July 10, 2008

Tenured Professor Faces Dismissal at Theological Seminary

A tenured professor at Westminster Theological Seminary will face a hearing next month to determine if he will be dismissed for his teachings about the Bible, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported this morning.

The professor, Peter Enns, teaches the Old Testament at the conservative Presbyterian seminary in Glenside, Pa.

In 2005, Mr. Enns published a book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, intended to help Christians and religion students make sense of apparent contradictions in biblical texts. Mr. Enns writes in the introduction that “Christ is both God and human. So is the Bible.”

The seminary’s Board of Trustees, which ordered the hearing, will focus on whether Mr. Enns violated his faculty oath. Professors at the seminary are required to pledge that they will not teach or even suggest anything contrary to Westminster’s confession of faith, which states that the Bible is perfect, infallible, and written by God.

Mr. Enns was suspended in March, after the faculty voted to support him. The four-day hearing is scheduled to begin on August 25. —Beckie Supiano

Comments

1. Someplace that does not endorse free inquiry does not deserve the title of “university.”

   — Bro    Jul 10, 11:42 AM    #

2. It’s not a university. It’s a seminary.

   — Susan    Jul 10, 11:47 AM    #

3. Their precious bible teaches tolerance and forgiveness.
   But, apparently this administration is not populated by Christians (or, maybe, they actually haven’t read the Book)

   Will this professor get a fair hearing from these people, or just burned at the stake, like the good ol’ days of the Inquisition. I seem to remember how “infallible” those practioners were.

   — Mark    Jul 10, 01:55 PM    #

4. Why is there such hatred of protestant Christians in academe? Why it is so unthinkable that at a religious seminary the individual faculty are expected to teach the agreed upon religious views of the institution. It would be different if this were are a public institution…oh wait, you can’t talk about God at public instutitions, only Allah and The Buda.

   Until I got into higher education, I had always believed that universities were progressive places. What I have found is a haven for pompous intellectuals who will tolerate anything more liberal or “open” than they but have nothing but disdain and hatred for anything that they believe to be more mainstream, conservative, or “closed”. What a friggin joke.

   — Steve    Jul 10, 02:25 PM    #

5. The problem, of course, is that Enns is not that liberal. He publishes with the most conservative evangelical presses and the faculty that supports him is universally evangelical.

   — Drew    Jul 10, 02:34 PM    #

6. If you want to work at that type of institution you have to accept those limits. If you want total academic freedom, you’re in the wrong place.
   I guess the question here is whether he knowingly violated the oath, or whether he thought that his ideas were compatible.

   — Dustin    Jul 10, 03:26 PM    #

7. Who cares what they teach in superstition schools. I mean please—the bible? The Koran?

   I prefer Plato’s Socrates thank you!

   Which god do you believe in?

   — Max Macias    Jul 10, 03:30 PM    #

8. Is anybody else getting tired of yet another story about a closed-minded evangelical institution considering dismissing a tenured faculty member become of some creed that was signed upon hire. Of course the people who are behind these kinds of 21st century witch-hunts should be forced to watch episodes of Beavis and Butthead until they realize they are watching themselves. But this isn’t news anymore. News would be an openminded evangelical institution. Publishing these kinds of stories only feeds the self-righteous paranoia of the hyper-rightwing “victims” of the mainstream. “Look at us! We’re staying to the OLD ways!” Just be Amish already.

   — John    Jul 10, 03:38 PM    #

9. Like other Christians, I believe that God became a man and interacted with imperfect human beings. And even in the Bible, the only way to become “perfect as God is perfect” is to learn to love your enemies so that you will be like Him, who allows his sun to shine upon evil and righteous alike. So perhaps these human judges can show a little mercy on this professor. Perhaps they can come to a common understanding of how a perfect God works to reveal Himself to us fallen humans.

   — Kate Ernsting    Jul 10, 03:43 PM    #

10. What a great line!
    “Just be Amish already”

    — Nearly Amish...    Jul 10, 03:43 PM    #

11. Max seems not to understand that metaphysical agnosticism toward religion, and credulity toward the metaphysics of Plato, makes him as vulnerable to materialist critique as the most virulent fundamentalist. I am sure some philosophers try to gainsay this, but many things may live in Plato’s cave, none of which are open to reason’s verification. All metaphysics, at a strictly academic level, are open to the same kinds of questioning. Get over your metaphysical bigotry, Max, and try to deal with the subject with some scholarly seriousness.

    — RobJ    Jul 10, 03:45 PM    #

12. Persons do not need to surrender rationality or open inquiry when teaching in a reputable seminary. The culture of the school and the religious judicatory must be recognized and IF there is a real commitent to reason, serious difference in human interpretation of meanings can be productive. It is important to knwo that there are legitimate seminaries that allow and even encourage open inquiry. I attended one, the School of Theology at Claremont, CA.

    — Jim Seeber    Jul 10, 03:50 PM    #

13. So maybe I’m a little wide-eyed, naive, and enthusiastic, but does anyone see this issue as a great opportunity for both the seminary and its faculty to evaluate how they approach and understand ancient scriptural texts? Perhaps it’s time for Westminster to consider what infallability and perfection mean. The religous dynamic of someone’s identity can be so deeply held (for both theists and athiests) that we are all resistent to broaching the issue, but I imagine this will be a good time for Westminster to soul search.

    — Chris    Jul 10, 03:58 PM    #

14. Jim, Claremont does indeed encourage open inquiry – UNLESS one is an evangelical. They are not welcome there.

    — Skeptical    Jul 10, 04:03 PM    #

15. Peter Lillback, president of Westminster, was quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer as follows:
    “Despite his initial claim that he is writing the book to comfort the disturbed, the actual performance aims to disturb the comfortable.” I seem to remember someone in the New Testament who did the same thing.

    — Bruce    Jul 10, 04:05 PM    #

16. Here’s a question. Jesus said, “Ask and you will receive.” If this professor asks Jesus to keep him from losing his job, what will happen?

    — Larry Thursz    Jul 10, 04:07 PM    #

17. One of the key questions to be asked here, in all fairness, is what he meant by “human.” While the seminary’s reaction seems a bit much, pretty much all evangelicals understand and accept the human role in written revelation. I cetrtainly have taught that and I trust this hearing will seek to discern his intent.

    — Kelly    Jul 10, 04:19 PM    #

18. I wonder what kind of quill and ink God used to write the Bible?

    — Carl    Jul 10, 04:27 PM    #

19. I would believe some of the pompous blather I’ve read on “tolerance” (and Westminster’s perceived lack of it) if the Academy were as “tolerant” of evangelical Christians as it wants Westminster to be to its faculty members who apparently disagree with its core tenets.

    Has it ever occured to some of you that Westminster is as probably affronted by someone at its school teaching that the Bible might be fallible as secular universities are affronted by those who want to teach that Intelligent Design is a reputable theory? Most academics seems to have no problem running the latter out of town on a rail (figuratively speaking), but cannot seem to understand that Westminster might feel the same way about its dissidents.

    Come on, where’s the tolerance?

    — Doug    Jul 10, 04:28 PM    #

20. This country stands for freedom of belief but also freedom of speech. These two appear to be in conflict in this case. But it is also clear that religious institutions have the right to set their own statements of belief. Although I do not believe in the literal truth of the Bible, I do respect the right that allows some to believe in it – in the same way that I support the right of expression of some ideas that I strongly disagree with. Perhaps one day religious institutions would realize that by insisting on the literal truth of the Bible, rather its spiritual message, may be doing more damage to their cause than good.

    — P. P.    Jul 10, 04:33 PM    #

21. “Christ is both God and human. So is the Bible.” Yes, I can see how that kind of thinking can be harmful – geez, are they serious?

    What a ridiculously ignorant place.

    — Kyle David    Jul 10, 04:35 PM    #

22. When faculty publish things, the institution where they are employed appears also on the publication. The faculty at Westminster have an oath, which is fancy language for a contract. Violating a contract with an employer should get one fired. Done. That’s not ignorance, it’s good business.

    And all those who are castigating the institution for the beliefs of those who support it are not intellectuals in any sense I understand it. Why do you express intolerance of those who are intolerant? That’s not tolerance — it’s as limiting as Westminster’s oath: Be tolerant only of those who deserve it by believing in tolerance the way I do. That’s ridiculously ignorant. Interestingly enough, it’s a limited form of tolerance not unlike the limited form of academic freedom that Westminster grants its faculty (see below).

    I don’t believe what the people at Westminster do, but that’s no reason to criticize them. Westminster exists to serve (the very many) people who have a particular set of beliefs, and Professor Enns appears to have done something that damages that relationship. If he doesn’t share the mission of the institution as required by the oath (contract) he signed, then he should be separated from it.

    I don’t share all the beliefs of the church-related school where I work, but I wouldn’t dream of publicly arguing against them (or making a presentation that challenged them, either), despite the fact that I haven’t signed any oath… nor am I obligated by any other agreement… nor would I be fired for doing so. In fact, my institution would probably be fine with it… I just think it would be wrong to do so. It’s kind of biting the hand that feeds you, and it’s rude, really. I don’t know the details of this particular case; I suspect that Professor Enns believes that he was doing good, and there is disagreement about that. Ok.

    If you don’t like their beliefs, then don’t believe those things… and move on.

    I think the larger point that is worth discussing is that the case identifies something that has been going on for a long time: There are institutions that limit academic freedom. But signing the oath means that the professors have acknowledged the limited form of academic freedom they have. So is that legit? An interesting question.

    — Ray    Jul 10, 05:04 PM    #

23. I’m sure Professor Enns has good ideas about how to defend himself, probably better than anything that has been offered here. It would be nice to see those reported.

    — Sam    Jul 10, 05:21 PM    #

24. While I find Professor Enns’ assertion regarding the humanity and divinity of Christ and the bible to be compelling, it seems to violate his contract with a “conservative” seminary. Westiminster is not a university, and I do not imagine that their institutional leadership makes any pretense regarding academic freedom. With this in mind, I do not believe that Professor Enns will be able to defend his breach of an “oath”

    — Kevin    Jul 10, 05:37 PM    #

25. If this was happening at a medical school, and involved a question of medical procedure, many of us would recognize that we are untrained in medicine, and thus our opinions on the subject would be couched in words of appropiate humility. This issue is one of substance in an academic discipline in which most of the responders show no evidence of formal education or even interest. If you don’t understand why Professor Enns work is raising questions in his seminary, maybe that is a good indicator that you don’t actually know enough about the subject to have a useful opinion. Read and learn.

    — Another Jim    Jul 10, 06:30 PM    #

26. The claim made by one of the early posters here that,
    “oh wait, you can’t talk about God at public instutitions, only Allah and The Buda.” is the most ridiculous claim ever. Lots of scholars and instructors at public universities talk about God and Christianity — and they do so in the appropriate academic way: not as advocates of religious views, but as scholars of religious experiences and ideas and what they mean and have meant to humans. For instructors at public schools to be at liberty to advocate particular religious beliefs would be to have the state promoting religion — and one of this country’s greatest achievements was to separate state and church, hence avoiding a lot of bloodshed.

    The seminary where this professor faces firing is not a public university, but clearly there are differences of opinion there on what the school’s creed requires. Mr. Enns has been supported by a vote of the faculty — and they all support the same doctrinal requirements that the seminary’s administration claim Mr. Enns has violated. The whole history of Protestantism stems from the ability – or need – to explore the meaning of the Bible: and humans of Christian faith often differ on that. Even within a small range of opinion, there are differences, as this case shows.

    I’d side with the faculty, not management. And don’t distort Mr. Enns’s beleifs by presenting them as un-Christian. That’s inaccurate and absurd.

    — Marc    Jul 10, 06:49 PM    #

27. You guys at Westminister need to read the Book. You’re not reading the Book.
    In the Bible the only words directly written by God were the Ten Commandments – sorry, that’s it folks.

    Unfortunately some of your early practioners of the faith busted it up, and then, somehow, lost the pieces.
    So, there goes your proof.

    Come on Westminster let’s get on with practicing Christianity instead of getting all balled up in semantics and dogma.

    — Mark    Jul 10, 09:01 PM    #

28. One of the objections to Mr. Enns’ work is that it appears to endorse the exercise of reason. How sad that this should be a problem.

    — cm    Jul 10, 10:23 PM    #

29. Any thoughts about how someone at a seminary which is not an institution of higher education (university or college) can be designated professor (an academic title) and what the implications of being a professor might be in terms of academic freedom? I’d be interested to know the view from over there (from UK).

    — Dave Postles    Jul 11, 03:29 AM    #

30. Steve – You’re 100% right on.

    — Laurel    Jul 11, 09:40 AM    #

31. I find this discussion quite interesting and quite typical of many who’ve lived too long in the rarefied atmosphere of academe where our pretense of civility demands we show respect to others’ views and tolerate differing opinions. Yet, I don’t recall the same fervour for tolerance when previous Chronicle articles told of professors being censured or fired for not falling into lock-step acceptance with the theory of evolution. How civil we all are.

    — bcowan    Jul 11, 09:44 AM    #

32. Ray (no. 22): Well spoken! Not-so-BTW, the original 1923 AAUP statement on academic freedom and tenure specified that institutions whose faith commitment required some limitation on academic freedom must state that at the time of appointment (which WTS does). A much-later “interpretive comment” (which does not alter the original Statement) says that “most religious institutions no longer require such exemptions, and we do not now support them.” (Or words to that effect; I’m quoting from memory now.) But WTS, like a number of evangelical institutions, still does need—and utilize—that exemption. Fair enough? Fair enough.

    The reason WTS was founded was that its parent, which was at one time the bastion of Reformed theology, had been hijacked by self-identified Liberals and conservative theology was not welcome there. It’s understandable that WTS is pretty careful.

    — diogenes    Jul 11, 09:48 AM    #

33. Just For Dave Postles #30

    Just in case you missed it —- on “Titles” or “What You Can Call Yourself?” —- There was an interesting discussion; See:

    The Chronicle News Blog;

    March 12, 2008

    What’s Up, Doc? German Law Bars American Ph.Ds from Calling Themselves ‘Doctor’

    By Aisha Labi.

    — zahid    Jul 11, 10:01 AM    #

34. “professors being censured or fired for not falling into lock-step acceptance with the theory of evolution. How civil we all are.”

    Particularly civil when a troll decides to drop by and make up a bunch of ‘facts’.

    Is there a link from a goofy right wing website to the Chronicle? Why do we have so many of these ‘uninformed’ posts?

    — me    Jul 11, 10:10 AM    #

35. With respect to #9, Ms. Kate Ernsting and others who feel similarly.
    WOW!…“us fallen humans” should be qualified to read “people like me who have been convinced to feel irreparable guilt over nothing and pathetically continue exisiting.” The fact that one can assert that god allows “his sun” to shine upon the certainly-polarized “evil and righteous” in a posting on a higher education website is stunning. Kate: please visit the nearest museum with ancient artifacts and compare how now-defunct civilizations portrayed their gods, which were sure to be the only gods, the infallible entities. They had texts, old texts, which told them about creation, life after death, sacrifices, omnipotence, and they had images of those gods. Ask yourself what is the difference between those infallible gods of then and your “perfect” god of today. How is it that you came to be able to convince yourself that your god is perfect? Was it because you were all-too-willing to believe that that was the case? What about Pizarro and the smashing of the gods in the Americas? The Inca were absolutely positive of the divine nature of their gods and of the sure punishment to come of anyone who challenged them. What about the Aztecs and their absolutely necessary human sacrifices to gods to ensure that the sun rose each and every day? Was that evil punished? Did the righteous prevail? No, but modernity did.

    — Darren Aversa    Jul 11, 11:28 AM    #

36. If God didn’t write the Bible, how come he owns the copyright? Is Inherit The Wind subject to charges of plagerism? How come God wrote three books each contradicting the others? What if Mt. Sinai was merely a book signing appearance?

    — Larry    Jul 11, 01:17 PM    #

37. For Susan F. …while I thank you for your many accolades, I do not deserve them, as I do not see myself as “Holder of All Knowledge” nor can I be. I do see myself as particularly capable of accepting “perfection,” provided it present proof of its own singularity. I’m still waiting to see proof of God, unicorns, djinn, archangels, miracles, and the like. I’m not going to feel guilty though while waiting. Perhaps you should just allow Ms. Ernsting et al to respond to my questions.

    And to Larry: great quip about the book signing…LOL.

    — Darren Aversa    Jul 11, 02:35 PM    #

38. For RobJ (#11). I don’t know any Platonist who believes that Plato’s writings are “perfect, infallible, and written by God.”

    — pd    Jul 13, 10:36 AM    #

Previous: System's Governing Board Will Review University's Contract With Governor's Wife
Next: 'Custom' Textbooks Raise Money -- and Questions of Ethics