press forward the claims of Judah over Benjamin and that it involved "spinning" the details of biblical history in order to make political arguments. Inevitably, my relationship in class became more adversarial and by my second year, I was beginning to feel thoroughly depressed and definitely developing something of an Elijah complex (I alone am left!) On several occasions I tried to discuss my concerns with OT professors. I remember at one lunch an OT prof admitting to me that what I believed was in keeping with where the seminary once was and that it was what the old supporters and contributors to the Seminary hoped was still being taught, but that they had moved on. They were committed, he said to letting the Biblical Theological "tiger" out the cage of Confessions and freely admitted that they were going where men like Young and Vos had been too timid to venture.
The third year, though, was the worst for me. I made the mistake in that year of letting it be known that for the first time in WTS history, a woman had led the prayers at the worship service at the convocation. I sent a letter of protest both to the seminary, and published an open letter on the internet. This led to my being called before the then president of the seminary, and being angrily berated for over an hour for making the events public. He pointed out that this had led to his having to field five days of phone-calls from concerned and even angry supporters of the seminary. The most amazing moment for me in the exchange, came after I pointed out that Machen, the founder of the seminary, had also done essentially the same thing, blowing the whistle on actions of the Presbyterian Church via the newspapers. The President amazingly responded that he wasn’t about to defend Machen, and that he had blundered. He went on to comment that there should never have been a schism between Macintyre and Machen and that it was following a course of action similar to mine that had brought about that schism. At that point I realized that what I had been told, "this is still the seminary of Machen" was definitely no longer the case. I remember that I sweat so badly during that interview that my clothes actually stuck to the chair, and that it was only by the grace of God that I fought down the urge to get sick. What followed that interview was a warning from the Dean of Students to stop causing trouble for the seminary or face possible expulsion. From that point on I simply put my head down and worked as hard as I could to simply escape from WTS. I stopped the letters of protest and arguing the confessional line in classes. Things thus became in one sense, "easier" but I left WTS in a state of deep depression with a deeply wounded conscience. I felt that I had been absolutely up-front about what I believed when I visited, but they had been less than frank about the schisms between the members of faculty and the deeply divided "vision" regarding the course the seminary should be following. I can honestly say, that were it not for the church we attended and the excellent mentoring I received from Pastor Mark Herzer (who can confirm these events actually took place) that I would never have been able to finish and leave the Seminary with a degree. Also, I can honestly say, had I not gone in confessionally Reformed, I would not have come out that way.
So in one sense, I am relieved that WTS has finally suspended Enns, while he is an extrememly nice guy, I believe his views and his leadership of the OT department have done untold damage amongst the student population for over a decade. I am mindful though, that much more needs to be done if the seminary is to be reformed. Most of the other profs in the OT department are in lock-step agreement with Enns, and if that department is ever to be turned from the course Dillard began to chart for it and moved back into the old "E.J. Young" channel, then Enns can't be the only one to go. I'm also sad that it took so long to accomplish, and that consequently the seminary experience of many conservative students was a painful one. I am trying not to blame the board, but I don't believe anyone should have to feel at graduation like an animal being set free from a leg-hold merely because their views lined up with the Confession the seminary itself endorses, especially when one has paid $30,000 in order to go through that experience. I also believe that concealing the actual views of the faculty from alums and financial supporters has to stop. I had one prof admit to me that this was done deliberately because the widows who send in their donations aren't yet ready for the views of men like Enns (they "wouldn't understand them" right) and that first the WTS graduates have to prepare the ground in the church for the coming changes. My response to that today is just the same as it was then: "mh. ge,noito"!
Your Servant in Christ,
Andy
I sincerely appreciate the wise words of R.S. Clark and Jim Cassidy on this subject.
Having been a student at WTS, here are my own ruminations:
My experience at WTS was slightly different from Jim's. In 1997 I made the decision to quit my job as a System's Administrator in Washington D.C. and begin attending seminary full-time. Because I had been taking extension courses at the RTS campus in Washington D.C. and because my theological development had been so profoundly impacted by R.C. Sproul, my first inclination was to attend RTS-Orlando. My wife and I went down and visited the campus and sat in on some classes. By doing this I quickly figured out that I simply hadn't been built for the constant heat and humidity of Orlando, and also that I was considerably more conservative than many of the professors and most of the students. In particular, the frank answers I received to questions I asked about adherence to the Westminster Standards and the Regulative Principle quickly convinced me that this was not the seminary I was looking for. So having read about Machen and his struggle to form the OPC, and having heard from many people that Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia was conservative (a pastor in my church at the time actually tried to convince me it was too conservative) I decided to check them out. I sat in on a class (I believe it was Systematic Theology) and was very impressed by what I heard and saw. I then went to lunch with a member of the administration and was as clear as I possibly could be about what I believed about scripture and the Reformed confessions. I made it clear that I was very conservative and asked if he thought that was going to be a problem. He answered "not at all" and indicated that "we believe what you believe, we are still the seminary of J. Gresham Machen".
Thus assured, I enrolled in the seminary and my wife and I quit our jobs, gave up our happy home in VA, and moved up to Hatboro, a suburb of Philadelphia. My first year was one of confusion. While I found that there were some profs who were conservative and committed to staying within the parameters of confessional orthodoxy, others weren't, and that what I had been told about the position of the seminary being compatible with mine was definitely not the case. Nowhere was this more true than in the Old Testament department.
Now to be fair, I am terrible at languages in general, and Hebrew in particular. I will freely admit that I can barely understand the structure of the English language, and break out in a sweat if asked to diagram anything but the most simple of sentences. So a department entirely oriented around the teaching of a subject I'm no good at was never going to be my favorite. As for the OT professors themselves, I found them to all be witty, highly educated and intelligent, and very personable and approachable. Although I was born in England, I too grew up in North Jersey (Short Hills/Millburn to be exact) like Jim and Pete, so I had no problem understanding the way they communicated (at least when they were speaking English). What I did have increasing problems with were their views of scripture, ecclesiology, and the confessions. There, sadly, I wasn't the only one. During my time at WTS, I watched as the faith of several students in the inerrancy of scripture was effectively dismantled by the biblical studies department and some even fell away from the faith. The crisis became so bad at one point that I recall a professor holding talks about it. I remember one OT prof pleading with students that regardless of doubts they had about scripture, they needed to keep their faith in Jesus "in an untouchable box" as he indicated he did. I remember my jaw dropping at that remark. I struggled through classes in which Genesis 1-3 were presented as an "Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology" and the structure was taught as a highly primitive and symbolic view of the universe. One prof illustrated what he thought these primitives believed about the universe complete with pillars etc. Another boldly discussed his thesis that Judges was a political work designed to press forward the claims of Judah over Benjamin and that it involved "spinning" the details of biblical history in order to make political arguments. Inevitably, my relationship in class became more adversarial and by my second year, I was beginning to feel thoroughly depressed and definitely developing something of an Elijah complex (I alone am left!) On several occasions I tried to discuss my concerns with OT professors. I remember at one lunch an OT prof admitting to me that what I believed was in keeping with where the seminary once was and that it was what the old supporters and contributors to the Seminary hoped was still being taught, but that they had moved on. They were committed, he said to letting the Biblical Theological "tiger" out the cage of Confessions and freely admitted that they were going where men like Young and Vos had been too timid to venture.
The third year, though, was the worst for me. I made the mistake in that year of letting it be known that for the first time in WTS history, a woman had led the prayers at the worship service at the convocation. I sent a letter of protest both to the seminary, and published an open letter on the internet. This led to my being called before the then president of the seminary, and being angrily berated for over an hour for making the events public. He pointed out that this had led to his having to field five days of phone-calls from concerned and even angry supporters of the seminary. The most amazing moment for me in the exchange, came after I pointed out that Machen, the founder of the seminary, had also done essentially the same thing, blowing the whistle on actions of the Presbyterian Church via the newspapers. The President amazingly responded that he wasn’t about to defend Machen, and that he had blundered. He went on to comment that there should never have been a schism between Macintyre and Machen and that it was following a course of action similar to mine that had brought about that schism. At that point I realized that what I had been told, "this is still the seminary of Machen" was definitely no longer the case. I remember that I sweat so badly during that interview that my clothes actually stuck to the chair, and that it was only by the grace of God that I fought down the urge to get sick. What followed that interview was a warning from the Dean of Students to stop causing trouble for the seminary or face possible expulsion. From that point on I simply put my head down and worked as hard as I could to simply escape from WTS. I stopped the letters of protest and arguing the confessional line in classes. Things thus became in one sense, "easier" but I left WTS in a state of deep depression with a deeply wounded conscience. I felt that I had been absolutely up-front about what I believed when I visited, but they had been less than frank about the schisms between the members of faculty and the deeply divided "vision" regarding the course the seminary should be following. I can honestly say, that were it not for the church we attended and the excellent mentoring I received from Pastor Mark Herzer (who can confirm these events actually took place) that I would never have been able to finish and leave the Seminary with a degree. Also, I can honestly say, had I not gone in confessionally Reformed, I would not have come out that way.
So in one sense, I am relieved that WTS has finally suspended Enns, while he is an extrememly nice guy, I believe his views and his leadership of the OT department have done untold damage amongst the student population for over a decade. I am mindful though, that much more needs to be done if the seminary is to be reformed. Most of the other profs in the OT department are in lock-step agreement with Enns, and if that department is ever to be turned from the course Dillard began to chart for it and moved back into the old "E.J. Young" channel, then Enns can't be the only one to go. I'm also sad that it took so long to accomplish, and that consequently the seminary experience of many conservative students was a painful one. I am trying not to blame the board, but I don't believe anyone should have to feel at graduation like an animal being set free from a leg-hold merely because their views lined up with the Confession the seminary itself endorses, especially when one has paid $30,000 in order to go through that experience. I also believe that concealing the actual views of the faculty from alums and financial supporters has to stop. I had one prof admit to me that this was done deliberately because the widows who send in their donations aren't yet ready for the views of men like Enns (they "wouldn't understand them" right) and that first the WTS graduates have to prepare the ground in the church for the coming changes. My response to that today is just the same as it was then: "mh. ge,noito"!
Your Servant in Christ,
Andy
Ivan
Pastor
That is an amazing story, Andy. We had a few professors at Southwestern in the mid to late 80's that would have been similar to those at WTS but they were far and few between and are gone now. Southern was having the most difficulty back in the day, but Dr. Mohler took care of that.
My friend and mentor, Roger Ellsworth, a solid believer in the DoG, went to Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City circa early-70's. That is when the Conservative movement was just getting moving in the SBC (at least in pointing out the problems in the seminaries; the churches and the pastors I knew during that time were solidly conservative, with a few exceptions). Roger's experience was very similar to yours, although I know Roger didn't get depressed. He just kept fighting them, which I know is a very difficult thing to do and I doubt that I would have been as bold as Roger. I'm sure the seminary wished that he (and others at MWBTS) would have just gone away.
Things are different now in the SBC, but that doesn't mean we let are guard down.
My friend and mentor, Roger Ellsworth, a solid believer in the DoG, went to Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City circa early-70's. That is when the Conservative movement was just getting moving in the SBC (at least in pointing out the problems in the seminaries; the churches and the pastors I knew during that time were solidly conservative, with a few exceptions). Roger's experience was very similar to yours, although I know Roger didn't get depressed. He just kept fighting them, which I know is a very difficult thing to do and I doubt that I would have been as bold as Roger. I'm sure the seminary wished that he (and others at MWBTS) would have just gone away.
Things are different now in the SBC, but that doesn't mean we let are guard down.
DavidGGraves
Puritan Board Freshman
Two thoughts here:
1) Vis-a-vis OT Faculties and their failure to maintain orthodox or confessional standards. I find this to be the case across the boards. My experience at TEDS was/is that OT professors often see themselves as spoilers on those rubes in the pews. I am not limiting this to TEDS by any means but include interaction with profs from other schools at ETS and in their publications. They spend more time trying undermine deeply held convictions of the faithful that do not square with the "critically assured results." I had one professor so atomize the first verse of Ruth so that one could not make any theological issues out of "in the days the judges judged" or "there was a famine in the land." In both cases the author is telling us "in the days the judges judged" remember how messed up things were. We were told no you can't say that. And then with a "famine in the land" one cannot make any recourse to the covenant curses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy! Thus evince the multiple theologies and the fact that one one cannot do biblical theology! Argh!
2) Money is king at seminaries--while we hope otherwise, the bean counters have come in with a vengeance. Thus at TEDS a Barthian is the chief money draw thus nothing can be done. Even though he decries inerrancy, point one of the schools doctrinal statement.
--End of Rant
I know this wasn't the purpose of the thread, but it sure does make a case for confessional subscription. As educational institutions and pulpits "modernize" biblical truth, the confessions are a standard that keep the faithful from serious error. Is scripture sufficient? Certainly! The confessions remind us of that.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Andy,
Wow! What a story! Your tale is so much more existentially gripping than my own. But, I would concur with you that some in my seminary seemed to enjoy the "spoiler" role David describes. We heard (back in the 70s) all of the reasons NOT to take the Bible at face value. Some of the profs were quite Godly and conservative. However, this struck me as more the exception than the rule.
For some time, it has been my constant carp that the pressure to earn terminal degrees at secular schools puts people in the position many are ill equipped to deal with: experiencing the cognitive dissonance of a really really really nice prof/mentor who holds to some realy toxic theological views. In my opinion, theological latitudinarianism is often birthed in this delivery room. I wish that our human need to feel smart and important did not so threaten our ability to remain faithful to the truth of God. But, even suggesting this tends to beg the question. If we want an educated clergy, then we will have this tension with us always.
Bill said:
I know that this may sound naive or unsophisticated. But, brethren, this broad evangelical is running toward confessionalism BECAUSE of what I have been through in the mainline and evangelical movement.
Wow! What a story! Your tale is so much more existentially gripping than my own. But, I would concur with you that some in my seminary seemed to enjoy the "spoiler" role David describes. We heard (back in the 70s) all of the reasons NOT to take the Bible at face value. Some of the profs were quite Godly and conservative. However, this struck me as more the exception than the rule.
For some time, it has been my constant carp that the pressure to earn terminal degrees at secular schools puts people in the position many are ill equipped to deal with: experiencing the cognitive dissonance of a really really really nice prof/mentor who holds to some realy toxic theological views. In my opinion, theological latitudinarianism is often birthed in this delivery room. I wish that our human need to feel smart and important did not so threaten our ability to remain faithful to the truth of God. But, even suggesting this tends to beg the question. If we want an educated clergy, then we will have this tension with us always.
Bill said:
I know that this may sound naive or unsophisticated. But, brethren, this broad evangelical is running toward confessionalism BECAUSE of what I have been through in the mainline and evangelical movement.
- Status
Similar threads
