Theology for the Masses

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.

I would like to open up a free for all forum on the topic of the term myth and the ramifications the term has for biblical studies and theology.

Possible conversation starters:

• Can a myth be real? In what sense?
• How did the ancients see history? myth?
• When looking at texts that were written by the ancients, what perspective should we assume? Should we view the texts as they did, or should we approach the text in the same manner as we would one with similar features that was written today? (i.e. it looks like history, it is history)
• What unsaid connotations go along with the word myth? How does this impact
  Is there a difference between myth as a technical term and myth as a popular concept? How does this distinction in the minds of the laity impact scholar’s and theologians use of the term?
• If myth, in its technical usage, is too problematic of a term for use with the laity, what can be done about it? New term? Better educated laity?
• Most importantly, what is at stake in using the term myth?

There are just some starter questions – feel free to address any or none of the points.