Dr. Peter Enns suspended from WTS

[R. Scott Clark]

Joshua,

I wrote a long post in reply to your post but it got lost somehow (operator error probably).

A few points.

Studying in "Israel" is no guarantee of orthodoxy nor is studying "Egypt" no predictor of heterodoxy.

I know that you don't want to be taken as advocating anti-intellectualism but I think you are. The Reformed tradition from the 16th century through Princeton and Old Westminster was always to study at the highest levels and never to fear the best scholarship. Their criticism of the liberals was that they often did bad scholarship. We have no reason to fear good, careful scholarship.

Our churches need seminary profs who have faced the challenges of the academy at the highest levels. Yes it can be a spiritual trial but, frankly, anyone who would be a sem prof should probably endure such. It's good preparation for the work.

Doctoral work requires more money/resources than small schools (which even the largest seminaries are) usually have. The best scholars often work in the schools with the resources which allow them to conduct their research.

To say that sem profs shouldn't study in "Egypt" is to sentence our seminaries to a sort of unintended intellectual mediocrity that will not serve our churches well.

There are things that can be done to help preserve the orthodoxy of seminaries:

Vigilance and honesty. Boards and churches must be vigilant. They must hold schools to their confessional commitments. Faculty who can no longer honestly subscribe the confession should either challenge the confession in the courts/assemblies of the churches or they should leave. See Machen's Christianity and Liberalism on this.

Orthodoxy is hard work and cannot simply be assumed. It's an act of the will as much as it is an act of the intellect.

 

[DMcFadden]

And yes, at the end of the day many a student's faith that the bible was literally God's Theopneustos Word, was shaken. There was also considerable damage done via a profound cynicism about the Reformed Confessions and denominations and extensive contact with non-Conservative writings like those of Neusner and Gundry.

Gundry? Do you mean Bob Gundry? If so, then here is some support for your rant. When he was my prof back in the early 70s, we called him "Bible Bob" because he was so conservative. A couple of the neo-orthodox theologians were purged from Westmont (with either Bob's initiaitve or at least tacit support as the chair of the department). He taught me to love the Word of God and to hold tenaciously to inerrancy. Not only did I take 32 units from him, he also officiated at my wedding, was my boss as a grader in the "Bible office," I helped proof the footnotes for one of his books, and he secured for me a full-ride scholarship that paid my tuition during two years of Westmont (the world's most expensive Christian college) and all of seminary. Bob is the most intelligent human being I have ever been privileged to meet. One of his daughters teaches NT at Yale and is married to the well-known theologian Miroslav Volf.

Unfortunately, Bob is not typically remembered today for being "Bible Bob." Instead, people remember him as the guy who got expelled from the ETS back in '83 for his Midrashic view of Matthew (e.g., no star, no magi, no women in Jesus' real genealogy). More recently, Piper wrote his Counted Righteous to deal with Gundry's denial of imputation and blurring of the distinctions between justification and sanctification. How does the smartest man I ever met begin as a conservative CONSERVATIVE evangelical and end up where he did?

 

[py3ak]

Unfortunately they were also true of men like Charles Erdman, Professor of Practical Theology at Princeton. He had a legion of admirers in the student body, was praised for his irenic spirit and was viewed as the man who could carry the seminary forward in the new century - a man unafraid of new ideas and cutting edge scholarship and certainly not an out and out liberal. Machen by comparison was socially awkward and somewhat stuffy, he was characterized by Erdman as. "temperamentally defective, bitter and harsh in his judgments of others and implacable to those who [did] not agree with him." It was Erdman's camp that won the day at Princeton and paved the way for the departure of Machen and his fellow uncool, "old fashioned" malcontents. It was Erdman, a much more up-to-date, popular, and thoroughly moderate man who paved the way for the neo-orthodox takeover at Princeton and destroyed, brick by brick, the legacy of Princeton.

As D.G. Hart pointed out in his biography of Machen, it is rather ironic that the irenic Erdman would say something so harsh about the mean Machen.

 

[nicnap]

This goes back a bit...lemme just say, easy on Pratt, fellas. His take in no way questions the inspiration of Scripture. As a matter of fact, he has probably the best hermeneutics class that I have ever taken...yes, that does tie into this. His hermeneutics has a lot to do with what has been said of him here.

 

[SEAGOON]

And yes, at the end of the day many a student's faith that the bible was literally God's Theopneustos Word, was shaken. There was also considerable damage done via a profound cynicism about the Reformed Confessions and denominations and extensive contact with non-Conservative writings like those of Neusner and Gundry.

Gundry? Do you mean Bob Gundry? ... How does the smartest man I ever met begin as a conservative CONSERVATIVE evangelical and end up where he did?

Yes, I meant Robert Gundry, and unfortunately it happens all the time. Just look at what happened to Clark Pinnock, from staunch defender of Calvinism and Plenary Verbal Inspiration to Mr. Open Theism. History is full of men who began running well and then took a left turn that carried them out of the way. Usually, its a combination of factors, amongst them, the desire to be:

liked
respected
PUBLISHED
interviewed
quoted
listened to

and so on...

Let's face it, defending the old paths of established orthodoxy is almost always an E-Ticket to obscurity, you have to be of the caliber of a Mohler or a Sproul to even get noticed by the mainstream media, and then you will generally be called upon not as an authority, but a foil - a token "Dr. No" for Larry King to call in when someone else comes up with a "new" way of denying the truth. Everyone in theology these days is falling all over themselves to find a way to both say something new, maintain their "evangelical" credentials, avoid making it seem like anyone is wrong, and simultaneously make everyone but implacable grumps like us happy. Evangelicalism generally wants the "Defenders of the Faith" to go away at this point. As Mark Noll tells us, the Reformation is over, now we have to all focus on getting along and finding a way to contextualize Christianity before we become total irrelevant. I mean, how will we get published by a subsidiary of Harper Collins and justify our 58 Earned degrees if that happens??

So my friend, you and I need to get out of the way so the pop-star theologians can do what needs to be done.

 

[DMcFadden]

History is full of men who began running well and then took a left turn that carried them out of the way. Usually, its a combination of factors, amongst them, the desire to be:

liked
respected
PUBLISHED
interviewed
quoted
listened to

and so on...

So my friend, you and I need to get out of the way so the pop-star theologians can do what needs to be done.

Andy, your narrative is one of the most powerful and resonate pieces I have read in a very long time. It sounds like we share many concerns in common!

I appreciate Scott Clark's commitment to intellectual preparation. My complaint is with the all-too-typical leftward drift among broad evangelical and (even) Reformed schools. At mid life, too many of my evangelical teachers have since drifted into heterodoxy or even apostasized from the faith.

How many evangelical Christian liberal arts colleges take a stand against the nonsense of the emergent church? Most of them serve as its cheerleaders.

I agree with Dr. Clark, that what is needed to keep an institution on track is . . .

Vigilance and honesty. Boards and churches must be vigilant. They must hold schools to their confessional commitments. Faculty who can no longer honestly subscribe the confession should either challenge the confession in the courts/assemblies of the churches or they should leave.

In an earlier post, I observed much the same thing:

If my thesis that intellectual hubris will continually exert a pull away from orthodoxy can be sustained, something must be counterposed to prevent that drift. My provisional theory (and part of the reason I am hanging out with you TR folks these days) is that confessionalism honestly embraced and diligently applied functions as a check on my autonomous reason. The case of WTS demonstrates that such a corrective only works when the trustees, administration, faculty, and constituency take seriously the vigilance required.

 

[DMcFadden]

There are things that can be done to help preserve the orthodoxy of seminaries:

Vigilance and honesty. Boards and churches must be vigilant. They must hold schools to their confessional commitments. Faculty who can no longer honestly subscribe the confession should either challenge the confession in the courts/assemblies of the churches or they should leave. See Machen's Christianity and Liberalism on this.

Orthodoxy is hard work and cannot simply be assumed. It's an act of the will as much as it is an act of the intellect.

Wise words, Dr. Clark! Part of the problem is that few of us have the stomach to confront a colleague, teacher, or faculty member honestly. We do not want to be stigmatized as Machen was for being "temperamentally defective, bitter and harsh in his judgments of others and implacable." And, since we all see through a glass darkly, even fewer of us are willing to rule out of bounds the tentative exploratory comments by a trusted colleague with a life-long reputation for probity and faithfulness.

 

[Ivan]

Our anecdotal experiences aside I wonder whether a formal mentorship program could be developed, especially in Baptist churches. It worth discussion. I'm not going to get into it now because I will be hijacking this thread. Perhaps I will start a separate thread on this topic.

Please do start a thread! Again, I'm not adverse to seminary training, but a mentor is, I believe, essential. I have a young man who was ordained in our church a few months ago. I'm now his mentor as Roger was to me. That is the best way I can "repay" Roger.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Richard,

I thought someone might call me on that! (Post #59) I suppose you could say I live in the Word, and remember it by faith. I probably should change my avatar, though – this one’s about 3 years old. On my recent birthday (66) I would tell my young friends, “I’m not getting old – I’m a year closer to my eternal youth!”


Lane (#50),

Of course you’re right that there are many more issues contributing to this than the textual one, and yet….if one could state the primary watershed event in the declension of the spiritual wellbeing of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches…what would you say it was?

I would say it was when the church lost her moorings to the Reformation Bible.


Scott (#54),

Between the vitality and wisdom of the apostolic men on the one hand, and the increase in seminary-trained apostates inundating the churches on the other, what have we besides the “one or two…solid confessional seminaries” you mention to stem the tide of antichrist spirit washing through the church? Today there are a good number of outspoken men of your caliber defending the Faith, but watchmen on the wall, however astute, cannot make up for the ravages in other sectors of the City, where rebellion and destruction are rampant, and spreading.

I thank the King for the seminaries you speak of, but will they meet the need of the hour? Or that of the year to come?


Dennis (#67)

When I read what you and others write about the once-stalwart turning traitor (seeing it happen to the seeming best!), I betake myself to the Lord and ask, “Please don’t let it happen to me, Lord!”

I too think there is a danger in the “spiritual academies,” the danger of intellectual headiness departing from the restraints of suffering and humility among the rank and file believers. To be among the elite is an unsafe place. Those who maintain genuine godliness and doctrinal soundness in such an atmosphere are becoming uncommon, and must depend on God’s grace to a great degree.


Bill and Ivan,

You probably know I’m no Baptist, but I have to admit that among the Reformed Baptists there is a uniform integrity I don’t see to the same extent (and this caveat is important) in the P & R churches. I think it has to do with the mentoring in the churches. I remember when Al Martin’s church in Montville, NJ formed Trinity Ministerial Academy. From what I know of it this was a unique institution. I wonder if Reformed Baptist Seminary is of the same caliber? Looking at some of the men there it may well be.

If the Lord tarries another 50 or 70 years (I know, it doesn’t look like it, but men were certain 50 years ago He was coming quickly then as well), and our Great-heart defenders and brilliant apologists have all gone to their Reward, and the apostatizing of the seminaries continues apace, there being no sound P & R schools left, where shall the faithful pastors be found, if not those men being mentored by older faithful men?

Do we need to inaugurate a new approach?

 

[A5pointer]

From a former WTS student with permission to post:

These issues have been boiling for a great many years.
Prior to 1991 I remember
getting a letter asking everyone who graduated within
the last 10 years to essentially comment on where
Dillard/Longman were taking the Seminary. Enns is just
a further extension, as am I. It is a question
regarding rethinking inspiration and infallibility,
taking greater care to more precisely define the
human/cultural elements, particularly as they relate
to God's revelation via anthropomorphism and story.
This controversy will most certainly spill over into
the Presbyteries

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Hi,

We don't live in the Apostolic age do we? That was my first point.

Second, what evidence do you have that there is an increase in "seminary-trained apostates" inundating the church?

Let's grant this premise for the sake of discussion. What evidence do you have that there is a necessary connection between seminaries and corruption of the church? Why isn't this a example of the "after which, therefore because of which" (post hoc, ergo propter hoc) fallacy?

If I see Elmer driving away and find Bugs Bunny dead on the pavement does it follow that Elmer killed Bugs? No. Bugs could have died before Elmer. Maybe Elmer is guilty only of reckless disregard for Bugs' corpse.

How do we know it isn't congregations who are corrupting students before they get to seminary? We do spend a fair bit of time at WSC unwinding complicated balls of twine, as it were, sent to us by various congregations.

I don't deny that some seminaries have done much damage, but When I say "one or two" I was using a little understatement. The confessional Reformed churches are blessed with a remarkable number of faithful confessional seminaries. They could always be improved but arguably things are better now, in that respect, than they were during the glory days of Old Princeton when there were (so far as I know) fewer such institutions.

I don't think you can blame "seminaries" in general for whatever decline you perceive. Less training and more ignorance certainly won't help things! Even in the CRC, which is moving toward the mainline via evangelicalism, it is probably not the seminary that led the way. Most of the time, the seminary has been relatively conservative. The college, however, is another question. It has been far ahead of the seminary in pushing broad evangelicalism and even liberalism. So, is the answer to get rid of Christian colleges too? To ban higher education? No. The Synod of the CRC failed to due diligence and to hold faculty members to their confession of faith. They allowed finger-crossing and closed their eyes to what was happening. See the interesting essay in the latest Nicotine Theological Journal on Calvin College on this very question.

In fact, viewed historically, we (the confessional Reformed churches) are climbing out of a deep hole. When modernism undermined the faith of the mainline churches the work of many faithful was wrecked. The RCUS went from being hundreds of thousands to 1900. The OPC was a tiny fragmentof the PCUSA. The URCs left the 300,000 member CRC to become 15,000.

Since the early 20th century, however, we've been making a slow comeback. Meanwhile the mainline churches have continued to decline. When I was a student out here in the early-mid 80s there were few NAPARC congregations now there are many. In the same period the mainline has only declined. In that respect WSC has helped to spark a real turn around from 30 years ago.

One final thing to consider. The controversies we've faced over the last 30 years within NAPARC haven't always come from "seminary-trained" men. I witnessed the theonomy fight in the RCUS in the 80s and it was led by non-sem trained men. We then had the KJV only fight, again led by non-seminary trained men. Now the FV controversy has a significant influence from non-sem trained men (e.g. Lusk and Wilson). Yes, there were sem-trained men who helped to facilitate these problems but it was sem-trained men who helped steer the churches through them too.

The issue isn't "seminary-trained" men. The issue is integrity and the will to be orthodox (and properly defining orthodoxy by the Reformed confessions).

 

[Herald]

Mentorship Thread

For those of you interested in a separate thread on mentorships as a method of training men for ministry, you can go HERE.

 

[DMcFadden]

Dr. Clark,

I'm sympathetic to your point that the problem is not with the seminary qua seminary, but with the issue of accountability by the various stakeholders (e.g., churches, trustees, administration, etc.). Since you occupy a catbird seat to make discursive comments on the state of seminary education in the Reformed schools, what do you see happening?

I have already added my two cents about the my take on some of the broadly evangelical schools. It did not take long for them to become the champions of error, not merely the tolerators of it. That is one of my major reasons for hanging out with you confessional folks over here on PB. More than half century of watching evangelical schools take theological headers into a downgrade, I want to believe that confessionalism with vigilance shows prospect for holding the line.

Do you see your colleagues honoring academic freedom (etc.) AND still being willing to confront one another on departures from confessional fidelity?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

DM,

Our faculty handbook discusses this. We balance the two all the time. The short story is that academic freedom ends where the confession begins.

Yes, over the years, we've had discussions about whether this or that view was compatible with the confessions. We had a faculty member who used to teach here (who does so no longer) who denies the Reformed view of worship and the second commandment and was latitudinarian on justification. Those issues finally came to a head when we were having some of the same kinds of discussions that are occurring in Phila. They were difficult and they remain etched in my memory. It was painful and we suffered for it. People took the opportunity to paint the school as bigoted and close-minded etc. It didn't help that we had to hold our tongues while the now disaffected faculty felt free to misrepresent us on the web. I'm glad we did it, however, since things have been very peaceful since.

 

[DMcFadden]

This is one baptist who rejoices in the integrity of my confessional brethren in Escondido. Whether I ultimately agree with you on every specific conclusion or not is entirely secondary to me. The real issue for me is do you take the confessions seriously enough to apply them in HR cases respecting friends and colleagues? Obviously, praise the Lord, you do.

My existential crisis over the loss of my mainline denomination and the sad game of theological dominos afflicting broadly evangelical colleges and seminaries (and, after your post #72, the churches ) inclines me to look to you confessional folks for an answer. Confessionalism with integrity would seem to be the best check on theological drift. Clearly, the answer is not anti-intellectualism or lobotomizing one's intellect. But, particularly in an era of unfettered autonomy, confessionalism proclaims that my singular opinion is not always the most important thing.

On my way to church this morning, I was listening to Don Carson's lectures on the NPP. He was asked a direct question about several people by name. Carson, the consistent man of integrity, refused to comment on any person who had either not gone into print with their views or professed it to him in direct conversation. He did allow having heard the same scuttlebutt about a "couple" of profs at Westminster (Phila.) but would say no more.

 

[LadyFlynt]

A couple of questions:

Is this seminary overseen by a particular denomination or denominations, parachurch, or independent?

Dr. Clark stated that the issue should be taken up with the church (I agree), but if their is no church oversight, then that leaves......?

Other rumours are that the majority of the faculty agree with Enns and a previous "investigation" stated he was still within Orthodoxy. Thus he's getting sympathy elsewhere for possibly being dealt with wrongly.

How would you answer these? (curious due to conversation elsewhere)

 

[JohnOwen007]

I remember when the Lord and the apostles picked unlearned men (for the most part) and trained them.

Yes he did. But the ones who wrote much of the NT were highly intelligent. Paul was obviously a towering mind. However, John was nothing less than a genius. How else can one explain the utter profundity of his gospel written in language of simplicity! Incredible.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Steve,

I would say it was when the church lost her moorings to the Reformation Bible.

I would question this. People were dumping reformed theology way before Westcott and Hort entered on the scene. The turning point was the arrival of the 18th century. Look at Geneva after Turretin. Look at England, much of non-conformity became Arian or Deist whilst the KJV had a hegemony.

It was the rise of modernity (modern science, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, the political revolution) that helped bring the great challenge to the church of the first and second reformation not simply modern textual criticism.

Every blessing,

Marty.

 

[greenbaggins]

Dear Steve,

I would say it was when the church lost her moorings to the Reformation Bible.

I would question this. People were dumping reformed theology way before Westcott and Hort entered on the scene. The turning point was the arrival of the 18th century. Look at Geneva after Turretin. Look at England, much of non-conformity became Arian or Deist. happened whilst the KJV had a hegemony.

It was the rise of modernity (modern science, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, the political revolution) that helped bring the great challenge to the church of the first and second reformation not textual criticism.

Every blessing,

Marty.

Exactly. This is the fundamental issue. Scripture was definitely one of the things that the Endarkenment attacked (with regard to inerrancy, not with regard to textual criticism, which is something that the Reformers themselves did). The Endarkenment also resulted in the fragmentation of knowledge, which I think is at the root of many, many problems today, all the more so, because most people are blind to this problem.

 

[tcalbrecht]

DM,

Our faculty handbook discusses this. We balance the two all the time. The short story is that academic freedom ends where the confession begins.

Does an unaffiliated seminary, such as Westminster East or West, have the biblical prerogative to determine whether a position is confessional or not? Assuming all these men are members of confessional denominations, are not their individual views subject to the Church alone, and not an unaffiliated seminary?

The bottom line is that the first line of defense for the Church is the local presbytery/classis which has the duty before God to examine and ordain men faithful to Scripture as summarized in their confession.

Any presbytery/classis which cannot overcome bad seminary training, esp. the occasional aberration from a single professor, doesn’t seem to me to be doing their job very well.

 

[tewilder]

I do not think this is accurate. Biblical theology is simply a theological discipline. Overdoing it would be like "overdoing systematic theology" or "overdoing exegesis". The problem is not with the discipline itself, it is with the presuppositions and the philosophy and (to be honest) the agendas with which people do it. Consider the radical difference between the "timid Vos" who emphatically defends supernatural divine revelation beginning with the life of God against all forms of criticism on the one hand, and works like Enns'. They are radically dissimilar.

Well, it is not quite so simple.

Vos believed in a Biblical Theology constructed on the model of Systematic Theology. It was just that the doctrines of the Systematic Theology were studied chronologically in their development through the history of revelation. Behind this is the assumption that there is a single theology that can be extracted objectively and harmoniously from the Biblical writings as a whole, that it can be arranged systematically, and THEN studied chronologically.

With the failure of the neo-orthodox Biblical Theology Movement in the 1950s, liberal faith in any unitary Biblical Theology, even a liberal one was ended. From then on, the hermeneutical assumption in Biblical studies is that there there is no center, no unifying theology. There are only the perspectives of each author, and those even change over time.

Anyone going to get a PhD in Biblical studies in a major university (the type of degree you need to be a seminary professor) has to give up Vos's idea of Biblical Theology and buy into the multiple perspectives thinking in order to be considered worthy of a degree. Once they have such a degree, a seminary, Westminster for instance, can be sure of one thing: These people no longer hold to Vos's idea of Biblical theology, and their hermeneutical assumptions have changed to something incompatible with Vos's perspective.

Westminster seminary gave up the Vos ideal of systematic theology long ago.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

A seminary can't make ecclesiastical judgments but it can and must make judgments relative to its own commitment to the standards. WSC profs do swear an oath to God and the board not to teach anything contrary to the system of doctrine (which IS the Reformed confessions).

We have a disciplinary procedure etc that is roughly parallel to the sort of thing a session/presbytery would do.

At the same time our MDiv faculty are ministers and accountable to consistories/sessions and to presbyteries/classes.

DM,

Our faculty handbook discusses this. We balance the two all the time. The short story is that academic freedom ends where the confession begins.

Does an unaffiliated seminary, such as Westminster East or West, have the biblical prerogative to determine whether a position is confessional or not? Assuming all these men are members of confessional denominations, are not their individual views subject to the Church alone, and not an unaffiliated seminary?

The bottom line is that the first line of defense for the Church is the local presbytery/classis which has the duty before God to examine and ordain men faithful to Scripture as summarized in their confession.

Any presbytery/classis which cannot overcome bad seminary training, esp. the occasional aberration from a single professor, doesn’t seem to me to be doing their job very well.

 

[tcalbrecht]

A seminary can't make ecclesiastical judgments but it can and must make judgments relative to its own commitment to the standards. WSC profs do swear an oath to God and the board not to teach anything contrary to the system of doctrine (which IS the Reformed confessions).

We have a disciplinary procedure etc that is roughly parallel to the sort of thing a session/presbytery would do.

How is that not an ecclesiastical judgment, esp. in light of the fact that you are judging one’s confessional commitment? Does the confessional interpretation of the faculty/board trump that of the minister’s own presbytery/classis?

At the same time our MDiv faculty are ministers and accountable to consistories/sessions and to presbyteries/classes.

Exactly. I don't mean to be provocative, but what I see here is the parachurch intruding into the strict prerogatives of the Church, which alone has the power to judge faith and practice, the potential result being the tarnished reputation of one of Christ’s own.

The Church is the guardian of the faith, and I do not find it in her constitution where she may hand that responsibility over to a non-ecclesiastical organization.

 

[LadyFlynt]

A couple of questions:

Is this seminary overseen by a particular denomination or denominations, parachurch, or independent?

Dr. Clark stated that the issue should be taken up with the church (I agree), but if their is no church oversight, then that leaves......?

Other rumours are that the majority of the faculty agree with Enns and a previous "investigation" stated he was still within Orthodoxy. Thus he's getting sympathy elsewhere for possibly being dealt with wrongly.

How would you answer these? (curious due to conversation elsewhere)

Anyone???

Other questions...

People are saying that he is simply pointing out things like Moses' birth not being unique (no kidding, I'm sure there were many mothers trying to hide their children or 'adopt' them out) and that there are many similar cultural stories to the ones in the Bible. But from what I am reading here, elsewhere, and from one pastor we know that agrees with Enns, Enns is taking it further than this, yes?

 

[Pilgrim]

A couple of questions:

Is this seminary overseen by a particular denomination or denominations, parachurch, or independent?

Dr. Clark stated that the issue should be taken up with the church (I agree), but if their is no church oversight, then that leaves......?

Other rumours are that the majority of the faculty agree with Enns and a previous "investigation" stated he was still within Orthodoxy. Thus he's getting sympathy elsewhere for possibly being dealt with wrongly.

How would you answer these? (curious due to conversation elsewhere)

Anyone???

Other questions...

People are saying that he is simply pointing out things like Moses' birth not being unique (no kidding, I'm sure there were many mothers trying to hide their children or 'adopt' them out) and that there are many similar cultural stories to the ones in the Bible. But from what I am reading here, elsewhere, and from one pastor we know that agrees with Enns, Enns is taking it further than this, yes?

Almost all of the Reformed seminaries are essentially parachurch organizations overseen by a board. The exceptions would be Covenant (PCA--this was the seminary of the RPCES which "joined" the PCA in 1982), Knox (overseen ultimately I think by Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church), Erskine (ARP) and RPTS (RPCNA). WTS (1929) preceded the formation of the OPC (1936) and RTS (1966) preceded the formation of the PCA (1973).

 

[Ravens]

Dr. Clark,

I appreciate your interaction. I do not in any way wish to lock horns with you or disrespect you, as I have neither your scholastic, nor your ecclesiastic, pedigree. That being said, I still have some thoughts. So feel free to interact with them, and if you are too busy, no big deal.

You said:

I know that you don't want to be taken as advocating anti-intellectualism but I think you are. The Reformed tradition from the 16th century through Princeton and Old Westminster was always to study at the highest levels and never to fear the best scholarship. Their criticism of the liberals was that they often did bad scholarship. We have no reason to fear good, careful scholarship.

Our churches need seminary profs who have faced the challenges of the academy at the highest levels. Yes it can be a spiritual trial but, frankly, anyone who would be a sem prof should probably endure such. It's good preparation for the work.

Doctoral work requires more money/resources than small schools (which even the largest seminaries are) usually have. The best scholars often work in the schools with the resources which allow them to conduct their research.

To say that sem profs shouldn't study in "Egypt" is to sentence our seminaries to a sort of unintended intellectual mediocrity that will not serve our churches well.

I do not think that your inference that I am supporting "anti-intellectualism" is valid. In an ideal world I think rigorous academic preparation should accompany preparation for the ministry. In fact, practically, I think it is a shame that every ordained elder is not familiar with Greek, Hebrew, Latin, as well as being intimately acquainted with church history, to the point that he could engage in learned discourse with Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic clergy.

I simply question whether Doctoral work at an unbelieving university is necessary to achieving that goal. Actually, I question whether it is even the best of the available options towards meeting that goal. That's all. I don't see how putting men in a hostile environment, separated from their local church, possibly in cities with no good, Reformed churches, is helpful, especially when their professional career and the maintenance and care of their families depends on them, more often than not, actually finishing their doctorate. How many times have people had to compromise, I wonder, or bite their tongue, or avoid certain topics, or use language they weren't quite comfortable with, just to pander to the unbelieving faculty?

Regardless, that isn't my main point. I guess I would like your thoughts on this more than anything else: Why is Yale, or Harvard, or Tubingen, necessarily viewed as a good education? That might sound simplistic and trite, but I am rather sincere.

At what point does the "intellectual credibility" of an institution begin to be evaluated by their teaching in the light of facts? All of mankind actually descended from the eight people who exited the ark. God really did judge Egypt with ten devastating plagues. The resurrection actually and historically took place. The Scriptures are the revealed, inerrant, unbreakable word of God. Those things are most certainly not simple matters of dogma. They are matters of settled fact, and settled history.

So when an institution manages to outright deny all of those dogmas and facts, why are they viewed as any more intelligent or reputable? I can't help but seeing an analogous situation in my mind: I liken the leading universities of the world to the world's best lawyer. He has a silver tongue: The tongue of Loki and of Satan. His rhetoric, and the ability to twist his words and bedazzle minds, the depth of his vocabulary, his polished skill in presentation, all the pomp and circumstance that he represents, is unbearably impressive. On the other side of the courtroom stands an ill-favored man, by worldly standards, who, perhaps, stutters when he speaks and lacks some of the je ne sais quois that seems to fuel the Faustian lawyer.

Yet there is one small difference. The stuttering lawyer has actually received the facts of the case. And though he cannot present them in a captivating fashion, he nonetheless is in the right, and people who want to learn the truth should associate with him. People who want to learn how to impress others, and seduce others, and twist anything into becoming " truth " should hang out and associate with the big time lawyer.

That's at least how I see it. Let me use an example. Take Tubingen and everything that came out of the German universities. I realize that reality and history are more complicated than this simple retelling, but surely they were instrumental and foundational in laying the foundation of much of modern scholarship. Just the whole movement of criticism in Germany.

I remember reading things from that school about how some of the Gospels and Scriptures weren't around until the late 2nd century, how Christ never performed miracles, etc. To throw another name in due to the related issues, think of Wellhausen and the JEDP, and all of that. They were demonstrably wrong (we know now) on the claims regarding Scripture. As Christians, we know they were wrong about the miracles. And the JEDP thing, at least in that form, has been largely abandoned.

And yet, in their hey-day, they were the "real scholars." I just can't help but to think that there is some bifurcation in the Christian mind wherein fundamentally mistaken and misguided people in these universities who are writing errors, lies, and mistakes, are somehow seen to be the "real scholars" from whom evangelicals could learn, and one's academic credentials are somewhat lacking if one is not favored with one of their doctorates.

Do we actually think there is neutrality there? We know what happens in some universities when a scientist questions Darwinism. What happens if, perhaps, a few years from now, those who believe in the resurrection, or the exclusivity of Christ, are denied entrance to doctoral programs on an a priori basis, because they are by nature "unfit for the rigorous demands of the academy"? Would that still be a "real education"?

Point being, everything that contradicts Scripture is a lie, and an error. So, when everything about these faculties and schools are a walking contradiction of Scripture, I can't help but to think that the church and seminaries convey a message to prospective teachers that, ultimately, unbelief and a lack of faith in Scripture is a "real" education. That message is sent implicitly, if not explicitly.

And in my opinion, that's part of the problem.

Sidenotes:

Did orthodox bishops as a matter or rule send clergy to study at the Academy in Athens or to schools in Alexandria? Justin, Clement, Origen, etc., certainly seem to be the exception, and not the rule, when it comes to a near complete marriage of Jerusalem and Athens. Once the reformation was established, did they go to the older, well-resourced Catholic universities of Europe, or did they send them to Geneva? Later, did Protestant scholars send their impressionable young men off to Bellarmine? Clearly he had a fierce and and impressive capacity for rhetoric and reading. How are those situations any different than that of today? How are we not sending people to learn from Plato, Arius, and Bellarmine?

Also, you said that the challenges of the academy were almost necessary (i.e. something that should be done) for the prospective seminary teacher. I don't see why interaction with liberal scholarship would be any more necessary than interaction with, say, Mormon teaching, or Islamic doctrine, etc. It's simply apologetics. To put liberalism in one class, and say that we have to learn from them, and put all the other errors in a different class as something we need to do apologetics against, is still to implicitly bow the head to liberalism, it seems, as a vessel of truth.

When secular institutions by and large, teach that there is no design in the universe, that right and wrong simply don't exist, that men can marry men and babies can be slaughtered in the womb, that the Bible is unreliable, the the miracles of Scripture are lies, that Derrida is king and language means nothing, etc., etc., it just baffles me to think that this is a "real education." It reminds me of what C.S. Lewis said about the Unman in Perelandra. The Unman gives grandiose speeches and flowery rhetoric that seduce the Lady from the simplicity of her trust in Maleldil. He goes on for chapters, convincing arguments, but something always not quite right about it. Later Ransom says something to the effect that, from memory, the unman used reason like a tool for its own dark purposes. When it suited him, he'd pick it up and use it. When it stopped suiting him, he'd put it down.

That's how I see modern academia. They are brilliant at twisting and using reason, but when they don't need it, they set it down. I fail to see how some doctoral programs are not more of a doctorate in rhetoric and oratory as opposed to a doctorate in truth and facts.

Anyhow. As I said, I'm not attacking seminaries. I'm just questioning that Tubingen and it's children represent a "real education." I think most of the stuff that needs to be learned in the ministry can be learned by knowing Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and a thorough acquaintance with the primary sources. None of which must necessarily be associated with doctoral work in Gottingen.

Blessings Dr. Clark!

 

[SolaGratia]

With respect to the RCUS denomination that was mention above, we have two seminaries because of the sad state of our current Reformed seminaries:

1. City Seminary of Sacramento ( City Seminary of Sacramento - Home)

and

2. Heidelberg Theological Seminary
(Heidelberg Theological Seminary Home Page)

The majority of the RCUS Pastors attended WTS (east) back in the 50's, 60's and 70's and I can personally tell you that these faithful mature Pastors make all the difference in our denomination. What these pastors learned from Van Til, Murray, Young, etc. is very hard to find nowadays within our Reformed Churches and Seminaries.

 

[Scott]

These are thw words of a recent graduate:

I had Pete as my Intro to OT prof. and I remember dinstinctly the day he introduced himself to me in the men's room by saying, "Hey I'm Pete."...He never claimed to have the answers, but he presented us with lots of questions to think about.

...where the students are happy to have those paid to teach them say they don't have any solid information for them, which is surely what not "claim[ing] to have the answers" boils down to.

If the professor doesn't know the answers, what's the point of him teaching?

Doesn't living in a perpetual sea of unanswered questions pretty much describe what Paul referred to in his second letter to Timothy as "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth"?

Well, said. The student seems to like Enns for his personality. Being a "down to earth guy." That does not qualify someone to teach theology. And, as you mention, a guy who has questions but not answers has no business teaching. He is just going to bring confusion and weaken the faith of students.

 

[Pergamum]

A seminary can't make ecclesiastical judgments but it can and must make judgments relative to its own commitment to the standards. WSC profs do swear an oath to God and the board not to teach anything contrary to the system of doctrine (which IS the Reformed confessions).

We have a disciplinary procedure etc that is roughly parallel to the sort of thing a session/presbytery would do.

How is that not an ecclesiastical judgment, esp. in light of the fact that you are judging one’s confessional commitment? Does the confessional interpretation of the faculty/board trump that of the minister’s own presbytery/classis?

At the same time our MDiv faculty are ministers and accountable to consistories/sessions and to presbyteries/classes.

Exactly. I don't mean to be provocative, but what I see here is the parachurch intruding into the strict prerogatives of the Church, which alone has the power to judge faith and practice, the potential result being the tarnished reputation of one of Christ’s own.

The Church is the guardian of the faith, and I do not find it in her constitution where she may hand that responsibility over to a non-ecclesiastical organization.

Being fired from a seminary does not mean being excommunicated from his church. His presbytery can conclude him orthodox and the seminary unorthodox. Westminster has no power over his local session, "only" over his job...

 

[tcalbrecht]

Being fired from a seminary does not mean being excommunicated from his church. His presbytery can conclude him orthodox and the seminary unorthodox. Westminster has no power over his local session, "only" over his job...

Even assuming the judgment was correct, being fired for theological reasons is not the same as being fired for violating some private board policy like, say, no moonlighting at another seminary. Such a firing does damage to the individual’s reputation. Even if found "not guilty" by his own denomination, the damage has already been done. Is the seminary bound to come back, apologize, and seek forgiveness, or may they continue to assert that their action was permissible by their board’s policy?

So, it would appear to be unwise for an independent seminary board to intrude into the sphere of the Church less they be reproved for their action, esp. in a rather controversial area.

Does an independent seminary board’s interpretation of a confession carry the same weight as a Church court? Does it carry any weight?

It seems that a board should be able to draw a line between things it can legislate and legitimately judge, and those it cannot. If a seminary wants to only employ confessional men (which is a legitimate desire), it must also be willing to acknowledge that confessionalism may only be determined by the candidate’s denomination, not some ad hoc hearing process of the seminary.

in my opinion, this should be obvious to a seminary that professes to have a high view of the Church.