I always like to pay special attention to what the author of a book denotes as his purpose for writing. Writing finds its source in purpose. Nobody writes for no reason. In Peter Enns' case, he states his purpose in the first sentence of the first chapter:
The purpose of this book is to bring an evangelical doctrine of Scripture into conversation with the implications generated by some important themes in modern biblical scholarship - particularly Old Testament scholarship - over the past 150 years.
The most uninteresting purpose behind a book ever? Taken at face value, perhaps, but trust me on this - things do get interesting for those of us who want to know more about the nature of Scripture.
Enns begins by outlining his own convictions vis-a-vis Scripture: It is ultimately from God and it is His gift to the church. (I would add that it is not only a gift to those in the church, but those outside of the church. For instance, how many people have been spiritually awakened by picking up a Bible and reading a passage? Quite a few, I imagine.) In other words, Enns holds what we might regard as a pretty high doctrine of Scripture. However, what this book gets at is the fleshing out of such a doctrine. And more to the point, the fleshing out of such a doctrine in light of new evidence, or old evidence seen in new light. As such, Enns argues that "we must be willing to engage that evidence and adjust our doctrine accordingly". The Catholic Church re-thinking that whole geocentric view of the universe is one precedent for such doctrinal adjustment based on new evidence, so Enns doesn't think he's petitioning for anything new, and he's right. Those presently imprisoned by the Church for holding a less-then-orthodox view of Scripture will be demanding a re-trial, one feels.
The evidence (which as yet is unspecified) is seen as inherently problematic to evangelical doctrine. So what do most evangelicals do? Defend defend defend! Understandable really, given that the natural human response to an attack is some form of defense. This dialectical tension among scholars during the 20th century could be called the "battle for the Bible". In fact, a scholar by the name of Dr Harold Lindsell wrote a book entitled The Battle for the Bible, in which he adamantly defended the inerrancy of Scripture. So much so that if you believed that Peter only denied Jesus 3 times instead of 6, you might be accused of being "soft of Scripture". I know.
Given what Enns affirms at the beginning of the book -- the Bible is a gift from God -- you may think he's fighting on the side of the theological right in the battle for the Bible. In a way he is, but he is not fighting with the usual weapons. In fact he's not really fighting at all. He's listening to the voice of the evidence which has been thrown at evangelicals over the years, and instead of shouting over it, he's allowing it to shape his conviction that the Bible is God's Word. It's a sort of jujitsu maneuver that the apostle Paul would be proud of, where evidence that is seen to be harmful to one's perspective is turned on its head and becomes a tool for solidifying one's perspective. Enns doesn't claim to solve all the problems of course, but rather he intends to fashion a "theological paradigm" where the evidence finds a comfortable home without the need to uproot the foundations of age-old doctrines. Enns attempts to do this by simply "listening to how the Bible itself behaves", and trying, as much as it is possible, to suspend some of the preconceptions that dominate our ideas about Scripture. In fact, one of the central themes of Inspiration and Incarnation is the following:
The problems many of us fell regarding the Bible may have less to do with the Bible and more to do with our own preconceptions.
No comments:
Post a Comment