I can’t say much about the accuracy of the whole review, other than that I have found John Frame to be reliable in the past. Since I never read all of Enns’ book, there’s no way I can give any more testimony about it. I did, however, read the first part (which was why I gave up in frustration) and I have to say that everything Frame asks under the heading, “Non-Uniqueness,” seems quite right. The most important quotation there is:
None of these possibilities deny that Israel’s documents were like the non-Israelite documents in significant ways. Enns rejects all these possibilities. The only argument I can find for this rejection is on p. 52, “…it would be very difficult for someone holding such a view to have a meaningful conversation with linguists and historians of the ancient world.” I cannot see this as anything but a desire for academic respectability. Enns, like many evangelicals, wants to be invited to the table with the mainstream scholars. I don’t condemn that motive, but it does not provide any kind of argument for his hypothesis.
Sound exactly right to me.
This does not mean that I think the seminary’s current crackdown is justified, even less that it shows any wisdom at all in how to manage conflict and do public relations.
I think that supposed motives aren’t always the best judge of actions. (I happen to think that dismissing Enns is largely motivated by fear of man issues… but that’s my two cents.)
I think that Enns, like many evangelicals want to be at the table with people/students who are influenced by mainstream scholars. Some of these ideas, while not talked about in church, are the bread and butter of religious education for christian students who go off to secular schools… I want to be able to relevantly speak the Gospel and the sovereignty of God to college students who might otherwise laugh at the scriptures for having what seems like problems at first. That’s a table worth sitting at, and someone needs to be bringing something to that table… because there’s a lot of confused college kids there for whom mere quotes from WFC don’t cut it.