I am afraid I arrived at the near opposite conclusion. Regardless of my disagreement (and befuddlement) with Professor Enns regarding his various interpretations and understanding of the Bible, I was especially struck with the core incoherence of his basic philosophy. He arrives at numerous conclusions for which he had already dismantled any logical basis on which to arrive at those conclusions.
He goes to great lengths to specify that there is no “teacher’s manual” that gives us THE answers about God’s nature. That’s not what the Bible is; God never revealed himself in that way. OK, fine. Let’s work with that idea.
So then, he makes various claims about what he thinks God wants from us… God is for gender equality, for instance. Further, he is rather generous with his disapproval of certain alternate views of God; for instance, the warlike tribal deity of the ancient tribal Israelites. So Dr. Enns condemns the views of the ancient Hebrews and their tribal, warlike deity. He instead endorses a peaceful, gender-equality supporting God consistent with the values of 21st century progressives.
On what basis does he claim that his view of God is “right”, and that of the ancient Israelites is “wrong”?
If he is consistent with his position, he ought to recognize that he has no basis whatsoever for claiming that his view of God is any more or less true, accurate, or valid than any others. The Ancient Israelites imagined God as they needed him to be. Later Scripture reimagined him as their culture and personal preferences demanded. Dr. Enns reimagines God as his own subculture and personal preferences dictate. Everyone has the right to reinvent God, he claims. But if so, none of them can make any claim to be any more true than any other.
It gets worse, though. I imagine Dr Enns would likely condemn the views of Westboro Baptist Church. But again, on what basis? According to him, everyone has the same right to reimagine God as makes sense to them based on their (sub)culture… just as he believes the Bible gives us all the right to do. So he interprets God as supporting gender equality, and the folks at Westboro Baptist interpret God as hating all homosexuals… reimagining God according to their own culture and needs just as Dr. Enns has endorsed. They are only doing what he says God wants us all to do. So how could he condemn their views?
—He can maintain that God hasn’t revealed himself in any substantial (teacher’s manual) manner… but must then conclude that the folks at Westboro are just as valid in reimagining God as he is.
—Or he can continue to claim his view of God is right, and those of us biblicists, ancient Hebrews, and the folks at Westboro are faulty. But if so, he must appeal to some revelation from God… some reference in the “teacher’s manual”, that specifies that God does prefer certain things to others.
The one thing he cannot consistently or coherently do is what he is doing… claiming that God hasn’t revealed himself to anyone, that all Scripture are progressive “reimagining”, and everyone similarly has the right to reimagine God, but then claim that his view or approach to God is superior to others who have simply reimagined God in a different manner than he has. He can’t logically embrace both. So insofar as he is trying to do maintain both positions, though, I can’t agree with you regarding thinking particularly clearly about his own philosophy or in search of understanding.