I'll make a few comments on Tremper Longman's latest post.
The letter I quoted from Chris raises serious doubts about Lillback’s description and questions about the appropriateness of the President of Westminster’s actions. I sent personal copies to Lillback, Dunahoo, Trueman, and Jue (as I will this one). I did receive an acknowledgement and even a thank you for sending it from President Lillback, but no attempt to defend his interpretation over against Chris Fantuzzo’s.
i) To begin with, why does Longman think Lillback owes him an explanation? It's none of his business.
ii) More to the point, Longman has already tried to do everything he can to discredit Lillback. So why does he turn around and demand another explanation from Lillback? Since he doesn't trust Lillback, he wouldn't trust any additional explanation that Lillback proffers. Why does he continue to demand answers from someone he assures us is not believable? If he doesn't think Lillback is credible, he's determined in advanced that Lillback's explanations lack credibility.
Longman has rigged the game. By concluding that Lilback is not a credible source, any further dialogue is futile: "I don't believe a word you say. Now explain yourself!"
Let’s remember that Doug Green has served in the Old Testament department with great distinction for about two decades.
That's Longman's rosy assessment. But the current WTS board/administration clearly has a less laudatory view.
Also, the board fully affirmed Doug’s compliance with the Seminary’s theological position in relationship to the Westminster Standards (and even the narrow interpretive lens provided by the Affirmations and Denials) in 2009. But now Doug is deemed by Lillback as taking “exceptions to the Seminary’s views.”
The composition of the board changes over time.
President Lillback's statement also makes the public debate over the Psalm 23 article completely irrelevant.
True. Green's defenders (e.g. Longman, Bonomo) wasted lots of time on the wrong target.
I'd like to finish with a general observation: to my knowledge, Green and Fantuzzo have never publicly distanced themselves from Enns. Why not? No one is stopping them. That's the dog that didn't bark.
If they have fundamental disagreements with Enns, it would have been in their self-interest to disassociate their own position from Enns's when they were still fighting to keep their old jobs. Why didn't they?
If, in fact, they are quite sympathetic to Enns's position, then it would be dishonorable for them to give him up to save their own hides. It might even be risky. He might have email from them which would document their sympathies.
But if their view of Scripture is very different from, they had everything to gain and nothing to lose by publicly differentiating their position from his. So why the deafening silence?
Futuzzo has now written two open letters complaining about his mistreatment at the hands of the current WTS regime. What's striking is that he hasn't taken the occasion to state his view of Scripture. Nothing prevents him from running through a checklist of hot button issues on the historicity, morality, and foresight of the OT.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteTwo things....
Have you seen this facebook post on Sam Logan's page? I'm not sure where you stand with Dr. William Barker but he seems to have some interesting thoughts:
https://www.facebook.com/samueltlogan/posts/10204100604489424?fref=nf
Also from Sam Logan's facebook page there is a comment that Sam share where he talked with a current unnamed board member who admits that Green is probably currently within the Westminster Standards but could potentially someday not be. One is left to wonder if the WTS board voted on Green's current position or future potential position. Isn't that a Tom Cruise movie where people are punished for future crimes that they commit?
Sam Logan Kim - Several of us have talked with present Faculty and Board members and have tried to get specific answers to questions about Doug Green and have been turned away. Since this is a public Facebook post, I won't name him, but one Faculty member specifically directed me not to contact him any further with questions about Doug. Two different Board members to whom I spoke declined to provide any direct evidence regarding Doug and instead talked about Pete Enns. The only specific answers to questions were provided by a Westminster representative to the Session of New Life Church in Glenside and, after their meeting with that representative, the New Life Session voted UNANIMOUSLY that Doug Green was completely in accord with the Westminster Confession of Faith. I was at Westminster when Norman Shepherd was required to leave the seminary and I know that very full and complete statements were provided describing precisely what was perceived to be wrong with Norman's teachings. Citations were given of Norman's statements which made it clear what the precise problem was. Many of us did not agree with the interpretations which were placed on Norman's teachings but there was no doubt what the problem was - Norman said things that made it sound as though our evangelical obedience somehow contributed to our justification. And before Norman was required to leave the seminary, his ecclesiastical judicatory, the OPC Presbytery of Philadelphia, had full opportunity to give input into the process. Their conclusion about Norman was VERY different from the conclusion of the New Life Session about Doug. The final vote on Norman was a tie vote, which meant that half of those voting thought that Norman was NOT in accord with the Westminster Confession. Having said all of this, however, I would encourage you to contact Westminster Faculty members and/or Board members. Ask them your questions. Ask them to provide specific quotations from Doug Green's work that clearly demonstrate that he is out of accord with Chapter One of the Westminster Confession. One current Westminster Board member to whom I spoke specifically said that he did not think that Doug was NOW out of accord with the Westminster Confession but that he was on a trajectory that would PROBABLY take him out of accord at some point in the future. So I would encourage you to ask your questions directly of present Westminster Faculty members and Board members. Maybe you will have more success than Clair Davis, Will Barker, Bill Evans, or I have had. Maybe you will get answers that will convince you that every member of the Session of New Life Presbyterian Church was wrong. I know Clair and Will and Bill well enough and I think I know myself well enough to say that we are open to being shown that Doug is wrong and that his teaching is out of accord with the Westminster Confession. We just have not seen evidence of that and our attempts to get folks at Westminster to provide that evidence have been rebuffed.
It is a really fascinating thought that Sam Logan, Dr. William Barker, Dr. Bill Evans, and Tremper Longman, and Clair Davis are asking WTS for an open conversation about Green's dismissal. Regardless if you agree with them or not these guys aren't the bums from down the corner. But WTS won't even have a conversation....
Very strange times....
"Have you seen this facebook post on Sam Logan's page?"
DeleteYes, I have.
"I'm not sure where you stand with Dr. William Barker"
Since he held administrative positions at a time when the OT dept. went off the rails, he's complicit in the problem.
In fact, he, Logan, and some ex-board members may well be defending their own reputation at this point.
"there is a comment that Sam share where he talked with a current unnamed board member…"
i) We don't have the name of the board member or a verbatim quote. Is that your standard of evidence?
ii) I'd also like to know if the board member was there during the Enns controversy. Where did he stand on that?
"Several of us have talked with present Faculty and Board members and have tried to get specific answers to questions about Doug Green and have been turned away."
Perhaps that's due to mutual nondisclosure agreements or mutual nondisparagement clauses.
"the New Life Session voted UNANIMOUSLY that Doug Green was completely in accord with the Westminster Confession of Faith"
So what? Since members of the nearby session (as well as regional Presbytery) are often graduates of WTS and students of the very faculty in question, they not uncommonly share the same views because they were influenced by their seminary profs. So it's a vicious cycle. Moreover, a session isn't even a Presbytery.
"Ask them to provide specific quotations from Doug Green's work that clearly demonstrate that he is out of accord with Chapter One of the Westminster Confession."
i) What about Doug's unpublished classroom lectures?
ii) Why think only Chapter One of WCF is germane?
iii) WTS also requires faculty to comply with the Affirmations and Denials.
"Dr. Bill Evans…"
i) He has cast the issue as if it's all about hermeneutics.
ii) To my knowledge, he's a big fan of Paul Seely and John Walton. So his own views are suspect.
"Tremper Longman…"
Who coauthored the OT introduction that derailed the OT dept. in the first place.
"Clair Davis…"
Probably a nice guy, but his rambling response (which Evans hosted) was barely coherent.
"I was at Westminster when Norman Shepherd was required to leave the seminary and I know that very full and complete statements were provided describing precisely what was perceived to be wrong with Norman's teachings."
DeleteThe Enns spectacle was a repeat performance of the Shepherd spectacle. The current WTS regime wisely chose to handle the Green situation behind-the-scenes.
No doubt the Green/Longman/Enns faction is spoiling for a chance to turn this into another public inquisition of WTS, just like they tried to do with regarding Enns. I understand why that faction is bitterly disappointed at being denied the same soapbox to grandstand.
A seminary is a classroom, not a courtroom. This isn't Judge Judy.