July 24, 2008

Bible Professor Will Leave Seminary Instead of Facing Hearing

A tenured professor at Westminster Theological Seminary who faced a hearing next month to determine if he would be dismissed is leaving on August 1 under what the Pennsylvania seminary called “mutually agreeable terms,” according to a statement on its Web site. The professor, Peter Enns, who taught the Old Testament at the seminary, wrote a book expressing the view that human beings shaped the Bible. The institution’s Board of Trustees suggested that the idea was contrary to the conservative seminary’s faculty oath. —Beckie Supiano

Comments

1. I sympathize with the professor. However, if the policies of the Westminister Theological Seminary states and he signed the statement, then, he should have known the consequences of his belief. It is very unfortunate that there is no toleration for being different.

   — kvc    Jul 24, 03:43 PM    #

2. Are not oaths themselves unbiblical?

   Above all, my beloved, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “Yes” be yes and your “No” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation. —James

   — BE!    Jul 24, 03:50 PM    #

3. I appreciate your belief that this reflects intolerance. It obviously does. But the fact is that the seminary has fundamental beliefs that are the core of its mission and I can appreciate that they don’t want that challenged. It would be analogous to a professor who worked there and taught that Jesus never existed.

   A seminary is a very different institution from mainstream HEIs so we should, ironically, appreciate its differences.

   — Michael    Jul 24, 03:52 PM    #

4. What took them so long?

   — Larry Gillis    Jul 24, 03:59 PM    #

5. Jesus was tolerant of all kinds of differences, but not when it came to the Scriptures and the way to eternal life. He clearly affirmed his belief in the authority of the Old Testament and said that there was no other way to the Father except through Him.

   — Charles    Jul 24, 03:59 PM    #

6. Charles, are you certain that Jesus did, indeed, say the things you mention in your post? The text from which you take your assertions was written decades after his death, almost certainly by someone who did not know him or witness his teachings personally. This is likely one of the arguments Professor Enns mustered in defense of his conclusion that “…human beings shaped the Bible.”

   — barbara    Jul 24, 04:19 PM    #

7. What is so pernicious about faculty oaths is their detrimental effect on “faculty development” and honest intellectual inquiry. Such seminaries can hardly be considered academic institutions. Why not keep Prof. Enns and simply tell incoming students he’s mildly heretical and let them debate him? Let them make up their own minds, i.e., THINK.

   — Jon    Jul 24, 04:35 PM    #

8. Charles,
   So you then agree that the Westminster Theological Seminary’s very requirement that faculty take an oath violates the teachings of Jesus?

   Similarly, Jesus would disapprove of the Pledge of Allegiance since it is also an oath, right?

   — Aggie Gnostic    Jul 24, 04:50 PM    #

9. Jesus would have dumped the Pledge of Allegiance into the Sea of Gallilee. Or any other pledge. He was interested in action, not in posturing. No institution that requires a pledge deserves anything but lip-service.

   — David    Jul 24, 05:31 PM    #

10. Barbara: it always amazes one to see that people like you use the same lame excuse to claim we don’t know if Jesus actually did or say these things. Of course, that means that you also have to ignore the many miracles done in His Name and the fact that every Saint throughout the last 2,000 years has also confirmed the words of One who is far wiser than you can ever be. But for skeptics like you, it continues to always be an “escape” hatch that these statements or miracles are just figments of people’s wishful imagination. Perhaps you should just hook up with Edgar Mitchell and go the UFO alien route.

    — simeon    Jul 24, 05:37 PM    #

11. If, as Jesus said, we are god then the professor is right. Indeed whatever we do as God’s moral agents God is not ashamed to accept responsibility for it. If we have become one with God in Christ then when we do something that is not blasphemous, or unrighteous, or denies the sovereignty of God it is God who does it. If God wanted to do everything himself he would have had no need of the Apostles and preachers today.

    — Sol    Jul 24, 05:42 PM    #

12. I once was a student at a seminary that required students to sign an oath (not just conservative theologically, but premillenial, rapture-ready, etc.) in their last year, or they couldn’t graduate. After two years I and several others departed, having developed doubts about the eschatology – because the profs were honest enough to present opposing views, which some of us found more compelling than the party line. Others who also had some doubts said that they just weren’t going to think anymore about such issues until after they graduated, so that they could sign the oath “in good conscience” and maybe change their minds later! Which supports #7’s comment about oaths and honest intellectual inquiry.

    — Frank Williams    Jul 24, 06:08 PM    #

13. simeon, it’s you who are on the UFO route. The “Many miracles” ? Proof of just one would do; too bad there isn’t any.

    — RKO    Jul 24, 06:09 PM    #

14. RKO: Here’s a miracle for a space cadet such as yourself: a guy by the name of Saul who got knocked off his high horse (the same one you are riding) and, instead, died as the martyr Paul. He also took note of the miracles in the lives of those who surrounded him; and he wrote about them or have you missed that? Hmm. Jewish guy killing early Christians, sees the Resurrected Christ, changes life and dies for his faith. No miracle there, right RKO?

    — simeonrop    Jul 24, 07:16 PM    #

15. To Simeonrop, I’m afraid that it is YOU who are mistaken. How can we believe Paul after knowing that other accounts went cookoo over the resurrection? Have you read Peter’s account? The rock on whom Jesus supposedly wanted to buid his church? Well, don’t tell us that it is “just” apocrypha when it has been accepted for decades that the apocrypha were cast out of acceptance only because their accounts made silly contradiction of the supposed miracles and resurrection. How is that Peter has Jesus dying and ascending on the same day? and with a talking and floating cross to boot?? Really, Simeon, a cross floating and flying out of the tomb? That’s rich. How is it that he continued to write about going into hiding, finding work in the city, and yet no mention of a dead guy walking? In fact, neither John nor Matthew mention Christ’s “ascension.” Simeon: “space cadets” like me demand proof of miracles…and yet we have none. We tolerate intercessory prayer studies (like Harvard’s million-dollar plus STEP study), only to end up being humored in the end with no evidence. No amputee has ever had a limb grow back; no one who was shot through the heart has EVER come back to life; no one who has been decapitated has ever come back to life. These would be miracles and perhaps proof of miraculous means…and yet, we’ll die waiting to see them. Get ready for the rapture. I’ll be busy watching baseball.

    — Darren N. Aversa    Jul 24, 08:21 PM    #

16. Darren! Wow, what emotion, so much so that you can barely get it all out! How well the Lord spoke of your ilk when He stated in the parable (you know what that means, don’t ya, Darren?) “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe even if one rise again from the dead.” Sorry, you need a limb to grow back in front of your feeble eyes. Of course, one could mention the hundreds of incorruptibles whose bodies have not decayed nor been tampered with, but you would find some excuse not to believe, because, basically, Darren, it really does amount to a faith test. Is that the sound of a buzzer I hear indicating that you have failed that test? When you have investigated someone like Mary of Agreda (oh, you have not heard of her nor read her works confirmng Scripture?) and her incorruptible state when she died in the 17th Century, yet was proven through scientific testing in the 20th Century to have not been preserved in any way, then maybe we can continue this debate. Until then, BZZZZ. P.S.: the “rapture” is a false doctrine just like the “apocrypha” you so desperately want to use when it was rejected so long ago. Nice try, but that is why it is not considered canonical cause it is false and not inspired! Yes, I think Dr. Mitchell has two tickets to a ballgame for you: the devils vs. aliens; which one are you betting on to win? Don’t forget to stand up during the star-spangled banner!

    — simeon    Jul 24, 09:19 PM    #

17. No Simeon, no miracle there. Guy changes his political/religious views.Happen often enough. No evidence of supernatutal occurance caused by any god. Sorry, doesn’t meet the test.

    — RKO    Jul 24, 09:21 PM    #

18. Why is it the religious ones always go off frothing at the mouth and call people names? Just curious.

    — Tom Corbett, Space Cadet    Jul 24, 09:28 PM    #

19. Hey, RKO, wow, I bow to your infallible wisdom, especially since you write with such clear, academic abilities with NO typos, like a Neanderthal: “Huh, HAPPEN often enough. Huh, supernatural OCCURANCE; huh, cause by any god. Huh.” I think maybe a miracle might be if you go back and learn how to spell and maybe give God a little more respect by capitalizing the G, huh? And learn to make a space between your sentences. And, Tom, your problem is you just don’t like it when you get back exactly what know-it-alls give. The problem with all of you is you can look down at others who believe but how dare anyone look down at your indefensible and prejudicial opinions. That’s why I love to get guys like you going. You really can’t stand the heat, can you, Tom? How dare someone call you on the carpet for your own blind insanity!

    — simeon    Jul 24, 09:40 PM    #

20. There is excellent reliable evidence that the book of Matthew was written in the early 40’s AD. This would put the writing within the lifetime of those who saw the ministry of Jesus. Even the leading liberal New Teatmant scholar of last century came to the conclusion that all the New Testament books were written by the end of the first century.

    — C.Hauser    Jul 24, 09:42 PM    #

21. Get ME going? Talk about frothing at the mouth….

    — Tom Corbett, Space Cadet    Jul 24, 09:50 PM    #

22. No, never capitalize “god.”

    — RKO    Jul 24, 09:53 PM    #

23. Oh the beauty of immutable beliefs! No need to worry with the scientific method and the discomfort of evolving knowledge. If this were a few centuries ago, Prof. Enns could have been burned at the stake for blasphemy — the ultimate solution for those who profess what others don’t want to hear.

    — Tom    Jul 24, 10:10 PM    #

24. Well, there are colleges and then there are Bible colleges.

    — Lawrence S. Lerner    Jul 24, 11:08 PM    #

25. Dear Simeonrop, Again, you offer no evidence for your case. I am indeed aware of incorruptibles and of the case of Maria de Agreda, as I study Latin American literature. Incorruptibles are just that: incorruptibles. They in themselves and by themselves offer no proof of miracles. We can’t prove that the cadaver does not decompose normally BECAUSE she believed in god and that god made her incorruptible. Are you really reducing your arguments to incorruptibles? What about the other saints? Hmmmm, silence on that account is best, as Mother Theresa never made it to sainthood proper. She was as cold as ice when they examined her corpse. Again, modern science. However, Maria de Agreda also was known to have “bilocated,” (bilocacion, in Spanish), a process that simply cannot be duplicated in modernity. How is it that all of the miracles have ceased in the age of video capture and modern science? As for you picking on others because of spelling errors, please check your own—“confirmng” for example your own ignorance of your own erroneous thinking.
    Lastly, I don’t think that you responded to my assertions about Luke and Matthew…and your shot at Peter’s account wants for clarity. I don’t “want” to use the apocrypha…I just notice that when the Gospel of Judas appeared (and was authenticated), it contradicted the others. When we notice that Peter’s account contradicts the others as well, we throw it out because it is accused of being too docetic. No one in that book can get their story straight nor can they be consistent with the facts. Please revisit Genesis 1 and 2 for an excruciating example of contradiction. If that does not convince, perhaps you should re-read the entire bible: I opened it up, just now, to Kings…gave it a go, and lo and behold, contradiction in about two pages of looking: 1Kings 20-15 puts the number of Israelites total at 7,000. Now, a good space cadet like myself knows that in Exodus 12:37 “about six hundred thousand” made the exodus of fame. Not counting women and children, who knows how many really made the all-important exodus. Modern math tells me that 600,000 and 7,000 are pretty far apart. However, let’s end on a note that is at least pertinent to the thread—taking oaths and getting fired. Some of the above commented on god’s/jesus’s take on taking oaths. So, I provide for you here a walking contradiction: Numbers 30:2 states that we can make oaths (” If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.” Now, Matthew 5:33-37 has it very differently and it comes from JC himself. You decide. Get back to me. “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

    34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: 35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

    — Darren N. Aversa    Jul 24, 11:09 PM    #

26. The vitriol expressed (against the seminary’s decision) in some of the comments on this blog are simply breathtaking, since I suspect none of their authors would dare hire a professor like Enns, if he should seek their employ. After all, he still identifies himself as an “Evangelical,” the second (after fundies) most despised breed of believers on the planet. Prove your open-minded mettle, and hire him, if you dare . .

    Further, the gross ignorance of the internal issues surrounding the book I&I would be excusable, if it was not so often accompanied by shameless ridicule of those who believe the Bible.

    Speaking of ignorance, the comment that the seminary believes that “God wrote the Bible” I suspect is erroneous, since the position of Evangelical seminaries has universally been that God inspired human authors to write the Bible, employing both the personalities and skills of the human authors.

    — STH    Jul 24, 11:19 PM    #

27. One thing that is missing in this whole, ugly argument, is a mention of faith. The evidence for the existence of God is weak—ok, very weak. But the evidence that God doesn’t exist is also weak—in fact, very weak. The great non-Christian Aristotle classified proofs based on lack of evidence as arguments from ignorance. Atheists who argue that they haven’t seen God and therefore God must not exist are expressing a belief, not a sound argument. In my opinion, there is no point for Christians and Atheists to go at each others’ throats so angrily when both groups are really grounding their beliefs on blind faith. But some of the nastiest wars in history were between groups that each claimed ration for their own side and attributed intolerable stupidity to the other.

    As for Westminster Seminary, it is a shame that the seminary fails to see that faith can coexist with Professor Enns’ thesis. After all, like STH writes, there is no debate about the facts that the Bible was written for and by humans. Enns may only be arguing that it was written to meet the needs of humans. Maybe Westminster is still holding on to the 1980’s fear that all humanism is secular.

    — SB    Jul 25, 12:39 AM    #

28. Wow!!!! Civil debate…Don’t we live in a great country!!!!!It does not matter which side is right or wrong…Just having the opportunity to debate the fact is wonderful…
    Disagreements stimulates learning …….And I have sure learned a lot on this topic!!!!!

    — Marlogee    Jul 25, 08:51 AM    #

29. While I agree that several of the posts on this story have not been civil, I actually HAVE learned a lot. For instance, I had never seen the word “eschatology,” and I did not know the story of Maria de Agreda.

    However, the story on which we’re all commenting concerns the right of a conservative, private, Christian seminary to dismiss a professor who teaches something contrary to their doctrines. Call me crazy, but isn’t that their right?

    I happen to agree with what I’ve read of Professor Enns’ thesis, but I’m not his employer, so my opinion doesn’t count for much.

    — L Wood    Jul 25, 09:34 AM    #

30. The fact is that what the seminary did WAS intolerant, by definition. Whether that action is deplorable or not is up to your own opinion. The real issue here is that this is precisely the kind of thing that tenure is supposed to protect against. I absolutely agree that the school has every right to try to mainatain its standards, biblical prohibitions of oath-taking or no. But if the school cannot survive a nay-sayer in their ranks, then they should not grant tenure to its professors. Simple as that.

    — Robert    Jul 25, 09:50 AM    #

31. Thanks # 6, my thoughts exactly.

    — Kyle David    Jul 25, 09:54 AM    #

32. Wow – this line of commentary is fascinating! Not only have I learned a lot, but it’s pushed me to review my own beliefs and how I reconcile them with my scientific training. Perhaps Professor Enns should use his example to teach an online course – I wonder if he knows the level of debate his situation has stimulated!

    — DL    Jul 25, 12:01 PM    #

33. The fundies are on the march!

    — RL    Jul 25, 12:07 PM    #

34. Several notes:
    1) The Chronicle story is so abbreviated that it is seriously misleading. No one at Westminster doubts that “human beings shaped the Bible.”

    2) Faculty at confessional schools like Westminster agree with the school’s doctrinal commitments at the time they are hired, as provided in the AAUP Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. It is not intolerant to dismiss someone for violating agreed upon terms of employment, any more than when schools dismiss students for violations of behavioral standards in the student handbook that they have agreed to follow.

    3) As a Westminster grad and apparently one of only two posting here who has actually read Pete’s book, I don’t believe that he violated his commitments. However, I found a number of statements in the book unfortunate and feared that misunderstanding of what he was trying to do would lead to this. I am saddened by this result.

    4) Many of the assumptions about what Enns must have said to get in trouble are quite wide of the mark.

    5) Those who believe the New Testament forbids all oaths and vows need to take a more careful look. If Jesus believed all oaths were wrong, why did he answer under oath at his trial (according to Matthew 26:63-64)? Did Paul err when he used oath language (Romans 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:23)?

    6) Reading many of these posts, I am reminded of a friend’s comment about someone we both knew: “For someone with that much confidence, he should know a lot more.”

    — drj50    Jul 25, 01:42 PM    #

35. I will again continue my commitment to make the same comment for all of these kinds of stories: they are not news anymore. What? Right-wing Christians are trying to control free thought on a campus of higher learning??? I’m shocked. [yawn]

    — John    Jul 25, 02:33 PM    #

36. “And the disciples came up and said to Him, ‘Why dost Thou speak to them in parables?’ And He answered and said, ‘To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them it is not given. For to him who has shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him who does not have, even that which he has shall be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because SEEING THEY DO NOT SEE, and HEARING THEY DO NOT HEAR, NEITHER DO THEY UNDERSTAND. In them is being fulfilled the prophecy of Isaias, who says, “Hearing you will hear, but not understand; and seeing you will see but not perceive. For the HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BEEN HARDENED, and with their ears, they have been HARD OF HEARING, and their eyes they have closed, lest at any time they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR MIND, and be converted, and I heal them.” ‘ “

    You see, kiddies, for a heart not to be hardened, one has to first tap into that which is God-given to the humble: that which is called “faith.” Then, even worse for a prideful (you know, the sin that comes before a fall?) academic, one must EXERCISE that faith by acknowledging a Wisdom above their own and to do so by getting on their knees in prayer. Then, perhaps, eyes and ears can be healed and opened.

    And for those pseudo “scholars” who as fools think the ‘gospel of Judas’ is authentic (ha!) and the fact that incorruptibles account for nothing despite the fact that each one of the hundreds who lived led the same unique holy life in believing Christ is the Son of God (what, you mean this does not include any foaming-at-the-mouth-god-does-not-exist academics?), the best statement is found in Matthew as well: “An evil and adulterous generation demands a sign, and no sign shall be given it … .”

    All this was true in the 1st Century and even more true in the 21st.

    — simeon    Jul 25, 06:37 PM    #

37. Not “foaming”; “frothing”. You know, what you do.

    — T. Corbett    Jul 25, 08:04 PM    #

38. Back to the original story, I’d like to read that book. Humans did shape the Bible. It’s self-evident.

    — Jo    Jul 26, 10:54 AM    #

39. Simeon, I somehow knew that you’d post…and I somehow knew that you would fail to address any of my points. You did not address the rampant disparities between so-called divinely inspired biblical passages. For instance, you did not take Genesis to task for its clearly contradictory account of the order of things. And I am not even going to highlight the scientific errors Genesis makes (i.e. putting grass on the Earth before animals, which is a definite no-no). I took two minutes out of my day and I found contradictions, fairly obvious ones. The point is that for you to take a 1400+ year old book as “truth,” you’re ignoring all of the facts that have come as a result of the human intellect not being satisfied with stories. Children are satisfied with stories. Scholars are rarely satisfied with stories that contradict one another. I am not foaming at the mouth when I ask you to explain how you come to square such discrepancies with the facts of science and history and physics and mathematics. So, when you say that “all this was true in the 1st Century,” what you mean to say is that all of that was fine before we knew the facts. For example, when we read 1 Kings 7, we see that the divinely-inspired book posits Pi as having a value of 3—this is because the poor saps didn’t know their geometry very well: “And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.” So, one would have a short-coming of 1.4 cubits, thereby not being able to close the structure. Perhaps I am the abominable “evil and adulterous generation” member, but that is neither here nor there. I am done agreeing to disagree. Modernity will drink your milkshake!

    — Darren N. Aversa    Jul 26, 10:56 AM    #

40. I amazes me that educated people in the 21st century will put their brain in a blind trust when it comes to the Bible. Over 200 years of scholarship (exegetical, linguistic, archeological, anthropological, etc) have shown that the Bible is essentially religious propaganda. The OT justifies the claims of a group who believe god singled them out as favored, and actually told them that waging war and killing men, women and children was not only ok, but required. The NT seeks to convince that a Galilean revolutionary peasant, executed by Rome for sedition, was really god, whose shedding of blood was to expiate sin, even though the god of the OT prohibited human sacrifice. For each and every contradicition, believers have nearly 2000 years to come up with a rationalization. And as for the second coming, how long are they prepared to wait?

    — jruiz    Jul 26, 03:47 PM    #

41. In response to #40 (JRUIZ):
    It “amazes me” that you have put your “brain in blind trust” in a viewpoint that simply does not correspond with the facts. The OT explicitly states that the nation of Israel was established through Abraham so that ALL the nations would be blessed with redemption (Gen 22:18). The war against Canaan was limited and focused, and clearly not normative, in order to establish a people who would honor God in a world filled with idolatrous human sacrifice, shameless injustice, unspeakable immorality, and murderous hatred without conscience.

    Further, Jesus was not a political revolutionary, since properly defined it would mean he thought to overthrow the Romans (which he clearly stated was not his intent: Matthew 26:50-56; Mark 1:48; John 18:36; also see Mk 8:34-38). His unwillingness to deliver the Jews from the Romans was terribly disappointing to many, especially the Zealots who later opposed the Christian church. In fact, Jesus was executed for claiming to be the long-awaited Messiah, not for “sedition.”

    As for human sacrifice, this was indeed forbidden by God (Leviticus 20:4; Jeremiah 7:31; and by example in Genesis 22), but not his own freely offered substitution for those deserving death. He, as God, could choose to stand in their place, in order to satisfy the righteous demands of his own law (see Hebrews 10 below):
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Hebrews 10
    “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
    5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
    “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
    but a body you prepared for me;
    6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
    you were not pleased.
    7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
    I have come to do your will, O God.’ ”
    8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Despite the many critics you mention who seek to use “exegetical, linguistic, archeological, anthropological” arguments to dismiss/deny the Bible, it can be reasonably argued that the exegetical, linguistic, archeological, anthropological evidence overwhelmingly supports and corroborates the Bible’s history and theology.

    Lastly, as for pejoratively (and simplistically) dismissing the Bible for being “religious propaganda,” perhaps it goes against your creed to believe and write about something (redemption in this case) with true faith, sincerity, and zeal(?)

    — STH    Jul 30, 02:49 PM    #

42. Isn’t there something fishy about using the Bible to defend the Bible?

    — jruiz    Jul 30, 06:08 PM    #

Previous: Purdue U. Scientist Appeals Findings of Research Misconduct
Next: Another Giuliani Finds His Dream Deferred