Andrew of Theo Geek is intrigued by Westminster Theological Seminary’s recent suspension of Peter Enns, allegedly because his book Inspiration and Incarnation violates the Westminster Confession. It took a little digging to confirm the status of this confession at the seminary, before I found a Faculty Pledge which Enns is presumably suspected of breaking, which includes:
I do solemnly declare, in the presence of God, and of the Trustees and Faculty of this Seminary, that … I do solemnly and ex animo adopt, receive, and subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms in the form in which they were adopted by this Seminary in the year of our Lord 1936, as the confession of my faith …
See also this description of the “Westminster Standards”.
Andrew writes:
It intrigues me because I just can’t fathom the sanity of adhering to a creedal statement written in 1642. In 1642 they barely understood Koine Greek, biblical scholarship was only in its infancy, they had next to no understanding of the customs, practices and thinking of ancient world, and they had very few of the writings of the early church Fathers that we now have. For almost every conceivable reason there is evidence to think that people trying to interpret the bible in 1642 could have made serious errors. Indeed, the majority of scholars today would say they did.
As Jim West has rather surprisingly argued, the seminary has the right to hold its own standards, and to cease to employ those who adhere to them. But is the seminary right to insist on such standards? I note also Westminster student Arthur Boulet‘s comment on Jim’s post, pointing out that
The reality of the situation is that there is no official finding that Enns is outside of the confessional boundaries of Westminster Seminary.
But this post is not so much about Enns’ personal situation as about the principle of Christians and Christian organisations using as doctrinal standards in the 21st century confessions of faith and statements of doctrine dating from the 16th or 17th century. While this period was indeed marked by a great flowering of biblical and theological scholarship, especially relative to the intellectual stagnation of the late Middle Ages, Andrew has a strong case that these 16th and 17th century divines could not have matched the biblical understanding of modern scholars.
Of course one might answer that Andrew’s parallel with the development of science is an inappropriate one because theology and biblical studies are inevitably anchored in the past events of the biblical period. But the 16th century is not that much closer to the ancient world than we are today, and it is easy to show that any advantages the people of that time might have had from being a little closer to ancient events is outweighed by the greater understanding of the past we have now from discoveries of ancient texts and indeed whole ancient civilisations which were unknown in the 17th century.
I am with Andrew when he writes:
It frustrates me that colleges actually exist who adhere to such doctrinal statements and see it as their duty to churn out students who believe such things. Such indoctrination results in a massive amount of bias, propaganda and apologetics contaminating scholarship. Modern interpretations and theories end up judged on their conformance with seventeenth century doctrinal statements! I have learned to steer clear of such biased ‘scholarship’. … In practice this seems to mean avoiding completely reading ‘scholarship’ produced by anyone in the Reformed or Presbyterian traditions, and careful filtering of Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran writings.
In my experience this is an issue not just with colleges but with entire denominations, including denominations like newfrontiers which deny being denominations. They hold as their standards of belief, formally or informally, the teachings of men (almost never women), making these teachings in practice if not in theory the arbiters of Scripture. It was for similarly exalting their sectarian teaching over the Word of God that Jesus accused the Pharisees with the words:
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.
Mark 7:8 (TNIV)
Now before anyone wonders, I have not gone nearly as far as Andrew in “abandon[ing] the doctrinal teachings of my childhood church”. Indeed I could personally accept large parts of the Westminster Confession, although not others parts such as the one about predestination. That, however, is not the point. The point is the way that many Christians are living in the early modern period and not noticing that the world has moved on, and so has God, and they should not be stuck in a past age, however good.
I suppose it is for similar reasons that so many Christians continue to value the King James Bible, and continue to argue as even Suzanne McCarthy does that it is
the premiere Bible for academic and literary reference.
I suppose one might equally ask why Christians adhere to the 4th and 5th century statements of doctrine known as the Creeds. But that is another question for another day …
