Theology for the Masses

I like the way Peter Enns articulates the problem of myth and biblical studies, especially given our discussions on the term.

The Following is from Page 40 of Inspiration and Incarnation:

Christians recoil from any suggestion that Genesis is in any way embedded in the mythologies of the ancient world.  On one level this is understandable.  After all, if the Bible and the gospel are true, and if that truth is bound up with historical events, you can’t have the beginning of the Bible get it so wrong.  It is important to understand, however, that not all historians of the ancient Near East use the word myth simply as shorthand for untrue, made-up, [or] storybook.  It may include these ideas for some, but many who use the term are trying to get at something deeper.  A more generous way of defining myth is that it is an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we?  Where do we come from?

I think that is a definition we can all agree upon, no?

I, like a lot of the Christian side of the blogosphere, have taken more than a fleeting interest in the Enns/Westminster controversy.

For a run down of what the hub-ub is all about, check out Kingdom People :: The Peter Enns Controversy:

1. Enns has been criticized for emphasizing the human nature of Scripture over against the divine.
2. Enns has written that the first chapters of Genesis are firmly grounded in ancient myth, which he defines as “an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins in the form of stories.”
3. Enns claims that Scripture is inspired and inerrant, however the way he describes Scripture seems to counter that belief.
4. Enns does not seek to harmonize seemingly-contradictory parts of Scripture because he believes the diversity of Scripture is complementary.
5. Enns rejects the idea of objective unbiased historiography.

Here is an exchange between Paul Helm and Enns about Helm’s review of Enns’ book.

• Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament by Peter Enns Review by Paul Helm
• A Response to Paul Helm’s Review of Inspiration and Incarnation
• Analysis Extra: ‘Inspiration and Incarnation’ one more time

Here is an interesting (and instructive) review of Helm’s review by Cdero’s Weblog entitled Bible Monopoly. Here are the central tenets of Bible Monopoly:

* An unwillingness to deal with the plural complexity of interpretation
* A failure to wrestle with the difficult matters of Biblical scholarship
* A failure to see the provisional nature of scripture
* An obsession with turning honest interaction with extra Biblical data into an evil foe of orthodoxy
* A tendency to use past theologians (the one’s they agree with) as the standard of Biblical interpretation

To say on top of what people are saying about this situation, check out Google’s Blogsearch and Technorati’s watchlist.