Tremper Longman continues to inveigh on WTS. I'm going to comment on his latest post:
As you know a number of us are concerned about what we understand to be heavy-handed moves by the administration…
i) It's possible that the WTS boad/administration has been "heavy-handed." It's also possible that some colleagues who were originally more supportive of the OT dept. reversed themselves when the sensed a change in the weather.
Conversely, since Gaffin, for one, is safely retired, he's free to speak his mind. The fact that his public statements have defended the newer regime can't be chalked up to the fear of losing his job.
In addition, I've heard horror stories about the heavy-handed liberal culture of Calvin College, &c. So it's a two-way street.
ii) We also need to distinguish between optics and substance. Even if, for the sake of argument, the WTS administration was maladroit in dealing with the problem, that doesn't mean it wrongly identified the source of the problem.
…to shape the seminary in a different direction than the proud history of the school would lead.
Well, historically, WTS was founded to carry the torch of the Old Princeton theology after Princeton Seminary went liberal. What we're witnessing is a replay of the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy, with Enns reprising the role of Briggs. The names change but the play remains the same.
I certainly acknowledge the right of the school to define itself in any direction it should chose to go, but people should know that direction and judge for themselves if they want to support it.
I like the direction in which WTS is going. It's a long overdue midcourse correction.
Also, they should be aware of the tactics used in accomplishing their purposes. Though he does not play a role in the Chris Fantuzzo’s account of his treatment at Westminster, we should remember Carl Trueman’s honest and public description of the means that the seminary used to accomplish that purpose that I posted earlier.
Actually, I don't recall having seen the offending statement by Trueman. I think that may have been from an earlier post before Longman changed the privacy settings to make his posts public.
In any event, if Trueman was an instrumental figure in the ouster of Enns (not that Trueman could do that single-handedly), then so much the better for Trueman.
For those of you who are not familiar with the academic process, it is unbelievable that the president would make an appointment as in the case of Iain Duguid or let go a member like Chris Fantuzzo without departmental involvement from the very start. This is particularly the case for Westminster. It may be legal. It may be hidden away in the bylaws, but it is unprecedented…
i) To begin with, this complaint is silly. From what I can tell, the WTS board/administration thinks the OT dept. needs to be rebuilt from scratch. In that event, you wouldn't expect the board/administration to seek the advice and consent of the very people whom they deem to be the source of the problem.
ii) And is this really unprecedented? When Jack Preus lowered the boom at Concordia Seminary, did he first consult the liberals? When SBC conservatives regained control of their seminaries, did they consult the liberal faculty first?
I'll now switch to Fantuzzo, whose letter Longman posted:
Doug Green has received was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern.
And a gratifying pattern at that.
I was warned by a supervisor not to return to that world, and former teachers told me about the toxic culture at WTS."Toxic"! Where have we heard that before? Witness the evolution of an urban legend before your very eyes.
After the board meeting, Peter Lillback (twice) conveyed his belief that I would become “a superstar” (his term)—just finish the dissertation! Then Jeff informed him that President Lillback had decided to block the department’s decision to promote me. (Peter was not present.) I also indicated that Tipton and I had discussed the matter, adding that he had suggested in personal conversation that he might be more careful. My comment got back to Tipton (another recording?), and he phoned me. During the conversation, he denied telling me he might be more careful.Dick Gaffin [a former colleague of Longman and Dillard’s] was also familiar with my position and pledged to support me before the faculty and board, if/when I ever required it.)
An obvious problem with this account is that it's a he said/she said recap. So whose version of events are you supposed to believe?
The only difficulty I faced during the interview process came in a phone interview with Greg Beale, which I thought inappropriate because he wasn’t a Westminster faculty member. He mainly voiced objections to Longman and Dillard’s An Introduction to the Old Testament, expressing disagreement with their views on Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, authorship of Isaiah, and the composition and date of Daniel.
Good for him.
We disagreed about his reading of Longman/Dillard, but nothing more came of it.
Beale isn't the only one to reads their introduction that way. So does O. Palmer Robertson.
In this phone conversation, Tipton also objected to my view of the controversy over Enns’s, Inspiration and Incarnation. I thought OTI students should read the book for themselves, that we (OT students) had an opportunity to go back to the drawing board. I told Tipton that I believed WTS was drawing lines too strongly, that it was rolling back the clock too far, that this was due to the model of Enns’s book as a cancer: WTS was in danger of cutting away healthy tissue. His response? I should “seriously start searching for another job,” for my view of the Enns controversy had disclosed that I “lacked sufficient militancy to be a Westminster professor.”
I'd say that's a pretty good reason to ax Fantuzzo. And that's based on his one-sided, self-serving account.
Later Lane Tipton objected to my teaching on the NT writers’ use of the OT. I discovered that a certain student was taking him recordings of my lectures, and I believe he was feeding this student questions to raise in class.
What's wrong with recording his lectures? Rather than secondhand summaries, anonymous tips, or unsourced attributions, you have the speaker in his own words. Isn't that a fairer way to judge his position?
Recognize that no one had ever come to observe my classroom.
If his lectures were recorded and distributed, isn't in-person observation superfluous?
Students were telling me (I believe as early as 2010) that in his AP and ST classes Scott Oliphint would openly object to my teaching the comparative approach in OTI. The mere inclusion of the subject meant I was “Enns all over again,” and “anyone who thinks understanding the ancient Near Eastern environment is important for biblical interpretation has an aberrant doctrine of Scripture.”
This seems to be hearsay rather than direct quotes from Oliphint.
When Mike asked Jeff to explain this act, he was told that certain faculty were "strongly opposed" to my advancement.In this conversation, Tipton warned that opposition was mounting against me. I inquired further, and he said Beale (now a voting faculty member) objected to my teaching about multiple hands in the authorship of Isaiah.You can imagine my colleagues’ reaction. Neither the President nor the Dean had consulted Mike or Doug about this decision. As senior OT scholars, their professional counsel had not been sought; as faculty members, their academic and administrative roles had been disregarded; as leaders of the OT department, their choice of colleague had been rejected without discussion. No one had spoken with them about the matter before this meeting, and no open discussion about Peter’s decision was permitted afterwards. It was decided, having already been determined behind closed doors. In what was historically a faculty-run institution, Peter’s act was unprecedented: my colleagues and I had been snubbed; Iain had been promised the job by Presidential fiat! In my view, Peter, Jeff (and Iain?) had treated the OT department, the WTS faculty and board, and its staff and students (all typically involved in the hiring process) with utter contempt. For Doug Green (at least), this abuse of power was a sign of things to come.
Several problems with this complaint:
i) Once again, if the WTS board/administration regarded the OT dept. as hopelessly compromised, you wouldn't expect the administration and the board to seek their input. From what I can tell, the board/administration think the problems with the OT dept. require a root-n-branch remedy.
ii) Fantuzzo is trying to reframe the issue as a conflict between the administration and the faculty. Yet by his own admission, some of the opposition to the OT dept. came from faculty. Indeed, we know from the divided vote to grant Enns tenure that the faculty was quite polarized on the issue.
So what Fantuzzo is really insinuating is that each department should be autonomous, not merely in relation to the administration, but in relation every other department. The NT dept, or church history dept. or systematics dept. should have no vote on hiring or firing in the OT dept.
iii) In addition, consultation with the OT dept. would give its faculty lead-time to mobilize opposition. Recruit students to the cause. Mount a public campaign. "Save our Seminary." Why invite opposition?
iv) Are students typically involved in the hiring process? I guess I never got the memo.
Mine is yet another chapter in the abuse of power by Westminster’s administration and board. And OT studies at the seminary is characterized by the doctrinaire control of OT interpretation by non-specialists…
The hermeneutical issues are interdisciplinary. How the OT is fulfilled in the NT is a question for OT and NT scholars alike. That can't be compartmentalized, for that, by definition, involves an understanding of the OT and NT alike.
Moreover, when Enns makes 1 Cor 10:4 a paradigm-case for his hermeneutic, or when he and McCartney make Mt 2:15 another paradigm-case, surely NT scholars have at least as much competence to address that issue as OT scholars.
…who aggressively seek to marginalize colleagues wanting to do justice to the OT’s distinctive ‘voice’ as witness to Christ.
But the very question at issue is whether the OT does, indeed, witness to Christ. Or do NT speakers and authors impute an OT witness to Christ in defiance of the sense, reference, intentions, implications, and context of the original?
Tremper Longman there is no liberalism creeping in at Westminster... Doug Green and Chris Fantuzzo are not liberals by any stretch of the imagination.
The fact that Longman vouches for his erstwhile colleagues hardly inspires confidence. He's not exactly an impartial character witness. Heck, he even defends John Goldingay.
The present Westminster would fire or "retire" both Ray and me and Al...
A promising development.
Jonathan Bonomo What we see here is a world in which those in positions of power prevail over the humble in deals made behind closed doors. This is the way of the world, not the kingdom of Jesus. May the Lord have mercy upon his people.
Some readers may remember Bonomo as a member of the "Reformed Catholic" clique (a la Paul Owen). Gives you some idea of where he's coming from.
Maybe in His mercy the Lord is raising up "judges" for WTS because He has heard the groaning of His people.
ReplyDeleteDo you stand up when you talk out of your ass or do you just let your seat muffle it and hope for the best?
ReplyDeleteMust be Art Boulet, with his invitation-only blog. All that misguided anger.
DeleteYep. Invitations are only granted to those who have not celebrated the untimely death of an OT Professor.
DeleteSorry you didn't make the cut, but rule #1 is no self righteous douche lords.
Art is making a compelling argument not to attend seminary. Rule #1 of seminary - your profs ought to be Christians.
DeleteTo paraphrase Groucho Marx, I don't care to belong to any club which Boulet would accept me as a member of.
DeleteSo Art's "protected" blog is protected for the sole purpose of preventing one person in particular from viewing his blog. I didn't realize I was that important to Art.
Delete"Sorry you didn't make the cut, but rule #1 is no self righteous douche lords."
DeleteI guess this must be like the "Highlander Rule" - There can be only one!
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWould you write an amazingly thorough resource list on OT topics? You've done the sort of thing from time to time, but the lists I have found are either "old" or admittedly "scattershot."
For example, the "Read Any Good Books Lately?" posts from 2004.
It's true that my bibliographies need to be updated. However, a thorough list on OT topics is a pretty tall order.
DeleteActually, Art is making a compelling argument not to attend *liberal* seminaries.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I find interesting in the WTS situation is that everyone besides WTS recognizes that there are changes underway. If you read the document that Dr. Lillback wrote in regards to the Green situation he tries to make the case that WTS has not narrowed or changed. Everyone else recognizes that there has been a significant change at WTS. You don’t clean out a department because you want to stay the course particularly if the tenured professor has taught from the same perspective for the past 2 decades. Why won’t the administration be clear and talk about the changes?
ReplyDeleteThe administration might not be able to talk specifically about the Green situation because it was done in executive session. They could easily lay out the new distinctives of the new WTS to define where they now stand. One would think it would be a rallying point for their supporters. Instead there is radio silence that goes as far as having a closed town hall meeting with the WTS community. Its the administration’s silence on all points that makes me leery and weary. People with nothing to hid generally don’t hesitate to come to the light so their deeds can be seen by all.
One possible reason for the silence is that their new direction for WTS goes counter to their financial goals which pose a problem for their institutional goals. A major solution to their financial problem the past few years was to increase the student population by around 100 FTE. A narrowing of your viewpoint generally leads to less students not more. While they may be breaking from teaching that can be traced back from Green, Groves, Dillard, Silva, Conn, and Clowney to name a few, they cannot afford to financially make that well known due to the potential drop in incoming students and the revenue that they generate on some of the professor’s writings.
Is there another reason why the WTS administration will not come clean about the new ways that they are going to interpret the WCF? They could say many things to clarify issues without speaking specifically about Green, it is very confusing as to why they don’t do so, and it reflects poorly on WTS as a whole.
i) We clearly see a "narrowing" in relation to what prevailed under Dillard, Longman, and Enns. However, the conservative profs. may view this as a restoration of the original vision, represented by the founding faculty (e.g. Machen, Allis, Young), and some of their conservative successors (e.g. Kline, Robertson). The first and second generation was inerrantist. It was with the third generation and fourth generations that the OT dept. took a left turn.
ReplyDeleteii) As I've said on other occasions, I think it would be preferable if the board/administration just issued an official statement (to which faulty must pledge) on the parameters of inerrancy and hermeneutics rather than trying to prooftext their position from a 17C document which isn't designed to address contemporary concerns.
iii) Yes, if they have good reasons to ax Green and Fantuzzo, then they'd do themselves a favor by publicizing their reasons rather than letting their critics define the controversy. One can only speculate on their reticence.
iv) I doubt it's because a conservative posture is too off-putting for prospective students. Are most WTS students really disappointed to find out that it wasn't more liberal?
v) In the case of Green, perhaps their hands are tied. Maybe, as part of the settlement, both Green and the board/administration agreed not to badmouth each other in public. That, however, wouldn't extend to Fantuzzo.
vi) At this point, maybe they suffer from a bunker mentality. After the Enns affair, perhaps they feel besieged, and their instinctive reaction is to clam up.
vii) Perhaps they resent the notion that they should give an account of their actions to outside pressure groups. Who are these outsiders to make demands?
viii) Maybe they're just bad at PR and crisis management. What makes someone a good church historian doesn't make him good at other things.
ix) This may well be a hyped crisis. If, say, you read the comments on Longman's Facebook page, it's a handful of complainers who do most of the commenting. No doubt there are more lurkers than commenters, but even so, are we talking about a large number of critics, or a small number of loud critics? And the same gang who defended Enns to the hilt?
They are laboring to make this an emergency situation, but is it really?
x) To be blunt, I doubt that fired/retired professors are missed for very long. Due to the high turnover rate in the student body, incoming students don't even know what they're missing. Once a professor is gone, newer students don't notice his absence. They never knew him in the first place. It's been 6 years since Enns was terminated. How many current students feel any sense of loss? If his viewpoint meant that much to them, why not study at Fuller or Eastern University?
Moreover, even students who became very attached to a particular prof. move on with their lives after graduation. They don't have occasion to see their favorite prof. face-to-face after that, or only very rarely.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI agree that it won't take long to be forgotten at an academic institution with people coming and going all the time. That is the primary reason the administration can hunker down because all their fanboys like you will support them no matter what they do and how they treat people and the people who have been hurt or have a righteous anger will move on at some point. The administration is made up of brilliant men. They are using it to their advantage. We don't need to pretend that there are bad at PR. Let's just be honest about how they are trying to manipulate the situation to contain the fallout and damage to their reputation and donor base.
The long lasting impact will be felt in student population size, success of graduates post graduation, and finances. These may not matter to a church historian but when it comes to running a school it does make a difference. The fact that that difference could be about heterodoxy and not orthodoxy speaks volumes the narrowing and current direction.
I don't know if you have ever witnessed an OPC ministry readiness seminar at WTS. I have witnessed several. They are one the of the smallest and least diverse events that happen on that campus. Out of a student population of over 550 from many countries and cultures you may have 15 white males who attend. You may be excited that parts of the PCA is being pushed out of WTS, but the thought the of WTS being a small, monolithic flagship for OPC ministry readiness may not be what the founding professors had in mind. Confining yourself to a subsection of the PCA and the OPC certainly conflicts with WTS' current mission statement of being a global force. It puts you on the fringe of the reformed community. As a parachurch organization trying to serve the global reformed church being a small subsection or a fringe should make you think about your positions.
@JoeSmith64
Delete"all their fanboys like you will support them no matter what they do and how they treat people and the people who have been hurt or have a righteous anger will move on at some point"
What? For real? Steve has hardly been a WTS "fanboy" who "will support them no matter"! He's been quite critical of Trueman in the past, for example.
But I suspect your statement tells us more about where you're coming from than anything about Steve. If you're a former WTS student, did you feel like you were somehow mistreated by WTS?
"The long lasting impact will be felt in student population size, success of graduates post graduation, and finances."
I think it remains to be seen whether your scenario will play out.
But say it does impact WTS' finances. Not that this is ideal, but it's better than giving a platform for wolves in sheep's clothing to criticize inerrancy and the like, right?
"They are one the of the smallest and least diverse events that happen on that campus. Out of a student population of over 550 from many countries and cultures you may have 15 white males who attend."
I don't know that I accept your characterization that WTS caters to "a subsection of the PCA and the OPC." For starters, as you yourself have stated, there are students from "many countries and cultures" at WTS. They may attend PCA or OPC churches while in the US. But that's not necessarily the case when they return to their home nations.
At any rate, I hope I'm mistaken, but it sounds like you're placing a premium on diversity over and against faithfulness to the Bible. Ideally there'd be no need to choose one over the other. However, if push comes to shove, then Christians should remain faithful to the truth of the Scriptures, even at the cost of losing out on a "diverse" number of students, even at great cost to themselves and their ministries.
"As a parachurch organization trying to serve the global reformed church being a small subsection or a fringe should make you think about your positions."
When you say "a parachurch organization," are you referring to WTS or Triablogue (since you use "you" and "your positions")?
Again, there's nothing ipso facto wrong with "being a small subsection or a fringe" if that's the cost of remaining faithful to the Bible. But the way you put it, it seems like you're trying make it something shameful or embarrassing.
By the way, are you white? The way you talk about all this seems to me like you're beholden to white guilt or something along those lines. (I'm not white. Rather, I'm a minority.)
i) Like other partisan propagandists, you've created a self-serving Manichean narrative in which your side represents all that's good and true while the other side consists of Machiavellian administrators and their blind apologists.
DeleteSorry to spoil your fiction, but my own position is more qualified and independent.
ii) To begin with, there's the substantive issue. I will always defend the inspiration of Scripture. I will always defend Christianity as a revealed religion.
I'm not hoodwinked by the "Incarnational" pietism of Peter Enns, which he deploys to camouflage his secularizing trajectory.
iii) The administration did the right thing by terminating Enns. His paper trail speaks for itself.
With regard to Green and Fantuzzo, I haven't taken a firm position.
iv) I allow for the possibility that Fantuzzo was treated shabbily. But I also make allowance for the fact that we only have his side of the story. For you to wrap yourself in the mantle of "righteous anger" begs the question.
v) You've also developed a nifty conspiracy theory about how the administration is "trying to manipulate the situation to contain the fallout and damage to their reputation and donor base."
If anything, it could just as well (or better) be the other way around. Assuming that the administration is sensitive to outside pressure, that could be coming from a donor base that was was losing confidence in WTS when Enns was editing the WTJ, and using that as a vehicle to promote his incipient secularism. What's your empirical evidence that liberal seminaries are growing and conservative seminaries are shrinking?
vi) Whether or not your dire prediction comes true remains to be seen. I'd add that this is not a good economy for seminarians. An MDiv is not a very marketable degree.
So even if seminary attendance declines, that may be a reflection of a dying economy rather than students avoiding WTS because it's too conservative. One would have to do a comparative analysis of liberal and conservative seminaries, adjusting for the economic condition of the states in which they reside.
vii) It's actually the secularized theology of Enns and his ilk which represents a fringe movement within global Christianity. That's a very Western, Enlightenment paradigm.
Rock,
DeleteI was never a student at WTS and I am white but that is as far as the generalizations will go as most of my life has been very atypical to this point.
I was referring to WTS when I called it a parachurch organization. Last time I checked them never claimed to be a church. As a parachurch organization I would hope they would endeavor to serve the global church as the Lord has called people from every tribe and tongue. Taking steps to needlessly limit this service by narrowing which we all recognize is going on seems to be a shame. Please don't hear something I'm not saying. There are definitely times you need to stand up for the truth and that truth is found in the Lord's revealed word. I just wonder in Green's and Fantuzzo's case particularly if they are getting hit with friendly fire.
I'm not talking about Enns but thinking more of Green or Fantuzzo; you may not think so but I think that there are significant differences between Enns and Green/ Fantuzzo. Green was approved by his session as falling under the WCF despite Dr. Jue making the case to the elders otherwise. That is significant. That never happened to Enns. This leads back to my point. If WTS is positioning itself so it can no longer serve a PCA church or elders like Green's session it seems to be a shame. Is Steve Smallman, who I believe is leading Green's session, a secularized left leaning liberal? Perhaps you have some dirt on him but to my knowledge no he isn't. The very fact that you have to think about that makes you realize how crazy the situation is. Because WTS is positioning itself to the right of a right leaning PCA church is what makes me concerned.
I think that the administration at WTS know this and that is why they are laying low. They don't want to do more to ostracize sessions like Green's even though that is where the board is leading them. I guy I know said that you don't get purple hearts for shooting yourself in the foot. If the economy or a more secularized society lead to a drop in WTS students that is one thing. The Lord will be faithful to build His church. If WTS is shooting itself in the foot by moving to the right of the right of the right to the point that they cannot serve solid local or global sessions of the Lord's body that is another. From my perspective that is a shame and a waste.
To my knowledge, Green always supported Enns. So can you really drive a wedge between the two?
DeleteSteve,
DeleteFrom my vantage point there is a large difference between the two. Green is a ruling elder in a local session who was examined and found to be within the bounds of the WCF. That is something that Enns could never claim and is significant. Additionally, unlike Enns, Green is going on to a seminary that has a high view of the word of God and also subscribes to the WCF. Many of Enns positions changed after he left WTS which only widens the gap. Green is clearly on a different trajectory post WTS. All of the points mentioned above communicate that they are not one and the same when it comes to theological positions. If you want to paint with a broader brush and see them as being closer that is certainly your prerogative. The alternative to supporting Enns at the time was Lane Tipton. There is a lot of theological ground between those two. If you weren't one extreme or the other it was a difficult time.
Why is Green still a ruling elder at his session and moving on to a school that has a high view of God's word and subscribes to the WCF but he is not suitable to teach at WTS any longer? That to me is a troubling question. It signals that WTS' narrowing, which Dr. Lillback tried to deny, is moving to the right of the right of the right. I don't follow this blog and I don't know you. Perhaps you think that this is a good thing. From some of your comments I suspect you must but I respectfully disagree.
@JoeSmith64
DeleteThanks for your clarifications, JoeSmith64.
That said, sorry, I'm still not quite clear on a lot of what you've said. For example:
"If WTS is shooting itself in the foot by moving to the right of the right of the right to the point that they cannot serve solid local or global sessions of the Lord's body that is another. From my perspective that is a shame and a waste."
It seems to me you're conflating "moving to the right" theologically with "moving to the right" culturally (and perhaps racially/ethnically). I'm not quite sure what you mean exactly, but how does being very far "right" theologically necessarily prevent one from successfully engaging with and ministering to different cultures?
"Green was approved by his session as falling under the WCF despite Dr. Jue making the case to the elders otherwise."
Speaking of which, isn't Jeff Jue Asian-American?
"Additionally, unlike Enns, Green is going on to a seminary that has a high view of the word of God and also subscribes to the WCF."
Of course, the measure of biblical faithfulness isn't "subscrib[ing] to the WCF." The WCF is hundreds of years old. I don't think it's necessarily entirely relevant to the contemporary theological scene for best sorting out heterodoxy from orthodoxy.
Frankly, the WCF was never designed to address contemporary issues of Biblical history, inerrancy, and hermeneutics. That was hardly on the radar back in the 17C. So that's an inadequate standard of comparison.
DeleteTo be a ruling elder isn't much of a quality control mechanism considering the fact that Enns is still a ruling elder in the PCA.
No, it wasn't a choice between either siding with Enns or siding with Tipton. After Enns was fired, the seminary published some of the faculty deliberations, which reflect a range of positions.
Rock,
DeleteYou may not think that subscribing to the WCF isn't a measure of biblical faithfulness but WTS sure does. I've heard a professor preach during chapel using the WCF almost exclusively going chapter and verse much like the bible. That professor was Tipton who, as I understand it, been one of the main point people hunting down heterodox positions at WTS. So it may not mean much to you or relevant in the conversation at hand but in certain circles it is very significant that Green was found to be in the bounds of the WCF by his PCA session and is going to teach, post WTS, at a school that aligns itself with the WCF. It is a long way away from where Enns has gone even though Steve is trying to lump them together as one and the same or at least very similar to the point they both deserve equal condemnation.
You have a persistent habit of misrepresenting the position of your opponents. For someone who's so morally indignant about the current situation, you need to put your own moral house in order.
DeleteThere's a difference between "lumping" them together and driving a wedge between them. I've said there's prima facie evidence that Green was on board with Enns. The record will bear that out.
BTW, no one is stopping him from publicly stating how his own position differs from Enns.
Steve,
DeleteI apologize for misrepresenting you. I'm not morally indignant and I'll be the first to say that I don't have my moral house together. I'm a sinner saved by grace. If WTS is shooting itself in the foot and needlessly hampering its ministry to solid local sessions and churches around the globe that does sadden me.
Can I savor the irony of the fact that you are getting on me for misrepresenting you while you may be misrepresenting Green? You can't make this stuff up.
In the end the record will indeed bear things out.... or not if the WTS administration has anything to do with it because we may never know!!
Because the WTS administration is suppressing the truth we may have to look at the key differences between Enns and Green as the wedge. PCA session approved and going to be teaching at school with a high view of scripture that subscribes to the WCF. When you compare that to biologos and Eastern, from my perspective, that is a significant start to the wedge in question.
"Because the WTS administration is suppressing the truth..."
DeleteMaybe so and maybe not. Tremper Longman says "Doug is not talking to me about his conversations with the administration." Does that mean Doug is suppressing the truth?
@JoeSmith64
Delete"You may not think that subscribing to the WCF isn't a measure of biblical faithfulness but WTS sure does...So it may not mean much to you or relevant in the conversation at hand but in certain circles it is very significant that Green was found to be in the bounds of the WCF by his PCA session..."
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, you believe WTS is moving too much to the "right" in wanting their faculty to strictly adhere to the WCF. Whereas I'm not interested in whether or not Green was faithful to the WCF, per se, but rather whether what he teaches is in line with Biblical and theological orthodoxy.
If so, then fundamentally speaking we're both not interested in whether or not Green subscribes to the WCF, right? You'd rather WTS be less "narrow" in their interpretation of the WCF and accept someone like Green on faculty, whereas I'd rather WTS stop relying so much on the WCF to support their position for why they apparently dismissed Green.
So in this respect, what WTS thinks about the WCF may not mean much to you either.
At any rate, if what you say is true, then what's wrong with WTS wanting faculty to abide by the WCF? That's their prerogative as an institution.
Of course, you mentioned all this is somehow a move to the "right," although I don't quite see it, or at least I don't see what you mean by it. But then again, what you wrote seemed a bit vague to me.
Also, you mentioned how this move to the "right" somehow impacts ministry and outreach to other cultures. But why this is necessarily the case is likewise unclear to me.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWe all know that Doug had to sign some sort of non disparagement agreement with WTS to retire honorably. The WTS administration has been very good about using non disparagement agreements to limit fallout from its actions. So the fact that Doug is not talking to Tremper about WTS only underscores the fact that he is a man if integrity. Because of this the ball is entirely in WTS' court to bring the truth to light. Green is not legally able to do so at this point. To disparage him for keeping to his legal side of the bargain is not entirely fair.
The WTS administration has no such legal limitations and has an obligation to the churches it serves to explain with honesty and clarity its actions. I'm not going to hold my breath.....
JoeSmith64 "We all know that Doug had to sign some sort of non disparagement agreement with WTS to retire honorably. The WTS administration has been very good about using non disparagement agreements to limit fallout from its actions."
DeleteIs that a documentable claim? Or is it just gossip masquerading as fact?
Even assuming that the settlement included a nondisparagement clause (for which you offer no evidence), why do you presume that's unilateral? Why not a mutual nondisparagement clause? Indeed, that would explain the reticence of the board/administration.
You seem to be assuming that Doug had no leverage. That the board/administration was in a position to dictate the terms of his departure. But if that's the case, why didn't they just fire him outright?
Presumably, because he might sue them. That's a lengthy, expensive process. There's the risk of losing. And even if they win, there's no guarantee that the court would award them legal fees.
As long as you're going to speculate, it seems more reasonable to me that the board/administration agreed to the severance package because Doug had some bargain chips of his own. If both sides had leverage, it was in their mutual interest to settle out of court.
"So the fact that Doug is not talking to Tremper about WTS only underscores the fact that he is a man if integrity."
That's illogical on your own grounds. If, according to you, we all know that he had to sign a nondisparagement clause, then the reason he's not talking to Tremper about WTS isn't because he's a man of integrity, but because it would be unwise of him to jeopardize the severance package by violating the terms of the settlement. Which is not to say he's not a man of integrity, but just that you've identified the wrong motive. You yourself claim he's keeping his legal side of the bargain. That's not integrity, that's prudence. That's enlightened self-interest.
Notice that I'm simply arguing from your own operating assumptions.
"Because of this the ball is entirely in WTS' court to bring the truth to light."
Which assumes that the board/administration is free to go public with its side of the case while he is not. But in that event, why haven't they taken advantage of the opportunity to defend their actions?
"Green is not legally able to do so at this point. To disparage him for keeping to his legal side of the bargain is not entirely fair."
This is yet another example of your unethical discourse. I'm not "disparaging" him. Rather, I'm probing your double standards. You accused the board/administration of "suppressing the truth." I'm pointed out that both sides are very reticent. So why not be consistent? Either both sides are suppressing the truth, or neither side is.
You need to stop acting like a wind-up partisan and acquire a modicum of objectivity and logical consistency. "The WTS administration has no such legal limitations…"
You make these very confident assertions based on what, exactly? Your gut feeling?
"…and has an obligation to the churches it serves to explain with honesty and clarity its actions."
You can't just conjure up an obligation out of thin air. What makes you think the board must justify its actions to the satisfaction of outside pressure groups?
Steve,
DeleteIt is an established fact that employees let go from WTS need to sign a non disparagement agreement before they are entitled to their severance pay. I can try to get you in touch with a couple if you want just let me know. Just sent me an e-mail and I'll try to get you some contact information.
Because the WTS board uses producers like executive session they may not be able to comment specifically about Green but I would hope are able to talk about Fantuzzo and clarify their position in general. You can see from a strategic stand point that it isn't in their interest to do so hence the silence.
As a parachurch organization WTS is obligated to serve Christ's body which are local churches around the world. You definitely raise an interesting point on how they are actually accountable to no one. Should they be accountable to someone?
JoeSmith64
DeleteLet's compare what I actually said with your malicious substitute:
"What makes you think the board must justify its actions to the satisfaction of outside pressure groups?"
"You definitely raise an interesting point on how they are actually accountable to no one."
You're incorrigibly unethical. Go back to the slimy rock you crawled out from under.