Peter Enns Suspended

When Peter Enns published his book Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament , I am sure that he was expecting some negative reactions. But I doubt he expected how much heat he actually received. I remember buying the book three years ago at ETS because I thought he was going to go a different direction than he actually did. I read it on the trip and was not highly impressed, but did think some of his arguments were interesting. But the book seemed to hit a nerve. Critical reviews started appearing, and the following year at ETS I attended a packed-out session in which Enns presented a paper (only partly defending himself) and several others critiqued him on several points (Richard Schultz seemed especially pointed). Beale and Enns have had several published exchanges, and the issue continues to be a hot one. The latest is that Westminster, where Enns teaches, has suspended him. This is not quite the same as firing, although that appears to be the next step. I am not quite sure what to think at this point. I do not agree with much of what Enns writes, but I also am not sure that suspending him is the best choice either. It makes me nervous, as if we are heading back to the modernist/fundamentalist debate once again (an issue which Westminster knows well). I am not sure that Enns has actually crossed any lines that would require this kind of response, even if I do not agree with him. But then, I haven't read the book in three years, and maybe I am too generous. 

See here for a copy of the letter that was sent out and other details.

If you missed the book, Enns tries to refine how we read the Bible. He focuses on three topics: other ANE literature that is similar to the Bible, theological diversity in the Bible, and the way the OT is used by the NT. He says that these are three very serious issues that evangelicals have not dealt with sufficiently, and if we deal with in a proper manner it will change the way we read the Bible. He advocates an incarnational model of Scripture, where we recognize both divine and human aspects. The reason for the reaction has been that he emphasizes considerably more human aspects than are usually thought present. Another part of the reason for the reaction was that Enns directed it at non-academics, which meant that there was less footnotes and argumentation, and that non-academics (who had not read anything else on the subject) were reading it. 

Login to add comments