I have not really been following the kerfuffle at Westinster Theological Seminary. I have not read Peter Enns’s book Inspiration and Incarnation, but the seminary announced on Wednesday that they were suspending from the seminary faculty because of views expressed in this book. Enns has the support of the majority of the faculty at the seminary, which voted 12-8 against suspending him, and a web site has been set up by those who support him.

The issue comes down to the fact that Enns approach to the Scriptures does not line up with traditional Reformed theology, as is recognized by De Regno Christi, a web site set up by Reformed Christian Witness (the author’s of the site seem to approve of Enns’s suspension). My purpose in discussing this issue is not to debate whether Enns should or should not have been suspended. While I generally err on the side of academic freedom, a seminary can have a reasonable expectation that its faculty will teach from the point-of-view of the tradition of the seminary. Any good seminary will have professors from multiple denominations on their faculty, but if they are to serve their primary mission the majority should represent the tradition of the seminary.

My purpose for discussing Enns’s suspension, however, is to point out that this is in fact a Scripture vs. tradition debate. Enns has been suspended not because he has put forth an interpretation of the Bible which is unfaithful to the Scriptures, but because he has put forth an interpretation that is unfaithful to the Reformed tradition. The ironic thing is that this is being done at a Protestant seminary. One of Protestantism founding ideas during the Reformation was that our traditions should never take primacy over Scripture. Enns’s ideas may not be in line with Reformed traditions, but they are certainly in line with Reformation principles of Scripture being allowed to critique tradition.

What this should point out is that there is no such thing as a “Bible only” denomination. We all interpret Scripture within our traditions. This is, of course, how it should be. Scripture and tradition both have a role to play in our theology. It is either intellectually dishonest or just plain arrogant to claim that your church is faithful to the Bible alone while other churches rely on “man-made” traditions. It is never ever an either/or proposition.

We should all continue to interpret the Bible within our own traditions, while at the same time allowing our interpretation of the Bible to critique those traditions. Tradition can never be allowed to become a static entity. It must always be open to revision and — dare I say? — reformation.

Westminster’s “About Us” page contains this paragraph at the top:

Westminster is committed to Scripture and to the systematic exposition of biblical truth known as the Reformed faith. The very name of the institution signals clearly that our systematic theology has been and remains an outworking of the theological documents known as the Westminster Standards. In addition to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, the Seminary treasures the rich and harmonious diversity of creeds and confessions within the historic Reformed tradition. In particular, it recognizes that the system of doctrine contained in Scripture is also confessed in the Three Forms of Unity (the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort).

While their statement beings by noting that they are committed to Scripture, they immediately turn to enumerating the documents that inform their tradition. They are up front about the fact that theology at Westminster is done within the boundaries of these confessions. Their suspension of Enns, however, suggests that theology can never be allowed to go outside of these bounds, even when led there through the study of the Bible.

Update: Nick Norelli has a round up of bloggings pertaining to the Peter Enns situation at WTS at Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth.

Permalink