Westminster Seminary Professor Responds

The following letter to the editor appeared in the November 2005 issue of New Horizons in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, on page 22.

Editor:

I would like to thank New Horizons for allowing me the opportunity to respond briefly to the review of my book Inspiration and Incarnation that appeared in last month’s issue. I feel it is important to respond, not because the review was negative, but because it is a mischaracterization of the book, and, more importantly, concludes with a public accusation concerning my confessional commitment. The latter point is particularly disconcerting to me, as it is quite contrary to my intention, yet it is announced at the end of the review as if it were plain fact.

In this book, I am self-consciously but discreetly employing one element of the Reformed faith, namely, the recognition that Scripture is human and divine (accommodation, concursus) to speak out of the Reformed tradition into a popular/semipopular evangelical audience (hence the subtitle Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament). Such an audience would benefit from Reformed influence, but their acquaintance with Reformed thinking cannot be assumed-indeed, to advance the point deliberately for that audience would have been a distraction. Perhaps this was the stumbling block for the reviewer: absence of familiar affirmations and denials. But the absence of familiarity for such an audience-particularly in handling issues, many of which have not been treated directly within our tradition-should not be confused with heterodoxy, or, as the reviewer put it, being “beyond the boundaries of the Reformed tradition as exemplified by chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession,” at least not without the courtesy of treating the substance of the book.

Bearing the book’s purpose in mind may allow a perspective to emerge that is very much at odds with the reviewer’s impression. This is a book that neither intends nor accomplishes an assault on the Reformed faith. I understand, of course, that I am not simply reiterating past Reformed voices. I am, however, attempting to build from our tradition to address very real and problematic issues for a good many students of Scripture today. I have seen enough examples of people drifting away from faith in God’s Word because of inadequate answers given to complex issues. Such people are not simply, or even primarily, those who have studied the Old Testament in secular graduate schools, but young men and women who have been confronted with problematic data from taking “Bible as Literature” courses in college or high school, or from watching documentaries on the History Channel or PBS, or from reading popular novels whose authors employ (pseudo)scholarship to weave a tale. My book is intended to reach people like this, to help them think through difficult issues with a view toward reestablishing their confidence in Scripture. The book is not an invitation to naïve students to flirt with liberalism. It was written to show that confidence in God’s Word can be gained by looking squarely at these difficult issues, not away from them. Whether I have succeeded in this task, in whole or in part, would have to be assessed through careful and fair interaction with the argument of the book.

To portray the book publicly, as the reviewer has done, as contra-confessional, or as the first stride toward liberalism, is in my view an unfair, impulsive, and needlessly divisive reading. It is my prayerful hope that interested readers of New Horizons will read the book in a more generous fashion and draw a conclusion independent of the review.

Peter Enns
Philadelphia, Pa.