In Defense of Pete Enns’s critics
April 4, 2008 at 10:26 am (Bible)
There is one thing here that I have to say, and I don’t think it has been said enough as I’ve watched the drama unfold at Westminster. Let’s say that the problem was much more clear-cut than it is (and I still think that the problem is clear). Let’s say that a professor at WTS was denying outright that Jesus is God. What steps would the seminary have to take in such a case? (If someone denies that Jesus is God, they cannot be a Christian). Would they not take steps that look remarkably similar to what is happening with Enns? There would be oodles of faculty discussion, faculty meetings, board meetings, evidence gathering, in short, what has happened with Enns. I am by no means putting Enns on a level with such heresy. Far from it. I am only trying to point out here that the process is not at fault in any way that I can see. I would encourage Enns’s supporters to see that the disagreement here is about whether Enns’s views are confessional. Let that be the only area discussed at all. Character assassinations of key players on either side should not be up for discussion. It is not appropriate, nor is it relevant. Let both sides acknowledge that the views of the other side are held sincerely, and are believed to be biblical. However, Enns’s critics are not out to get Enns. They want a confessional seminary. It is very easy to attack the character of someone who seems to be attacking a professor you love. Do not do it.
Green Baggins 