I think Professor Enns got caught between the trustees and the faculty at WTS which has caused a ferment about his book. The trustees raised a red flag while the faculty raised a green flag. He got caught in between.
So why a red flag from the trustees? My guess is somebody on the outside read the book and either didn’t get it and/or didn’t like it. So the word got back, maybe pushing some of the ‘orthodoxy’ buttons, and the flag went up. Maybe Prof. Enns did not reflect enough of a “WTS specific” set of presuppositions in his prologue. Maybe his critics thought he was a little too cozy with setting the bible into comparison and not enough contrast with the culture out of which the Old Testament was written. The trustees have the whole Seminary to think about, after all.
So why a green light from the faculty? My guess is that they recognized the book as an offering of Old Testament research, sound in its consideration of the cultural evidence that pre-date and co-date the Hebrew bible. It’s place was not an offering of cultural implications of Ancient Near Eastern literature to systematic and biblical theology. It was a text for Seminary students pursuing questions of the Old Testament and similar literature of that time and place.
So what issues does this raise?
Does all research need a full theological confession before you start?
Who decides, the trustees or the faculty, on what constitutes a ‘problem’ among the writings of the professors?
What is the difference in emphasis between a book meant for teaching in a Seminary and a book meant for popular Christian consumption?
Where is the border between theologically dominant and culturally dominant inquiry?
How does this weaken the witness of the Whole Christian Nation?
No comments:
Post a Comment