Hit: 'Conn'-versationDr. Bruce McCormack of Princeton Theological Seminary has just written a thought provoking essay on the Christology of the HTFC report and how it does not reflect a Reformed
Christology.
You can read the essay here.

So I sent this as an email to 5 members of the WTS development team. And since then got another mail asking for money, and an invitation to Graduation... which is nice I guess... and also one of my friends asked me if they should check out WTS for an D.Min... I haven't responded yet.

Dear Development Team,
I'm a 2006 M.Div graduate who has received 4 requests for financial support in the last 30 days. I am very thankful for my Westminster education and experience. I've been working with college students and young adults, and while I don't make much money, I thankfully support the seminary by recommending students your way. Two of my friends are admitted and planning on starting programs in the fall based largely on my experience there.  I'm working on convincing 5 more to go there for seminary in the future. I support the seminary in this way, not out of gratitude, but because the Westminster that I experienced was the best place in the country to learn about the Bible and prepare for ministry. I want to continue to send students your way.
But some of the news from wts.edu makes me hesitate. Since I graduated we've lost three my most valued professors. Al Groves, Steve Taylor, and now Pete Enns. - Aside from the discussion or questions about the wisdom of the seminary leadership, or the theological issues at hand, or the apparent flippancy with which alumni are alienated as a result of their mentors being censured - what I'm really worried about is the obvious hole in the Biblical Studies Department. I want to send my friends, college students and young adults to a place to learn about the Bible and Ministry. I'm glad for the other departments, and I think I might be equally worried if ST or CH lost three professors. But I think the Bible Department is pretty important for a seminary education.

I'm not sure I'd otherwise bring this up but since you seem so eager to contact me...  I'm interested in hearing about the Biblical Studies department.

1) Why getting rid of Taylor and Enns?
2) Who will be teaching in the place of Al, Steve and Pete?
3) Does this represent a shift toward a more strictly interpreted confessional stance thus narrowing the student base?

Obviously the seminary has a right to make decisions without running them by me, but I have right to know about things I'm being asked to support. I really want to be honest when I recommend for students to study there.

Thanks for your ministry.

--Sam

In the middle of the Pete Enns debate, there's been the inevitable cycle of harsh polemic, defense, and the sagely advice to discourage the dialogue in the name of Christian grace and charity.  (See fellow WTS alumnus Brandon, or R. Scott Clark).  On one hand a call for Christians to grow in grace, knowledge and love for each other should never fall on deaf ears. He who hasn't said or written something stupid throw the first stone. Yes, to an extent we should respect people's privacy to make their own decisions, and be slow to judge people.  Yes, we should not allow the impersonal nature of the web to empower us to slander others. Posting anonymously invites others to call you names.

BUT, on the other hand - the error of our generation seems to be fear of conflict and conviction.  There's this assumption that debate and argument is wrong - That we should just let people believe what they will. Or learn how to live in harmony with other positions. Are disagreements oppressive?

"There is an increasing tendency in Evangelical circles to regard disagreement in our allegedly post-modern world as inherently oppressive... The point in having a debate is not to have a debate and then agree to differ (sitting around in an mutually affirming love-fest) - the point of debate, as the Apostle Paul clearly demonstrates time and again in the book of Acts, is to establish which position is RIGHT. With this collection of essays, Carl Trueman will provoke you into thinking for yourself - and to have an opinion on things that matter!" From the back jacket of The Wages of Spin by Carl Trueman.  

How do we avoid the duel temptations of on one hand using words to tear people down, and on the other fearing conflict?

(Addition)
Obviously neither Brandon's not Scott's post was a call to censure debate - both called for caution in helpful ways. (My post is perhaps an artificial construction of the first two steps in Hegelian Dialectic.) Even given the nuanced caution of Brandon and Scott,  I think it's worthwhile to dialog about at what points debate is helpful and is not. The unexplored question lurking in the background is about pragmatic wisdom in externalizing the Enns debate. What is better for the Seminary? What is better for the Church?  - Should supporters fight for what they think at any cost? - for those of us who love WTS, is our criticism of the "winning side" going to help or break down WTS in the future. Would it be better for the school to keep it quiet - to say, not broadcast its problems to the world, or criticize its leadership? I didn't miss the irony in setting Trueman up as encouraging the debate. But I don't know the answer to this question. 

I personally need to show wise restraint on the Internet. - So back to the Dialectic: Thesis: Debate can work against unity, due process, is often misinformed, and is a hotbed for gossip and accusation. Antithesis: We need not be afraid of conflict but need to determine what's right.  Synthesis: Anyone?

Earlier today the president and members of the board of Westminster Seminary  held their much anticipated explanation of their suspension of Pete Enns.  Click here to listen to this morning’s chapel. - I probably got a bit too much caught up in this controversy. But it's hard to stay out of conflict when white guys in power are defining ones mentor as theologically unfit or dangerous.

I may have even posted some things on comments and blogs that were rash and immature. (correction BTW... Darryl Hart does not still live in his mom's basement.... I apologize for that). Over the weekend I cooled down a bit... I completely reframed my perspective as conservatives "cleaning house" and guarding the truth. I think that it's a wrong call in the case of Pete, but I can at least respect the impulse to guard against progression toward liberalism... or at least sympathize with those who lived through the conflicts of the 50s... 20s... etc.

So as a proud alumnus and a supporter I at least tried to have an open mind and was ready to hear the well-crafted arguments of wise men who had long been reflecting on the gospel and the confession, and the nature of scripture. I was expecting (however naive) reasons to the effect of battling for the Bible, or loving the Word of God, or keeping the faith, or guarding against false teachers. I was expecting something like a Machen reference - "Christianity and the Incarnational Analogy" or I hear the mythic Luther quote - "here I stand and can do no other"... - I was expecting to either be persuaded that Enns is, or leads to a weak doctrine of scripture or at least have the arrogant pleasure of looking down my nose at relics of modernity who can't deal with philosophical tension.

What I heard was polite, spineless, political pandering.  Rather than Biblical, Theological, or even Confessional arguments, the reasons we heard over and over again were that "other people didn't like what Enns taught." I was expecting Jack White and Peter Liliback to be more bold. If there was a bullet list of reasons for terminating Peter Enns it would look like "other seminary deans have problems with Enns" "two Presbyteries don't like Westminster anymore" "secret board members have problems with Enns" "there are people in ETS who have problems".

What is this? Junior high? Is wining cool again? Are we teenagers now,  making excuses for getting caught with a joint under the bed? "but mom, all my friends smoke?"  When asked point-blank for theological "formal charges" Liliback sounded like my brother when my parents caught chewing used gum from urinals (true story BTW). He was reminiscent of my days at Bob Jones when the administration explained why they had a policy against inter-racial dating, except at least they were bold enough to make dumb arguments for their position. Peter Enns gets canned because of peer pressure from other seminaries and donors.

Normally I'd say that a faculty popular voting is bad way of doing theology... But then, I forget exactly what Gaffin said the principium was... but if you do find theology through popular vote... at least go with the position that gets the most votes. I mean, yeah, I battle a lot of fear of man issues myself (when people are big and god is small - huge book for me) But I thought that most people sort out the differences between peer pressure and epistemology by puberty and learn to make more nuanced presentation.

So my question to Liliback... (maybe misdirected... he insinuated other people are pulling the strings... who are also not apparently man enough to present boldly on stage.) -If other seminaries, presbyteries, members of ETS, and deans jumped off a bridge.... would you too? (ok, that sounds ominous, but it's a classic mom question... one that I've never heard posed to adults before... sry)