I just found out about this controversy (late to the ball) so I’m gobbling up anything I can about it. I came to your blog and generally agreed mostly with your 5 characteristics of Bible Monopoly. I agreed with 1,2,4,& 5 but was unsure about 3, I don’t know about, something about the language you use makes it problematic. I myself graduated from the more conservative west coast version of Westminster and have seen those characteristics exhibited by the current faculty towards other Reformed seminaries over recent controversies.

But I’ve been to “Between Two Worlds” and thought it was a decent blog. Then I saw listed under your “Prophetic Leaders” Brian McLaren. And thats when I saw the chunks floating in the bottle. I consider myself an non-Reformed Historical which is Keller’s coined phrase for the type of people you’re talking about, but seeing Enns name beneath McLaren (whose works I have read) unfortunately gives me a bad taste in my mouth. Thanks A LOT man(sarcasm), now I need some gospel Pepto!

P.S. – That article of Kellers can be found here
http://www.epcnewark.org/recread/TKeller_CultureofthePCA-rev.pdf

We’re all narrow this way. Tim Keller suggests that true narrowness is not so much where we draw the lines as it is how we treat others who draw lines differently. If we feel superior and sneer, perhaps that’s where we fall into the trap of narrowness, exclusive based on our own accomplishment, not inclusive based on the finished work of Christ.

First, where the bible is “provisional” we are not at liberty to fabricate our own holy writ. This is a common mistake across the social and political spectrum, from Fundamentalism to Post Modernism; we read between the lines what we cannot find in the text and end up creating God in our own image.

Second, I think we need to have the humility to say “I don’t know” when confronted with biblical difficulties” and to not become quickly atttached to an interpretation, as if all questions must be answered.

Finally, I think getting on to and following the rugged path of Jesus will occupy us sufficiently that we need not solve all of the Bible’s mysteries. M<ost of us do not want to go that deep, we want a religion that suits our lifestyle and political views. Following Jesus, sorting out how to do what He said to do, would make us have to change our lifestyle and beliefs at the root, and it will put us at odds with the left and the right, and the middle ground as well.

Since I am clearly not a relativist, then why not engage my post and interact with me so that perhaps you may understand the post. If Paul Helm can misunderstand Peter Enns, a reform theologian, then surely I can be misunderstood as well. You are invited to ask questions if you like.