Comments on: Westminster Seminary and Pete Enns: Ten Observations

by: Fr. John

Tue, 06 May 2008 12:56:50 +0000

“But this is a necessary principle, if the Protestant view of the holy catholic church is correct. The idea that robes should just be trusted implicitly is sacerdotalism.”

Please, don’t lump authentic Orthodoxy with Roman Catholi-’schism.’ A gentle reading of the era of Bloody Mary makes even a former catholic (i.e., romanist) cringe with the clear unbiblicalness of it all….

by: TJH

Sat, 03 May 2008 00:31:25 +0000

Justin — yes I remember our too-few discussions with fond memory.

Interesting. I guess I set myself up for that kind of rebuttal. However, what I would find far more interesting than the roll call would be for each player to give a speech pertaining to the issue. Let the anti’s explain exactly what their beef is; on the other hand, let each of the pro-side explain how one can derive the WCF from Enns’ hermeneutic. The moderator could fish topics out of a hat — let one deduce the bi-covenantal scheme, another the eternal Sabbath, a third the Regulative Principle, etc etc.

That series of speeches would be worth taking a day off of work for!

Tim

by: Justin

Thu, 01 May 2008 19:07:26 +0000

TJH,
It’s my first time commenting here, though we’ve met (we had some classes together at WTS). Thank you for this piece. While we probably disagree on many aspects of this whole Enns situation, I’ll admit that you’ve brought up some insights here that i’ve seen nowhere else. Your points 2-5 are especially well put.
A quick correction/clarification to comment #1 below the post (that comment was written by you as well, right?): the faculty documents that were released last week reveal that the Apologetics department is no longer “unanimous” in an anti-Enns stance. Dr. Edgar of the Apologetics department has changed his view, and has dissociated himself w/ the views expressed in the “Historical Theology Field Committee” document. In addition, Edgar was acting as faculty moderator during the “12-8 in favor of Enns” vote, so he was not allowed to vote except in case of a tie. He has let it be known (i think) that he would have voted with the 12, which would have made it 13.
As for some of the 12 being “adjuncts,” well, not really. The vote was only among “voting faculty,” which excludes some of the counseling instructors and preaching coaches. I believe Tim Lane and Ed Welch were included in the pro-Enns side of the vote…both of those guys, especially Welch, are “core” instructors if you’re doing an MDiv counseling or an MA Counseling degree, and both are respected instructors in the fields of pastoral theology and biblical counseling (though not necessarily classified as systematicians or biblical specialists, I’ll grant you). Moreover, the anti-Enns vote includes Sandy Finlayson, the library director and a professor of bibliography. While he is part of the voting faculty, he is not really a member of the “core faculty” if you’re using the same standards that would exclude counseling instructors. Most WTS students haven’t taken classes from him. Certainly far fewer than have taken classes from Welch, Lane, or Dr. Leonard.
I hope that makes sense and helps to clarify the picture. Again, thank you for your reflections on this.

by: Don Williamson

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:53:38 +0000

Tim – I’m sorry I did not have the opportunity to take a class with Dillard. My OT classes were taught for the most part by Gerard Van Groenigen at RTS and Palmer Robertson at WTS. While at Westminster, in addition to taking a full schedule of required classes, I held several jobs and tape recorded some Th.M. classes (which conflicted with my required classes). I enjoyed taking Frame’s Authority of Scripture class. It was a very hectic but exciting time. I just assumed almost everyone held to “traditional” exegesis and understood that Scripture is (and has to be!) self-attesting. The three professors who most attracted me to WTS were Van Til, John Frame and Norman Shepherd. I can’t think of any profs I disliked, though obviously I benefitted more from some than others. I felt very humbled to be in the presence of Godly men, both fellow students and profs, who had a better grasp of the reformed faith than I did. Not having been raised on reformed doctrine, I had quite a bit of catching-up to do!

I will plan to read Enns’ book and book reviews and familiarize myself with his thesis. The Bible has lessons to teach us on communication we have yet to learn. Academic scholars tend to speak as “so-called ‘individuals…’” They forget that, in the words of Eugen Rosenstock Huessy, “(w)e are holding office whenever we speak honestly and truthfully. We do not speak to express our thoughts. We speak as members, as passers-on, as communicants, as listeners or or we speak as exploiters, beligerents, liars and devils.” We should speak as organs of the Body of Christ, both locally and world-wide. In ways most don’t understand, we are still children of the Enlightenment who have some growing-up to do!

by: TJH

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:55:01 +0000

Don — if you could read the book, or perhaps otherwise become familiar with the thesis perhaps through book reviews, it would be interesting to hear you compare and contrast the situation at WTS back in ‘80. I assume you had Dillard for OT?

by: Don Williamson

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:03:58 +0000

Thanks Tim, for your preliminary observations on Peter Enns and the sad division that has arisen at Westminster Seminary. I graduated from Westminister in 1981, having spent three years there (’76, and ‘80-’81). The intervening three years I spent at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS during the time of the theonomy controversy. When I returned to Westminster, the “justification controversy, centering around Norman Shepherd’s views on justification and the covenant, was gaining prominence. I found this quite dismaying! In these controversies, the level of communication between the parties fell below what I consider to be the Biblical standard. Their interaction was too adversarial in nature, one consequence being a lack of concerted effort to clearly articulate views so as to advance our understanding of how to practically apply God’s Word. This problem may have been due to a failure of the parties to rely on the Power of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit alone in voicing their views. The very academization of theology as it is taught in seminaries is a part of this problem. John Frame sees this problem and is seeking to overcome it in his teaching and writing. I’ve not yet read Enns’ book, but as you describe his approach to exegesis, its seems he is making a very fundamental mistake.

by: TJH

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:37:19 +0000

A final comment is needed to finish the picture as it currently stands. It is often stated that the faculty supported Enns by a 12-8 vote. That is true, but by itself rather misleading. Of the core departments of Systematics, Apologetics, History, and Bible, the first three are unanimous against Enns, and the last is split, though tilted in Enns’ favor. The rest of the “faculty,” including most of the 12, are preaching coaches, counselors, and other assorted adjuncts not part of the academic core. (The counselor types may have concerns like “the way it is being done” more so than the substantive issue, and so forth.)

Should the rules be changed, perhaps to have an upper and lower house or something?

Of course, another day it might be the adjuncts that are defending the institution against the academic core. Probably it has usually been that way historically.