Westminster was well within its rights to dismiss Peter Enns. That statement may come as a shock to some, but as a simple matter of fact, institutions are within their rights to establish boundaries. Just as Enns stepped outside those boundaries in the exercise of his academic freedom (and he had every right to do so!) WTS had the same right to take action to preserve its own standards.

Too often these days ‘individual rights’ are seen as the summit of all truth and the exercise of personal beliefs the standard by which everything else is judged. But I maintain that institutions have both a right and a responsibility to preserve their own standards.

Let me offer a few examples: suppose you belong to a Church which believes in the divinity of Christ and for some reason or other you hire there a Pastor who is a Unitarian. The Church has every right to dismiss him once the truth of his beliefs comes out in public statements. Or suppose you belong to the Boy Scouts and a young lady wishes to become a member of the troop- but she is denied access. Has she been mistreated? Absolutely not- since she knew from the very beginning that the ‘Boy Scouts’ was an organization for boys.

WTS was well within its rights. Enns knew what it stood for before he joined the faculty. He knew their viewpoints and he decided to disagree with them. He could, and should, if he felt compelled, speak his mind. But he should not be surprised (and no one should) when WTS asked him to leave.

Again, Enns can say and write what he wants. And – my point is – so can Westminster Theological Seminary. Divorce is sometimes the only avenue when two parties come to a clear parting of the ways and there are irreconcilable differences. No one has the right to be outraged at Westminster any more than anyone has the right to be angry at a wife whose husband has cheated on her and she decides on divorce. Enns cheated. Westminster wants a divorce.