As I understand it,
in applying an analogy of the Incarnation to sacred Scripture and in drawing from Ancient Near East literature, Enns's book Incarnation and Inspiration runs afoul of Chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Of the Holy Scripture.
This CT article goes into detail.
I listened to yesterday's chapel service that concluded with a question and answer session between students and the board. The sound quality is a little rough - those responsible for the recording will likely serve Baptist churches in some A&V capacity upon graduation. But I took away from the conversation that the Confession does not refer to the human side of Scripture, implying that where the Confession is silent, the Church is silent. And that Professor Enns needs some time to formulate his theology (i.e., his methodology).
I have to agree with Mike Horton (it pains me to agree with him on anything), as quoted in the CT article above (page 2), that the school is a seminary and ought to train men (and women) for ministry, for shepherding souls. The influence of the Epic of Gilgamesh and Enuma Elish upon the sacred Christian Scriptures hardly factors into that vital mission. Delving into those other texts becomes a curiosity, a mental exercise.
I'm not above this, by any means. In Jim's study, we've looked at all sorts of extra-biblical stuff. He has his favorites, like Enoch, Acts of Paul and Thecla1, and gnostic Gospels. But I'm not in any position of pastoral authority, so worst case, I'm merely wasting my time with these non-biblical texts.
Anyway, my point is to compare the experience at Westminster with the Catholic equivalent, if I can. The example of Fr. Brown comes to mind, a serious biblical scholar who managed to keep to the right of the magisterium for nearly 40 years. Oh, yes he did! That doesn't mean that I don't get frustrated at him for refusing to take that next step. Sometimes I'm comforted that he didn't. At times, Brown's position makes me think, "Yeah, I can stay here too; it's respectable, it's good enough." Brown wasn't at a Catholic institution, either, but a liberal Protestant one.
Even though they too require the mandatum, it seems that Catholic biblical scholars slip under the magisterial radar, by and large. It's the theologians who get called on the carpet. So far as your biblical interpretation doesn't affect your christology, you're alright? And since reading Scripture is unlikely to affect a Catholic's theology, there's little concern.
PS: Now, he did this work at Harvard, presumably, but I was intrigued to see a book on Wisdom. My friend said on her blog that Enns taught a class called "Poetry & Wisdom" which I naturally took as a reference to genre, not to the deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom. I know Protestants get familiar with deuterocanonical books during formal education but I would expect it lumped together in one class. You know, a survey so as not to waste too much time on it. Like with the Fathers.
1 for its feminist themes, no doubt.
This CT article goes into detail.
I listened to yesterday's chapel service that concluded with a question and answer session between students and the board. The sound quality is a little rough - those responsible for the recording will likely serve Baptist churches in some A&V capacity upon graduation. But I took away from the conversation that the Confession does not refer to the human side of Scripture, implying that where the Confession is silent, the Church is silent. And that Professor Enns needs some time to formulate his theology (i.e., his methodology).
I have to agree with Mike Horton (it pains me to agree with him on anything), as quoted in the CT article above (page 2), that the school is a seminary and ought to train men (and women) for ministry, for shepherding souls. The influence of the Epic of Gilgamesh and Enuma Elish upon the sacred Christian Scriptures hardly factors into that vital mission. Delving into those other texts becomes a curiosity, a mental exercise.
I'm not above this, by any means. In Jim's study, we've looked at all sorts of extra-biblical stuff. He has his favorites, like Enoch, Acts of Paul and Thecla1, and gnostic Gospels. But I'm not in any position of pastoral authority, so worst case, I'm merely wasting my time with these non-biblical texts.
Anyway, my point is to compare the experience at Westminster with the Catholic equivalent, if I can. The example of Fr. Brown comes to mind, a serious biblical scholar who managed to keep to the right of the magisterium for nearly 40 years. Oh, yes he did! That doesn't mean that I don't get frustrated at him for refusing to take that next step. Sometimes I'm comforted that he didn't. At times, Brown's position makes me think, "Yeah, I can stay here too; it's respectable, it's good enough." Brown wasn't at a Catholic institution, either, but a liberal Protestant one.
Even though they too require the mandatum, it seems that Catholic biblical scholars slip under the magisterial radar, by and large. It's the theologians who get called on the carpet. So far as your biblical interpretation doesn't affect your christology, you're alright? And since reading Scripture is unlikely to affect a Catholic's theology, there's little concern.
PS: Now, he did this work at Harvard, presumably, but I was intrigued to see a book on Wisdom. My friend said on her blog that Enns taught a class called "Poetry & Wisdom" which I naturally took as a reference to genre, not to the deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom. I know Protestants get familiar with deuterocanonical books during formal education but I would expect it lumped together in one class. You know, a survey so as not to waste too much time on it. Like with the Fathers.
1 for its feminist themes, no doubt.
2 comments:
Actually Enns' work is very pastoral and practically relevant. Countless students are losing their faith as they are presented with the apparent contradictions in Scripture. The purpose of his book is to explain these and provide a better framework for affirming the authority of Scripture.
Thank you for your comment.
I do need to read the book, although the influence of ANE mythology upon the Bible's Genesis among other things is a very familiar (and welcome) position for me.
IOW, I doubt I would disagree with Enns; I've even said, "Well, it's about time!"
But I also see Horton's point that pastors and ministers should be about the gospel.
Shall we let sleeping dogs lie, then?
Post a Comment