Last week there was a guest post at some blog by a person who does not blog that may be of interest to some readers here. One of the issues surrounding the Peter Enns ordeal was the politics involved in the issue on the part of the administration of Westminster. Many of us (and by ‘us’ I am referring to those who supported Pete) thought that the politics, posturing, and maneuvering was divorced from the Gospel. There did not seem to be a willingness to listen. Rather, their minds were made up and they did whatever they had to in order to have their will come to pass.
Many of the supporters of WTS’s new direction mocked us for saying that such was the case. To actually see the case set out very well, check out these two posts from Justin and Mel Moore: Questions and the Minority Report and Due Process? Some have assumed that we were making these things up. Well, let’s put this whole issue to rest, shall we?
In the words of one of the administrators at WTS:
I was asked by one C of S person, angry about my criticism of the petition, what I would suggest as the way forward. Well, just for starters, before launching any public campaign, I would have looked at the history of those churches and institutions that have turned themselves around to see what actually works as opposed to what merely seems like a good idea at the time — say, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, the Southern Baptist Convention, Southern Seminary, and even my own small place, Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia). The changes in those places had a number of things in common: the reformers organized and prepared for every eventuality, putting into place safety nets and multiple `Plan Bs’, they identified the places where influence could be wielded, mastered procedure, fought like the blazes when they had to, stood strong and immovable in the face of violent opposition, and outmanoeuvred their opponents by continual attention to meeting agendas, points of order, procedural matters, and long-term coordinated strategy. They did not waste time and energy on irrelevant sideshows like rhetorical petitions that merely provided the material for public relations disasters. And guess what? In each case it actually worked. In fact, this way of approach sounds very like the strategy which frankly outflanked and then crushed the ill-prepared evangelical assault at last week’s C of S GA. It would seem that angry but sincere petitioners generally lose, while sincere but canny parliamentarians generally win. The C of S evangelicals need new leadership that understands Presbyterian polity, the importance of procedure and, crucially, how institutions work and can therefore be changed.
Carl R. Trueman [link to original]
As for the ethics that are being promoted in that paragraph and that were on display for everyone to see over that past few years at WTS, Daniel Kirk has an excellent four part response to such ethics. The series is entitled “Cruciform Ethics and Evil Done in Jesus’ Name.” [Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4].
A great quote from part 1 of the series:
…the ethic of Jesus repudiates the power mongering of the world. And, should you see someone advocating exploitation of power, manipulation (and, lying and cheating, though it’s not so crassly confessed here), etc. in the name of Christ, recognize that you are face to face with a wolf in sheep’s clothing–and be prepared to be devoured in the name of Christ.
By their fruits you will know them, indeed. If the fruit is the fruit of the “rulers of the gentiles” who lord and exploit power at all costs for their ends, know that you are not dealing with fruit borne on the tree planted by the King of all–for that tree is planted on Golgotha, and its fruit is the fruit of a life given so that others might live, not the fruit of lives taken so that he might cling to his own.
I’d encourage you to read all of the posts linked and see which you think is more consistent with the Gospel.
30 May 2009 at 8.09 am
Interesting that he would mention Southern Baptists. I have a friend whose father was a moderate SB and on the receiving end of the fundamentalists’ aggressive strategy. It was not pretty and no one should take any delight in it. What the SBs did to President Dilday at Southwestern Baptist Seminary was particularly shameful. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n10_v111/ai_14977844/
The fact that they even changed the locks on Dilday’s office door is just unbelievable. I love the account, though, of the students’ defense of Dilday and questioning of the trustees. You probably can relate to a lot of it, Art.
Btw, I love Dilday’s powerful statement: “Incredible as it sounds, there is emerging in this denomination, built on the principle of rugged individualism, an incipient Orwellian mentality … It threatens to drag us down from the high ground to the low lands of suspicion, rumor, criticism, innuendos, guilt by association, and the rest of that demonic family of forced uniformity.” Now that’s a keeper!!!
30 May 2009 at 9.06 am
I have often struggled with the tension between (a) freedom of intellectual inquiry, and (b) the NT duty of Christian leaders to uphold sound teaching and cast out false doctrine.
Even though the WTS administration is obviously completely wrong in their doctrine on these issues, in their own eyes they believe they are following the commands of the NT.
While at Bible college, there were a number of students who were ardent dispensationalists, and I was frustrated with the school for not addressing it. But by the same token, I was in the minority as a Reformed-inclined person, and all the Arminians could have similarly tried to squelch me. And as we see here with Pete, he is dead on, and he’s being lynched for it.
It’s a tough balance, and I haven’t decided where I come out on it yet. But I can say that I have privately thought to myself something which I knew was atrocious, but then I discovered that Stanley Hauerwas said the exact same thing in print: One of the best things that can happen to the church in America is for the Bibles to be taken from the laity (LoL).
Extreme, I know
. But to a certain degree, I definitely think it’s true that not just anyone and everyone should be allowed to “interpret” the Bible however they want, and cause damage and schism to the Body of Christ. But on the other hand, it’s very important to have intellectual freedom, and to be the church reformed, always *reforming*. And you can’t always be reforming without freedom to reform.
Tightrope.
(Sorry for not commenting on the ethical part. I hate ethics, it’s too sticky-a-subject.)
30 May 2009 at 11.23 am
The whole time Truman and Lilback claimed that they wanted reconciliation, peace and a way forward, what Trueman’s admission above means is that all of those gestures were really a smokescreen masking the intent all along which was winning at all costs. This (IMO) shows a great lack of understanding the gospel on Trueman’s part. If one can purposely mislead people and all the time be acting in clandestine and aggressive means in order to accomplish some supposedly good end, that person just doesnt get the message of transparency and love that the gospel embodies.
And lets remember that Enns (according to what Trueman said in the second chapel meeting) is a heretic (of course that was later “clarified” as meaning a heretic from the reformed position)
So the tactics above are justified (via Trueman) so long as a person isnt sufficently reformed – even if they are a Christian. You can level these at true brothers because you dont think their theology is sufficently like yours.
Pax Christi…Nick
30 May 2009 at 12.23 pm
As I said of Trueman when I left WTS last year, “Amazing teacher, reprehensible theology.”
30 May 2009 at 1.35 pm
I wonder…where do you get the idea that WTS believes they are following the commands of the NT? I have not heard them attempt to justify themselves by that line of argument. Rather it has been by pointing back to the Reformed tradition as understood by the current and past self-appointed guardians of this tradition.
30 May 2009 at 1.46 pm
LoL, touché
.
I gave them the benefit of the doubt, but perhaps I should be more discerning
.
31 May 2009 at 7.37 am
I think you all are being too hard on Truman and the WTS admin….they are preparing pastors for the Church (PCA/OPC). Training at WTS will certainly prepare them for how to gain their way in the PCA/OPC!!
31 May 2009 at 7.39 am
Art,
You know that I respect you guys and have been continually saddened by what has gone on at WTS over the past few years. But you may be reading a bit more into the Trueman quote than is actually there. Surely, there were many mistakes made through the whole ordeal. But when I read Trueman’s quote, the only point he seems to be making is that those who wound up accomplishing what they saw as right and good were those who focused their energies entirely on the proceedures that actually make a difference rather than getting side-tracked by engaging in activities which produce a whole lot of heat but little light. Such a statement does not necessarily imply that Trueman or any of the others were disingenuous in their efforts or even in their extension of good-will to the other party. Neither is it necessarily inconsistent with a desire for reconciliation. One can sincerely desire reconciliation but still uphold certain principles which make reconciliation possible only if the other party accepts those principles (think Luther at Marburg, for instance). Not to draw a sharp comparison in any particular direction, but this is exactly what Protestants have been doing with other Protestants and also with Roman Catholics for centuries. The fact itself doesn’t make it right. But you can’t simply label all expressed desire for reconciliation amongst men of principle as disingenuous just because they believe their principles transcend personal allegiances.
31 May 2009 at 10.25 am
I understand where you are coming from, but, as someone who went through the whole ordeal, I can’t say I agree. When the administration postured themselves as working towards a solution to the issue, they always presented themselves as not having an agenda and as working towards reconciliation. That does not, in any way, present itself as being what this particular administrator (I think it’s pronounced ‘troo-min,’ is that right?) is saying. One does not come up with safety nets, multiple plan B’s, master procedure, or stand strong in the face of adversity unless one has an agenda that they are working towards…I’m this case, the removal of Pete.
31 May 2009 at 12.11 pm
Well, having only been around for a year, you know a great deal more about all of these matters than I ever could, so I’m not about to challenge you on that. I was just speaking on what I read the quote to be saying at face value.
31 May 2009 at 4.36 pm
I had the same thought when I read that post – but I then wondered what case he was talking about. If it’s about Enns (etc) then yeah, good point, but I doubt that what happened in the past couple years is the first point of “reformation” for WTS – I wondered even if it was about the founding of Westminster with Machen’s plans for “reformation” of the PCUSA (which fits with the SBC “reformation”), or the Shepherd controversy, etc. He’s ambiguous to allow for that possibility – i would remain surprised if it’s about Enns.
31 May 2009 at 4.43 pm
What other reformations at WTS could he be referring to?
The founding of WTS was not a reformation, it was the formation of WTS…so it would not be a reformation that happened at WTS.
The Shepherd controversy was not much of a reformation either as it was the ousting of one professor.
The current ‘reformation’ at WTS has resulted in three biblical studies professors leaving (one forced, two left on their own accord), a significant amount of the board resigning, other people being fired (Mark Traphagen, Bev Rutledge), students being threatened and bullied (myself and others), and the hiring of the most vocal antagonist against Pete Enns.
If you can find a period of history that fits this post better than the current period then I’m willing to listen.
31 May 2009 at 4.53 pm
Honestly, I’m not the WTS historian or defender (and am not much less upset than you are) – but rhetorically it’s ambiguous to allow for something other than a bold commentary on current events. –
The post is obviously about ecclesiastical reformation – I think it’s fair to call the formation of WTS part of a reformation of PCUSA/Princeton Seminary. Obviously it was a formation of a new seminary, but I mean, the original reformation looked like a new church – so i think that’s ok to still call it a reformation. And, knowing only a little about Machen, it sounds like he’s a guy who worked the politics of the Boards, Presbytery, Seminary faculty meeting and prepared for everything – plans B etc – in a way that would make someone at Westminster use it as an illustration of how preparation and planning is good. – I’m just saying it’s not a crystal clear confession.
31 May 2009 at 5.37 pm
Had Machen been the master of procedure and done what was described here he would have won Princeton back. But he didn’t, so I’m having a hard time seeing him in the picture this post is painting.
31 May 2009 at 6.32 pm
If Truemans quote is about anything other than his facistic drive to rid the seminary of the entire BT department (not just enns, that was more obfuscation, the had everything in mind) I will eat every P&R text in westminsters library, covers to binding.
1 June 2009 at 7.18 am
What the trustees did to Dilday was shameful, and it caused a split that was terrible…but in their defense something needed to be done and Dilday simply wasn’t getting the job done.
I sat in classes with a missions professor who openly denied the resurrection, yet said we should do ‘missions’ to help raise the living standards of the poor around the world. I had an ethics professor who openly stated that he daily lied to himself about faith, because in all honesty he was an atheist who wished to remain culturally Christian.
Something needed to be done, and Dilday simply wasn’t leading the seminary in the right direction. What the trustees did though was terrible…absolutely classless and terrible. Unfortunately because of it, many moderate (and even some conservatives) stood against the trustees and either lost their jobs or only stuck around because they needed to do so. Great professors like Bill Tillman, Leon McBeth, Bruce Corley are a few that were exiled (even if they kept teaching at SWBTS).
As nasty as the situation at WTS has become, it doesn’t even compare to the situations in the mid-90s at Southwestern. There were openly heretical teachers, whereas Pete is definitely orthodox. At the same time, as rude and “unChristian” as the political trustees of WTS have been…it doesn’t compare to the borderline evil actions taken by the Southwestern trustees back then.
BTW, I was also at SWBTS whenever Hemphill (who replaced Dilday) was basically asked to take another role because Paige Patterson wanted to come in. The conservatives who were brought in to replace the moderate/liberals were not conservative enough apparently, and within 2 years Patterson had turned over 75% of the faculty in theology/biblical studies. One particularly fine teacher who was pressured out was David Crutchley. He’s one of the best professors I’ve ever studied under (and was pretty darn conservative). He was open to the NPP and anti-dispensational, and when you work for Patterson those are both big time no-nos. He was pressured out. Another great teacher who left by his own decision at the coming of Patterson was James Spivey (who I was blessed to study Calvin under) left with Corley and others to start the alternative B.H. Carroll Institute that was non-fundamentalist.
2 June 2009 at 11.29 am
For more levelheaded orthodox Reformed blogging, check out http://douchebagginsjr.wordpress.com/
3 June 2009 at 7.40 am
Please grow up…while I disagree with those you are parodying, your childishness only makes things worse. I commented with some thoughts about your site in the graduation thread.