A Young Preacher’s Thoughts on John Frame’s “Escondido Theology”

Close to this time last year, the most controversial book in the evangelical world was Rob Bell’s Love Wins (or at least, the most controversial anticipated book release).  This year, John Frame’s Escondido Theology:  A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology (hereafter, ET) has garnered a reaction from almost everyone in the Reformed community.  There has already been an entire response released from Westminster Seminary California (WSCal) written by Robert Godfrey, a response by Michael Horton, and a couple of blog posts from Daryl G. Hart.

The following is not a full-fledged review, but it is a collection of thoughts on the book by a young preacher in the Reformed tradition (my own denomination is the ARP Church).  I provide a summary of Frame’s main contentions, some helpful quotes, and my own analysis at points.  Overall, I am in agreement with Frame where he critiques ET, but that doesn’t mean he himself can’t be more balanced or is immune to critique.

Prelimary Comments

The book suffers from some immediate problems that might frustrate a serious reader.  First, the content of ET is book reviews, most of which have been published online or elsewhere.  Thus, unless you think a few new book reviews are worth $25, the book is a bit expensive. (Though I do think the introductory chapter is worth a lot to one who is interested in this debate.)

Second, Frame’s critique of ET is limited in two significant ways.  He is only critiquing three full-time professors at WSCal (Hart is an adjunct), and the critiques aren’t comprehensive.  Indeed, it is probably the case that Horton, Clark, and VanDrunen have views that are, for the most part, shared by their colleagues.  However, this isn’t necessarily clear from reading ET.  Yet, if only three full-time faculty are being critiqued, is it fair to call their views the “Escondido Theology” and perhaps implicate the rest of WSCal’s faculty?  Maybe the label “Klinean Theology” would be better, or perhaps HorClarDrunen Theology (only half kidding).  It would be a shame for all WSCal faculty to have a negative reputation.  I have personally benefited from certain full-time (Dennis Johnson) and part-time (Edward Welch, David Powlison, Timothy Lane) faculty.

In addition, whatever one thinks of Frame’s book reviews, a critique of someone’s thought should include a more comprehensive critique that spans most of the major works of the one being critiqued.  In taking Horton, for example, Frame only critiques three of Horton’s books (Christless Christianity, Covenant and Eschatology, and a very brief critique of A Better Way).  Yet, other works by Horton may need examination to offer a more competent critique (e.g. Where in the World is the Church, People and Place, The Gospel Commission, The Christian Faith, The Law of Perfect Freedom, etc.).  This would require an entire restructuring of the book, and Frame notes how he values book reviews.  Still, a different format with a more comprehensive critique of ET theologians might better serve the Reformed community.

Third, as Frame admits (p. xl-xliii), his personal history with the men critiqued and the school examined makes him a target to be accused of allowing unfair bias to color his theological critique.  Reading Frame’s testimony of his departure from WSCal is saddening to the reader.  Yet, throughout the book, Frame gives details of his tenure at WSCal that border on hearsay.  I wish Frame would have left the issue alone after the introductory chapter as his comments don’t promote unity, and they may drive away some readers. (Frame also seems less than charitable a few places in the book.  His critique of Horton’s academic climate is a bit harsh (p. 199-200), as is his handling of Hart’s book, A Secular Faith, where on p. 249, Frame asserts that Hart would call non-2k views heretical.)

Despite these setbacks, ET is a very interesting read, and I think it is an important book which covers an important theological debate.  I’ll limit the rest of my comments in examining how Frame approaches the various themes of ET.

Worship, Confessionalism, Ecclesiology

Perhaps the issue that hits home with Frame the most has to do with the doctrine of the church, ecclesiology.  Within ecclesiology are other debatable topics that Frame takes on such as worship, confessionalism, preaching, and contextualization.

The logic of Two Kingdoms extends pretty well to the above mentioned topics, and Frame often notes the logical connections for the reader.  In sum, if 2K (in the Klinean/Escondido sense) is true, then the visible church has its own isolated, separate existence from other earthly affairs.  This means that its corporate worship should be a culture unto itself, should emphasize the “not of the world” over the “in this world” motif, should concern itself with proclamation and redemptive-historical preaching, being gathered over being scattered, etc.

Another central disagreement between Frame and ET theologians is how “Reformed” is defined.  Clark in his Recovering the Reformed Confession gives a much narrower views of “Reformed” than Frame.  Frame states, “What Clark does in this book is to advocate a kind of Reformed theology and church life that appeals to him more than the recent versions…I would propose understanding the Reformed community as a historical community that began as Clark describes, but which no longer follows the original pattern in detail.”  On top of p. 73, Frame correctly asserts that the original Reformed community wasn’t uniform on everything, and greater diversity entered later.  Indeed, the amazing story of Reformed Orthodoxy is that there is much uniformity and many issues of theology, but the seeming unity that Clark describes is a stretch.  This is why the word “Reformed” has “fuzzy boundaries” (p. 74), not in the sense that any content may be poured into the term, but that no Christian theological tradition ever maintains its monolithic structure for very long.  I think many, including ET theologians, would benefit from William B. Evans’ thoughts on confessional hermeneutics.

I agree with Frame that Clark and others would seem to violate their strong stance on confessionalism.  First, issues that ET seems to make a priority for Reformed folk are not talked about in the Reformed confessions (RH preaching, law-gospel dichotomy, 2K theology, etc.).  Second, 2K theology as construed in ET is in contradiction to the original 1647 WCF in 23.2-3 (p. 87).  Even the revised versions in America, 23.3 would seem to contradict 2K theology in speaking of the civil magistrate as a “nursing father” to the church.  Frame’s point is not that 2K is necessarily wrong, or that Clark’s view of confessionalism is wrong (though he does think they are wrong).  Rather, Frame is pointing out the glaring inconsistency in ET and that history is not on their side (see Frame’s critique of Hart on this matter, p. 268-69).

Regarding contextualization in ministry, worship, and preaching, Frame goes after Horton pretty hard, though he paints all of ET as being against communicating the gospel in a relevant manner (p. 16).  At one point, Frame takes Horton’s critique of contextualization as a confusion over the relationship between God’s sovereignty of human moral responsibility (p. 20, n18). (Which itself is a confessional issue.)

While Horton’s language regarding relevance, contextualization, and communication is wrong at worst, and confusing at best, I wonder if Horton really dislikes contextualization as such but is reacting against certain movements in their attempts at contextualization (seeker-sensitive, emergent, etc.).  Frame does note Horton’s concern for communication on some level (p. 278).

I will cover some aspects on the debate over preaching later in this review, but I found Andrew Sandlin’s appendix to chapter 2 to be helpful.  In sum, Sandlin claims that Frame’s case against Horton’s view that preaching should be less about practical application, felt needs, subjective response, etc. and more about the objective work of Christ in the gospel.  Horton promotes a redemptive-historical model of preaching that some would classify as a monoredemptive-historical homiletic.  Yet, as Sandlin points out, the NT has examples of exemplary exegesis, calling the reader to positively imitate OT saints, etc.  Though Frame/Sandlin are correct, I think even they should give WSCal a little more credit with what they are trying to do.  A preacher might preach a text, and he could apply it in its micro, macro, or meta (i.e. canonical, Christ-centered) sense.  Sandlin/Frame are upset that the micro (and even macro) are swallowed up by the meta in Horton’s homiletic.  In my reading of Horton (as well as Dennis Johnson, WSCal’s preaching professor) there is an affirmation of the micro, but it should never be preached apart from the meta (the indicative –> imperative paradigm).  Obviously, the overall thrust of the NT would have us emphasize the meta and not the isolated micro, but Frame/Sandlin are correct to point out that there is no written rule in the Bible which says the preacher of a text must always give such emphasis to the meta.  I myself think the approach of WSCal is very helpful and produces great sermons (obviously, when done well, e.g. Tim Keller).  But Sandlin/Frame win the debate in terms of precision. (Interestingly, Horton has recently published a blog on “Application in Sermons” which is very different from his rhetoric in Christless Christianity.  Although, he is still off point when he claims that a sermon must never end with an exhortation or imperative, but rather must go back to the indicative of the gospel.  In general, I think ending with Christ and the gospel is the best and most affection-rousing means to end a sermon, but the Bible never states such a requirement either explicitly or implicitly.)

Two Kingdoms and Politics

Frame notes the confusing and contradictory quality of Hart and others in claiming strong historical precedent for their position while also admitting their position is contrary to the Reformers who thought through these issues within the context of Christendom (p. 4).  Indeed, Frame is correct in his critique of Clark’s book, Recovering the Reformed Confession, that 2K political theology is a distinctly American, not European, phenomenon (p. 5).  Though Kline’s exegesis provides a basis for this theology, it seems to me that 2K theology as construed in ET is a reaction to the Religious Right and other evangelical political movements.

Much of the appeal of 2K is found in David VanDrunen’s case for natural law as distinct from supernatural revelation and that natural law is both sufficient and reasonably knowable apart from Scripture.  Frame obviously disagrees with this assessment, and I would side with Frame.  Most anyone who considers themselves “Van Tilian” would lean toward Frame in this debate.  Frame agrees with VanDrunen as to the existence of natural law, but not its use (p. 128).  He also makes the excellent point that supernatural revelation is not just for sinners who need a Savior, but God gave supernatural revelation to Adam and Eve in their prefall state, even in revealing his law (p. 129).

Two problems with VanDrunen’s view of 2K that Frame points out are worth noting.  First, Frame makes a comparison between VanDrunen’s 2K and how biblical errantists claim that the Bible only speaks to spiritual matters. (p. 132) Now, to be fair to ET 2K proponents, especially VanDrunen, they do not use the language of “limited inerrantists” or errantists, but the implication of the comparison is that 2Kers may be closer to Barthianism than Reformed theology when it comes to Scripture’s application.  Its a critique worth considering.  Second, VanDrunen’s biblical-covenantal hermeneutic in support of 2K theory, Frame thinks, reads too much into the biblical text. (p. 140) As Frame noted with Hart, I wonder if our American political context influences VanDrunen’s exegesis.  It seems that an important question to ask is what is the chance that a particular relation between two kingdoms taught in God’s Word is finally realized in human history over the last two hundred years?  Did God himself presuppose “the secular” before there was a “secular”.  (Don’t tell John Milbank.  He would be crushed.)

A more balanced view of relating natural and special revelation is summarized by Frame, “God designed us to gain moral knowledge, not by supernatural revelation alone or natural revelation alone, but by an organic combination of the two.”  Many have called this a “two books” model of Christian epistemology (p. 132).  I think VanDrunen (and ET as a whole) would be better suited to argue, ala Calvin, a distinction between God as Creator and God as Redeemer, and allow Scripture to help decipher the content for each of those categories rather than the simplistic natural law perspective of VanDrunen.  This perspective could still preserves religious liberty, separation of church and state, etc.   Also, I would commend all readers to read James Anderson’s critique of VanDrunen.

Law-Gospel

For me, this is the most confusing issue in the debate over ET.  I will hear from ET the law-gospel dichotomy hermeneutic, but when I search for any quotes from them that affirm the third use of the law, I find them.  In wanting to apply the principle of charity, I should affirm ET theologians and claim that they hold to the third use of the law.

So, is Frame wrong to say that ET is “Lutheran” in its construal of law-gospel?  Frame himself “backtracks” (p. 58) and offers an important clarifying point, “Horton here again is arguing for an emphasis, certainly; I cannot believe he intends to absolutely prohibit the use of Scripture to guide us in our ‘secular’ activies.  But as he presents his argument, he gives no encouragement at all to Christians who are seeking to apply their faith to the world in which they live.” (p. 52) Perhaps this is the essential problem with ET, a lack of biblical balance.  The reactionary nature of theology and philosophy can doom many a persons.  I am thankful for the pithy saying I learned in my own seminary studies, “Be as balanced as the Bible is balanced.”  I think it is safe to say that Horton is imbalanced in his discussion of law-gospel.  Frame offers, in my view, a more balanced view of “gospel” in relation to other emphases that has some overlap with ET writings but , again, provides more balance (p. 297-98). (On p. 312 in a footnote, Frame makes the all important point that there is a difference between emphasis and antithesis.)

Concluding Thoughts

First, much of this debate gets back to key disagreements between Cornelius Van Til and Meredith Kline. Frame sets up this dichotomy early in the book.  In reading Frame’s review of Kline’s Kingom Prologue, it struck me that Kline’s change in theology came in the 1970s (or at least began to manifest itself more in that decade) – the same time that Christian Reconstructionism/Theonomy was on the rise.  Kline’s biblical and covenantal theology, which became foundation to ET, was in contrast to theonomy.  I wonder if the root cause of this theological disagreement with ET has to do with the rise of theonomy in American Reformed theology and the attempt to see it defeated in all its forms?

Second, I am sympathetic to Frame’s goal for the book.  Early on, Frame writes, “I hope to remove forever the perception that the Escondido theology is a standard of orthodoxy, or more orthodox than other forms of Reformed theology.” (p. 16)  Frame isn’t necessarily wanting his reader to primarily come away from reading this book as a Framean on preaching, worship, culture, etc.  In a surprise to some, Frame admits that certain positions of ET are “within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy.” (p. 18) In reading Frame on this, I thought back to his article “Penultimate Thoughts on Theonomy” where he is most critical not of theonomy’s propositions, but of theonomy’s posture.  Or, rather, Frame is critical of the posture of theonomists.  In my reading of Horton, Hart, Clark, and others, I would have to agree with Frame that these theologians haven’t presented their distinctive views in the most winsome manner, and I’m afraid the reputation of WSCal has suffered for it. (Thankfully, Clark removed is often controversial blog, The Heidelblog, though Hart still writes on his Old Life blog, mainly against Frame, The Gospel Coalition, and other overtly evangelical perspectives.)  Perhaps, if Tim Keller is right, there is a softening of the Escondido edge and more unity is being forged, at least when it comes to the Christ and culture debate.

Third, Frame’s precisionist mindset and method is a partial cause of his dissonance with Horton, Hart, and Clark.  In his critique of Christless Christianity, Frame continually critiques Horton’s lack of precision (p. 26-27).  Indeed, the academic theologian Horton is a different writer than popular writer Horton (p. 199), as is the case with most theologians who are blessed with different reading audience demographics.  Like Frame, I prefer the academic theologian Horton since that Horton is more precise and nuanced.  Horton’s other work, though, is mostly polemical (certainly less irenic), and in the end, Horton’s reactionary theology leaves him wide open for critique. This is why Frame goes after Horton’s critique of Joel Osteen.  Disappointingly, many, including Horton and Clark, have claimed that Frame defends Osteen, when in reality Frame offers his own strong critique of Osteen (p. 30, 37).  I am upset that many Reformed folk, including scholars, have misread Frame on this issue.

In my own reading of Horton’s popular books, I’ve tried to be charitable and ask if he is defining terms in a manner that is less denotative and more connotative.  Two words that come to mind, again, are contextualization/relevance and subjectivity.  Its possible that Frame is correct in his strong rebuke of Horton’s handling of these concepts and terms, but I wonder if Horton is reacting to certain functions of these terms and lacks clarity to the reader.  Perhaps Frame could have (maybe should have) asked Horton for clarity, but the strained relationship between these men contributes to their lack of conversation.  (Though Frame admits in a footnote on  p. 245 that Horton may be working with different definitions of these terms.  Yet, I still agree with Frame that Horton would be of better service to readers of his popular books to provide a definition of these terms if he is abandoning the more common usage of them.) In the end, Frame rightly notes that ET theologians, like Horton, would be better off to provide examples and analysis of relevance/contextualization so that there would be less confusion as to where Horton and others stand on the issue (p. 296).

Also, Frame takes Clark to task for his lack of clarity and charity (p. 77).  I wonder if Clark and others were more charitable and had more clarity if there would be more Christlike conversation between Frame and ET theologians.  Then again, part of this lack of unity may be due to Horton and Frame’s disagreement as to how the Reformed community relates to evangelical Christians with Horton’s “Village Green” analogy (p.155).

While I don’t suspect that this book will foster greater unity between the scholars involved in this debate, perhaps the goal of Frame’s book will fulfilled (i.e. younger theologians not viewing ET as the only Reformed option).  I myself know young men in seminary who used to agree with ET theologians on these controversial issues, but now they would offer a critique in the same way Frame does (at least on some issues).  So, I don’t see WSCal recruiting and influencing young pastors and young men to their “tribe” as well as other sectors in the American Reformed context are doing.

“Planting, Watering, Growing: Planting Confessionally Reformed Churches in the 21st Century”: A Review

The plethora of books, articles, and conferences on church planting is has caught the attention of many within Reformed and evangelical circles.  Church planting is denigrated by some as the ‘hipster’ fad within some denominations and networks while others see church planting as a kingdom necessity to offset the number of dying churches in America as well as the dramatic population increase in metropolitan cities.

Planting, Watering, Growing:  Planting Confessionally Reformed Churches in the 21^st Century edited by Daniel R. Hyde and Shane Lems (published 2011 by Reformation Heritage Books) is a unique set of essays by ministers and theologians, most who serve in the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA).  As the subtitle of the work suggests, the goal of this church planting book is to set forth a vision of church planting that is uniquely confessional and Reformed.  While other church plant manuals and guides might strongly imply a Reformed-ish theology and confess some of the ancient creeds of the church (or perhaps modern creeds, e.g. Lausanne or ICBI), Hyde and Lems believe that they and other contributors offer a unique perspective in church planting (though they favorably cite Planting an Orthodox Presbyterian Church as similar to their vision).

Some might be hesitant to take this work seriously as the URCNA and similar bodies haven’t made headlines with their success in church planting.  Others might assume that this book will be one that bashes other kingdom works in non-Reformed or pseudo-Reformed denominations and network.  However, there is much that is positive that one may gain from this work. (And there is even praise given to the Acts 29 Network, Ed Stetzer, Tim Keller, and other individuals and networks known for church planting vision.) (p. 236, 238)

First, there is an almost constant emphasis on mission, even being missional.  Reformed churches are often known as being the ‘frozen chosen’ (p. 25), but this book tries to overcome that moniker to present a spirited view of mission and fulfilling the Great Commission.  In the opening chapter, Brian Vos boldly states, “A church that does not die to self in service to Christ will necessarily turn inward and thereby lose her life.  The work of missions, evangelism, and church planting is vital to the life of the church.” (p. 15)

In writing about the heart needed for church planting, Paul T. Murphy is adamant that evangelism and mission isn’t just a tack-on to the church budget, but rather it is the church’s “identity”  so that we might build a worshipping community. (p. 70)  Murphy even goes on to give something close to an incarnational analogy when he says, “Since God is a missionary God who sent a missionary Son, who together sent a missionary Spirit, every church should be a missionary church.  What we need to do away with in the hearts and minds of our people is the distinction between a maintenance church and a missionary church.” (p. 71) Murphy even claims that evangelizing is the “responsibility of every Christian.” (p. 72)  Hyde has an excellent section of the church planter and witnessing (p. 117).  But perhaps this theme may be summarized by Lems who states, “We don’t plant churches just to reach the underfed; we plant churches to also reach those who have never been fed, who need to be led – like the Samaritan woman – to the well of Jesus.” (p. 235)

Second, there is an affirmation of the principle of contextualization.  The notion of contextualization is a controversial one, even among those in the same denomination.  Many of the church planting networks are known for their particular views on contextualization.   I found three of the chapters in the final section on the context of church planting to be outstanding (“Church Planting in a Melting Pot” by Shane Lems, “The Cultural Factor in Church Planting” by Mitchell Persaud, and “Growing Contextually Reformed Churches:  Oxymoron or Opportunity?” by Phil Grotenhuis).  Lems’ chapter is especially worth reading.

Lems makes the case that cultural context needs to be taken more seriously by church planters, though less seriously than our confessions. (p. 232) We don’t plant churches in a cultural vacuum, the planter must know and engage the cultural context wherein he plants. (p. 235) Lems compares church planters to missionaries, who must gain a competent understanding of the culture they live in.  Because of this, Lems firmly believes that a church plant “should be open to all sorts of peoples, traditions, and customs, and it should not try to force everyone into the same traditional mold.  What should bind the church plant (and all churches) together is the common confession of faith in Christ.” (p. 236) Lems goes on to give helpful suggestions on contextualization when it comes to worship, a meeting place, the church name, clothes, titles, language, Christian liberty, etc.

Other implications of contextualization noted by authors is that church planting should not demand a cookie-cutter method, which would be contrary to the theology of Luke-Acts. (p. 245) In addition, a more indirect (re: relational) approach to evangelism may be better suited in our post-Christian culture than the direct approach seen in many evangelism methods, e.g. Evangelism Explosion. (p. 248-250) Contextualization also should have us consider stylistic and semantic issues in worship and in the church’s ministries. (p. 250-272)

In summarizing the overall message of this book on contextualization, the authors, almost universally, would say that contextualization is unavoidable, we are tempted to overcontextualize or undercontextualize, the Scripture (and subordinate confessions) are always normative, and we need to pray for wisdom as to how we handle issues not explicitly mentioned in Scripture or our confessions.  One suggestion I would make is that WCF 1.6 is a guiding confessional principle on contextualization.

Finally, there is a helpful chapter  by Paul Murphy entitled “Church Planting:  A Covenantal and Organic Approach” that every church planter should consider.  Murphy, though positive about the evangelistic quality of a worship service, sees weekly, neighborhood ministry as an organic model for doing mission.  Murphy gives a test case showing how his congregation in New York City ministers to unbelievers through creative ministries that meet people where they are.  The ‘covenantal’ aspect deals more with an emphasis on families, Christian day schools, and children in worship.  Of the three, only the first and third distinctive may be said to be ‘normative’ if one is trying to extract a ‘covenantal’ approach from Scripture.  While I personally am a fan of Christian schools as a means to doing mission, I would put that distinctive below families and children in worship. (Although, one might need to handle families and children in a different manner, depending on the cultural context.  If one is church planting in a city that has a high divorce rate, fewer children, and more singles, the communication of these principles will look different than in a typical Reformed church in the suburbs or rural countryside.)

While these two themes in the book, along with many other helpful sections and chapters, are enough to warrant a positive review, there do remain some concerns that I want the reader to be aware of.  While the book as a whole is positive when it comes to mission and contextualization, there are occasional contradictions by other authors (and sometimes the same author) on these themes.

Michael Horton doesn’t see a problem with the term missional if applied in a faithful manner.  (p. 54) Though, Horton is not always clear as to how creative a local church may be when he claims, “The mission of the church is simply to execute these tasks faithfully.” (p. 55) “These tasks” are the proper preaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments, and discipline.  Yet, this emphasis would have one look to Lord’s Day worship not as one of the most important aspects of the life of the church, but as the only aspect of the life of the church.  This is seemingly in tension with Hyde’s claim that church plants must be “creative” and “proactive” to begin a work of the kingdom instead of just waiting for people to come to a worship gathering (“Build it and they will come” philosophy of ministry).  Murphy also seems in tension with Horton in stating, “I do not want to diminish the significance of the official nature of that office and proclamation, but in addition to an official proclamation of the gospel in preaching, there is an unofficial spreading of the gospel in preaching.” (p. 73) Perhaps a distinction between Ministry (Lord’s Day worship) and ministry (done by the laypeople during the week) would be helpful as this seems to be the point Paul makes in Eph 4:11-13.

I’m also still confused as to what makes a church plant “confessional” and “Reformed” versus those that aren’t.  While I think many of us might be able to tell if a church is these things, there wasn’t a chapter in the book or a long section explaining these distinctives.  It seems that some of the contributors would criticize churches that are members of Reformed denominations that hold to a historic Reformed confession but that there is still “something missing” from these churches.  What is that something missing?  I could never put my finger on it.  Maybe they are missing a particular view of confessional subscription, a particular order of worship, etc?

Also, would the contributors of this book admit that a non-Reformed church, even a non-denominational church, might still be confessional or even Reformed on some level?  Now, I myself am a member of a Reformed denomination (ARP) and I think there is much benefit to being connectional in such a manner, but I wish more clarity and precision was present in the book to look at some of these issues.  Perhaps the lack of such precision has to do with the fact that several of the chapters (six total) are reprinted from other publications.  

There is plenty of material that this book doesn’t cover, and the confusion and contradictions betweens some of the authors diminishes the book’s overall usefulness.  Still, it warrants a positive review and recommendation.  I would have aspiring and veteran church planters read it as well as denominational officials interested in the work of church planting.

Some Thoughts Concerning Pete Enns “The Evolution of Adam”

The official Blog Tour of Pete Enns’ newly released book The Evolution of Adam did not include Cosmic Christianity .  However, I finished reading the book last night after checking it out from a seminary library and thought I would make some comments.  This should not be taken as a full-length (or short-length) review, but only some initial thoughts off of a recent reading. 

First, Enns doesn’t give his reading audience enough hermeneutical and exegetical options to make decisions for themselves.  He claims to be writing this book for evangelicals that wrestle with modern science and an infallible Bible, and we assume he would want to assist them through the murky waters of our first parents and recent findings in genetics.  Yet, after Enns gives the reader material concerning the literary genre of the Pentateuch and its literary comparison to other ANE myths, he corners one into a particular conclusion (or, at least a better conclusion than some irrational alternative).  Yet, plenty of biblical scholars who recognize the parallels between OT literature and other ANE literature acknowledge much of what Enns puts in his book, but they don’t see only two options before them (the Bible has nothing to do with ANE literature, or the Bible cares little for history when it parallels ANE literature).  John Walton, John Oswalt, Bruce Waltke, and others have shown a better and more nuanced way to handle this issue as evangelicals.  Not surprisingly, Enns does something similar in Inspiration and Incarnation where he assumes a major problem for evangelicals even though evangelicals have been thoroughly aware of the “problem” for a good while.

Second, Enns clearly has shown the implication of his work found in Inspiration and Incarnation in claiming that Paul (and, by consequence, Scripture) teaches error.  While Enns does try to soften the blow a bit by telling the reader that his exegesis of Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Tim 2, etc. isn’t the mainstream evangelical viewpoint and that it is a difficult conclusion to accept (even claiming that his perspective shouldn’t be the last viewpoint on the subject), there is a serious blow dealt to the doctrine of Scripture.  The nuance of inerrancy as stated all the way back to Warfield and through doctrinal statements such as Chicago is that while Scripture may contain facets that are false or immoral, it is what Scripture teaches or intends/means for the reader that is inerrant or infallible.  Yet, Enns goes against this nuance in claiming that Scripture and Paul teach a historical Adam and intend for the reader to adopt the same conclusion even though such a belief is false.

Third, in relation to my first point, Enns doesn’t give the reader the various hermeneutical paradigms by which they may interpret Scripture.  Enns’ hermeneutic is very a narrow grammatical-historical method that has little room for any notion of sensus plenior or expanded meaning intended by the divine author.  Even if Enns doesn’t give credence to such paradigms, he should do the reader a favor and lay out those various options for him/her, especially since this field has been ripe with development and a multitude of perspectives.

Finally, Enns doesn’t just lead readers astray on the doctrine of Scripture.  He also gives credence to N.T. Wright’s interpretation of the Reformation emphasis on justification and Wright’s exegesis of Pauline soteriology/ecclesiology.  Although Enns’ comments are very dated and don’t take into account the progress of the debate in recent years (see Kevin Vanhoozer’s masterful critique of Wright), this brief section is unhelpful (and even off-topic to a certain degree).

An additional thought of mine is more existential than theological.  I get the sense from Enns in his books, blogs, and statements that he is bitter and has an agenda.  I’m sure his dismissal from Westminster Theological Seminary and, essentially, from the conservative evangelical arena has been difficult.  My sinful nature would manifest itself in a more visible manner if something similar would happen to me.  However, if any sort of agenda related to the controversy over Inspiration and Incarnation is driving his current work, then I cannot recommend Enns to students and learned laypeople.  Theology should be done with both excellence in craft as well as sanctification in one’s soul.  If either is missing, I don’t recommend that person’s work.  Even if Enns provides some helpful insights, his lack of precision and his lacking a God-honoring mindset should make pastors and scholars uneasy in recommending Enns’ scholarship.  There are plenty of other resources where one might get the best Enns offers without the worst that is present in his work.