Mohler purges seminary

http://www.worldviewconversation.com/2020/04/breaking-al-mohler-fires-conservative.html

Seminary foibles

http://www.craigkeener.com/a-humorous-look-at-some-interpretive-mistakes/

Mutiny at SBTS?

An OT prof. at SBTS has signed the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel:

https://reformationcharlotte.org/2019/04/20/despite-rumored-threats-of-career-risk-sbts-professor-signs-social-justice-statement/

That's significant because it's been reported that Al Mohler privately threatened to fire faculty who signed the statement (a report Mohler denies). So this will be a test. 

The Statement on Social Justice is a poorly-formulated manifesto, although it says mostly good things. Is there a duty to sign it?

Insofar as the evangelical ruling class has drawn a line in the sand over this document, there's something to be said for signing it, even though it's a flawed document, as a statement of protest and defiance. The hostile reaction to the document lends it a significance above and beyond the document itself. It has become a symbol. 

An analogy would be saying and doing things that Muslims find provocative or offensive just to prove that you still have the freedom to do so (e.g. satirical cartoons of Muhammad). Occasionally, if someone dares you not to do something, that's a reason to do it. Sometimes you need to put it to the test. If you're afraid to exercise your rights, for fear of reprisal, then you already lost your rights. Likewise, the only way to keep your rights or reclaim your rights is to stand up to bullies.

I've been told that Mohler can fire faculty without due cause because SBTS uses at-will employment. At-will employment should be abolished at SBC seminaries. It subverts doctrinal standards. Termination of employment should be based on violating the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message and/or ethical misconduct. In effect, at-will employment replaces the statement of faith with the seminary prez. The seminary prez. becomes the operating creed. It reminds me of something Roger Olson said about ORU. ORU had no formal creed because Oral Roberts was the creed. Whatever he taught from one day to the next was the de facto statement of faith.

Curved grading

I have a beef about traditional grading. Let's use seminary as an example. Take comprehensive exams. Professors don't expect students to get 100%. Few students get a perfect score. 

Yet that means they don't expect students to remember everything they were taught. But what's the objective of teaching? The objective is not to pass the test, but to master the material. If, however, there's too much material to remember, then students aren't learning what you're teaching. But why teach more than they can learn? Why teach more than they can remember? Shouldn't mastery be the goal?

Consider an exam on internal anatomy, in which a med student scores 90%. Say that's a passing grade. 

Say that means he can identify 90% of your internal organs. It's the other 10% he's confused about. Would you undergo an operation by a surgeon who could identify 90% of your internal organs? What about the pesky 10%? Is that a kidney or the spleen? Flip a coin?

Someone might object that surgical knowledge is a life and death affair, so there's not the same margin for error. But does that mean seminaries teach students lots of irrelevant stuff? 

A better approach might be short, weekly quizzes. Passage requires a perfect score, but they can retake the quiz until they get 100%. At least that way they know it all. They mastered all the material. They remembered what they were taught. They may forget some of that at a later date, but that's better then never knowing it in the first place. 

Then there's the tradition of grading on a curve. That's unfair for two reasons.

To begin with, curved grading is, in effect, a group grade. You're not being graded on the quality of your own performance. Rather, your grade is dependent on how all the other students performed, even though you have no control over their performance. 

But it gets worse. Some students cheat. And that raises the bar for the honest students, since curved grading averages the grades. If students weren't graded on a curve, then each student's grade would be independent of the others. But if some students cheat, that raises the bar for the other students by distorting the curve. Honest students are downgraded by the cheaters. Honest students get a lower grade than they'd otherwise get because they're competing with students who take unfair advantage. 

I don't speak as a disgruntled student. I was a high-performing student in college and seminary. I'm speaking on behalf of other students. 

Seminary saturnalia

Training ground for the One True Church®

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gay-catholic-inside-the-seminary-closet/

Another nail in the coffin

https://swbts.edu/news/releases/statement-kevin-ueckert-chairman-board-trustees/

Should women teach in seminaries?

Recently, John Piper took an utterly unsurprising position on women teaching in seminaries:
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/is-there-a-place-for-female-professors-at-seminary
Funny to see the shocked reaction, as if he doesn't have a mile long paper trail on these issues. Here was the funniest reaction I've seen:

As if the Patriarchy is a white Western invention. As if non-white, traditional Third-World cultures are egalitarian and non-heteronormative.
On this issue I agree with Piper in some respects, but not in others. Before getting to the main point, I'll make some ancillary observations:
i) I don't think it's coincidental that Piper is an older generation Southerner. I expect his complementarianism is largely a continuation of a traditional Southern chivalric code. I don't say that as a criticism.
ii) He somewhat overstates the purpose of seminaries. Although they basically exist to train pastors, they offer MAR degrees as well as MDiv degrees.
iii) Although he bases his position on a complementarian reading of 1 Tim 2:12, he doesn't seem to object to women wielding authority over men in principle or women teaching men in principle. He doesn't seem to object to female professors at a Christian college. Rather, his argument is geared to the nature of pastoral formation.
iv) I agree with him on complementarianism.
v) I agree with him that it's ad hoc to say women can teach men to teach parishioners, but women can't teach parishioners directly.
vi) He oversimplifies pastoral ministry. A pastor of a small church does everything. By contrast, megachurches have compartmentalized ministries. Due to the size of the congregation, the ratio of pastor to parishioner, and the financial resources of a megachurch, what one man must do singlehandedly when pastoring a small church gets delegated to several different ministers at a megachurch.
That complicates his complementarianism. Take visitation ministry or a woman's Bible study.
vii) Does Piper think it's permissible for a pastor to read a commentary by Karen Jobes, but not to attend a class by Karen Jobes? If so, what's the essential difference?
viii) A good pastor doesn't necessarily have the same skill set as a good seminary prof, or vice versa. Seminary professors can outstanding scholars or thinkers, but abysmal communicators. Likewise, great scholars and thinkers may be sorely deficient in social skills.
ix) Now I'd like to get to the main point. I disagree with Piper's position on this particular issue. The rationale Piper gives for his position is unwittingly at odds with complementarian anthropology. Sophisticated complementarians aren't voluntarists. They don't think Biblical gender roles are arbitrary social constructs. Rather, they think these mirror stereotypical physical and psychological differences between men and women.
Yet Piper unintentionally acts as if these roles are interchangeable. He thinks that if male seminarians view male seminary profs. as pastoral role models, and if you put a woman in the same slot, then male seminarians will view women as pastoral role models.
Which ironically assumes that men relate to women the same way they relate to men when women occupy the same social role or institutional position. But I find that highly dubious and contrary to complementarian anthropology.
In my observation, men measure themselves by other men while women measure themselves by other women. Men don't measure themselves by women and women don't measure themselves by men. The psychological dynamic between men and women is different even when the social roles or institutional positions are artificially the same.
That's one reason we defend heterosexual marriage. Mothers can't take the place of fathers while fathers can't take the place of mothers. Kids need both. One person can't successfully play both roles.
The father/son dynamic, mother/son dynamic, father/daughter dynamic, mother/daughter dynamic, brother/brother dynamic, brother/sister dynamic, and sister/sister dynamic are all different.
Suppose the military put a woman in charge of a Navy SEAL team. Would the male members of that team relate to her the same way they relate to a male comrade just because she was given the same position? Are you kidding me?
Another example is the difference between male and female hymnodists. Male hymnodists have a different sensibility than female hymnodists.
I think it's wholly unrealistic to suppose that if a normal man has a female seminary professor, he will view her the same way he'd view a male seminary professor, as though male-on-male psychology is transferable to male-on-female psychology. This is not to deny that men can look up to women, and women can look up to men–but it doesn't mean they're consciously or subconsciously thinking that a member of the opposite sex embodies what they aspire to be like. That's just not how human nature is wired. Women are not an example of how to be a man. Men are not an example of how to be a woman.
There are, of course, some generic virtues they can share in common. Some Christian women exhibit perseverance in adversity or even moral heroism. We can admire that in members of either sex. But by the same token, that's not a lay/clerical distinction.

Confessional seminaries

I'd like to discuss some of the moral permutations of confessional seminaries (as well as confessional colleges).

i) Confessional seminaries are justifiable, and even necessary. The purpose of a Christian seminary is to transmit the faith to the next generation. The faculty should be Christian. Moreover, students should know what to expect.

However, that general principle is subject to some caveats and complications.

ii) Suppose an applicant is hired on the basis of the institution's current statement of faith. Suppose, after he gets the job, the institution amends the statement of faith. Should he be fired if he dissents from the policy change? 

That depends. In some situations, that's clearly unfair. He wasn't hired on those terms, so he shouldn't be fired on those terms. He was hired based on a mutual understanding and agreement. To unilaterally changes the rules in the middle of the game may well be unjust. 

iii) On the other hand, because the political and theological climate changes over time, new issues may arise that weren't on the radar when the statement of faith was originally formulated. In some cases, it wouldn't be possible to anticipate those developments. In other cases, it was just understood back then that those were out-of-bounds.

So there are situations in which it's proper and necessary for a confessional institution to revise the statement of faith. I can't say in the abstract if that's good or bad, because it depends on the specifics. Warranted examples include Bryan College and Cedarville on the historical Adam. 

iv) In addition, sometimes the threat comes from the left rather than the right. Robert Gagnon lost his job because he was well to the right of his denomination and its flagship seminary. It was inevitable that this would come to a head. He was out of step with the liberal trajectory of the PC-USA. 

v) Sometimes, though, the ground can shift under faculty, not due to a formal change in the statement of faith, but due to a change in the ecclesiastical climate. Power-brokers in the denomination may exert great influence and pressure, which changes what is tolerated in practice, regardless of what is tolerated on paper. That's an unwritten code which may jeopardize the job security of faculty. 

Likewise, if the board rubber-stamps the college or seminary president, then he's a law unto himself. (But a potential check is the alumni, especially the donor base.) 

By "power-brokers," I have in mind players like Ligon Duncan, Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, and Paige Patterson. 

vi) In situations like that, a professor may find himself in something of a moral bind. He has prior obligations to his dependents. So he may prevaricate about his true position if his family's financial security is threatened by ex post facto changes. 

I think lying is prima facie wrong, but there are situations where that's overridden by a higher obligation. And that distinction can be consistent with deontological ethics, viz. threshold deontology.

I have in mind situations like Dembski found himself mired in vis-a-vis Paige Patterson. 

vii) If a professor ceases to believe the statement of faith in one or more respects, then as a rule he should resign or be fired. I have no sympathy for Christian college or seminary professors who suffer an intellectual crisis of faith. By that point in their intellectual development, they should be familiar with the stock objections to Christianity, and have resolved them to their personal satisfaction.

Sometimes, though, a crisis of faith may be triggered by personal tragedy. That goes to the emotional problem of suffering rather than the intellectual problem of suffering.

In that case, I don't think they should be summarily dismissed. They must continue to teach orthodox theology. They shouldn't air their doubts with students, much less use the classroom as a platform to attack Christianity.

But according to the "church as hospital" model, I think that should be treated as much as possible as a pastoral issue, like nursing a sick patient back to health. I have in mind the situation of Gary Habermas. 

Supreme Court to hear WTS case

http://www.wts.edu/stayinformed/view.html?id=2038

Learn Biblical Greek (New Testament Greek Course | Koine Greek | Private, Tutoring, Online Program)

See my online tutoring program here:

http://www.alankurschner.com/greek

A different perspective on race relations

In the mainstream media, our "national conversation on race" boils down to an conversation between white liberals and black liberals. Here's a change of pace:

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-i-am-most-certainly-unconcerned.html

New Jersey Bible Institute - Upcoming Seminar on History of the Bible

http://www.newjerseybibleinstitute.org/

Tremper's open letter

Tremper Longman November 17 at 10:42am

However, speaking honestly, you have lost my respect as a board. 

That's such a paternalistic statement. Why does he imagine the WTS board pines for his respect? 

And, based on the many emails and private posts that I have received, I am far, far from alone in that assessment. It is indicative of a problem that many of those who contact me privately ask for anonymity because of a fear of reprisal from the present administration at the Seminary.

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the WTS administration is vindictive, surely the only people it's in a position to retaliate against are current employees. How "many" could that be? WTS is not a huge seminary, like SWBTS. It has a fairly small faculty to begin with. 

Does Longman imagine that the WTS administration can wreak vengeance on former faculty, board members, or alumni? How, exactly, does that work? Does Lillback have the power to issue a blacklist? The long arm of Lillback? 

This approach is unprecedented in Westminster’s past and thus represents a departure from the tradition of Westminster Seminary. As a result, until the past ten years, Westminster had been a significant influence in the broader evangelical and even the broader Christian world. 

Well, on the one hand, that would go back to the halcyon days when Enns was working there. Is that the kind of influence Longman sorely misses?

On the other hand, Fantuzzo and Green have a very short paper-trail, that I'm aware of, so it's hard to see how much influence that were in a position to exert outside the classroom. 

Today, Westminster is irrelevant to the broader Christian world. The Seminary, under your leadership, has circled the wagons and become in-grown and parochial.

i) What's his standard of comparison? Fuller Seminary? Eastern University? 

ii) If, moreover, WTS has become so marginalized, how is it in a position to retaliate against critics? 

Indeed, it has become increasingly embarrassing for alums and former professors like myself to say we were connected to Westminster.

If he feels that way, perhaps he should ask WTS to rescind his MDiv.

In the first place, I seriously doubt that the Board will discipline the administration. The problem is that the Board has basically been shaped by the administration after there was a mass resignation of Board members who voted against the continuance of the present administration.

i) Again, I don't know what that's supposed to mean. "Mass resignation" makes it sound like the former board resigned en masse. But if a majority of the board members were opposed to the current administration, they had the votes to fire Lillback. 

So I can only assume that a minority of the board resigned after they were outvoted by the majority.

ii) In addition, doesn't this go back to the termination of Peter Enns? Presumably, the disgruntled board members resigned after they lost that battle. If so, what does it say about their judgment or theological bearings when they sided with Enns? 

The board may be ultimately responsible for the Seminary, but it is accountable to its constituency and owes those of us who are a significant part of the Westminster community an answer to these disturbing questions.

Who is the "us"? Longman is not a member of the Westminster community. By resigning, ex-board members severed connections.  

Already I have received messages from people (including PCA ministers and denominational executives) who have said that they will not hire Westminster students.

How ironic. In the context of attacking the WTS regime for its allegedly Machiavellian tactics, the critics are going to settle old scores by exacting revenge on the students. Guilt by association. Attack the administration through the students. Talk about "reprisal"!

Longman and his cohorts are so fanatical that it's blinded them to any semblance of moral consistency. They've become the very thing they feign to hate. 

The dog that didn't bark

I'll make a few comments on Tremper Longman's latest post.

https://www.facebook.com/tremper.longman/posts/843306889021940

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. 

Tremper's tirade

I don't know if it's really worthwhile for me to comment on Tremper Longman's tirade in response to Lillback's reply. Longman is planning a series of responses. This may be my only comment. But for now I'll offer an initial comment:

I am writing this time because I am thinking of posting the transcript (or part thereof) of a conversation that you had with Van Til about forty years ago. In one sense it is old news, but in another it shows a trajectory of thought of trying to undermine the Seminary in the eighties that I and others think lead to your actions today. 
Also, I should point out that if you use my friend Bruce Waltke for political reasons I will expand my efforts to expose you. Yes I am seeking to undermine the present Westminster. The difference between you and me is that I am transparent in my efforts and you and Carl and others work in secrecy and with misdirection.
Since you all have chosen not to respond to our public and private approaches to you, I will give you till Thursday to respond or I will assume that you accept my assessment of this situation and will proceed with my post.

i) I think Longman comes across as sophistical, egostical, and delusional. To a great extent, Longman is just a purveyor of gossip. 

ii) I don't think Longman is putting all his cards on the table. I expect he's so invested in this issue because he views the position of the current regime at WTS as a repudiation of the position he and Dillard took in the OT introduction they coauthored. So he may well view the current policy change as an tacit, implicit attack on his own views. That's why he takes it so personally. There's also the question of whether he thinks Enns is out of bounds. Although, from what I can tell, Longman is to the right of Enns, he teaches at Westmont and Fuller, so he may feel that even if he disagrees with Enns, the position taken by Enns falls within permissible diversity.

iii) He also acts like Waltke is a senile old fool who's being manipulated by others. Now, admittedly, Waltke's about 84, so perhaps he's losing his marbles. But is there any evidence that he is, in fact, becoming feebleminded? 

iv) Then he lays down an ultimatum, and pretends that if Lillback doesn't respond by his dictatorial deadline, that means Lillback agrees with Tremper's assessement of the situation. Pure sophistry! 

v) He spins an elaborate conspiracy theory out of his fervid imagination. The Van Til interview was part of a long-term plot. The Waltke retirement gig was a diversionary tactic. The ghost of S. Lewis Johnson is behind this hostile takeover. 

First, I cannot speak to all three instances where Dr. Lillback was passed over for a faculty position, but I can for the first two and they were nothing analogous to the Fantuzzo situation. He was interviewed and the faculty agreed he was not the right person to fill that position.

That's not self-explanatory. Does he mean the history dept. thought he was the right person to fill that position, but when it came to a full faculty vote, it went against him? For unless it got to that stage, I don't see that a member of the OT dept. would be involved in the deliberations of the history dept. But maybe I'm missing something.

Second, I knew Al Groves very well, having hired him and worked with him for over fifteen years (and considering him one of my very best friends), and let me just say he deeply loved Doug Green and he would be distraught over Doug Green’s situation. To invoke his name in this context is a travesty.

It's easy to speak on behalf of the dead, since they are in no position to take issue with the words you put in their mouth.

And as far as that goes, E. J. Young (as well as Oswald Allis, Robert Dick Wilson, and Alan MacRae) would be distraught over the OT introduction which Longman coauthored with Dillard. Not to mention that E. J. Young would be distraught over Peter Enns teaching there. So ventriloquizing for the dead is cuts both ways. 

And yes, Iain Duguid, is a respected former student of mine. He also knows that I am deeply disappointed that he accepted the position in the manner that it was offered to him.

As far as that goes, Duguid might be deeply disappointed with Longman's antics and tactics. 

And finally, I did not know Lillback had to hire a senior Old Testament professor to lead the department since they had a senior Old Testament professor, Doug Green, who had not yet been forced to retire.

Of course, that's disingenuous. That represents Longman's viewpoint, not Lillback's. 

But what is most egregious about Lillback’s statement is that it misrepresents the circumstances of Fantuzzo’s departure. For that reason, I asked Chris if he was willing to comment on the situation.

Which becomes a he said/she said situation.

I don’t recall the board’s vote, but I wasn’t passed over; I was appointed as a full-time faculty member, and the search was closed. The idea that once hired I was still competing for the position is absurd.

But in a previous letter, Fantuzzo indicates that he was simply given a 3-year contract:

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. We disagreed about his reading of Longman/Dillard, but nothing more came of it. Though ST Prof Lane Tipton told me that Beale recommended that the WTS faculty limit my contract to one year rather than three.

So it wasn't a permanent job. Rather, the seminary was free to renew or not renew his contract when it expired. That's how it looks to me. 

The truth is the OT department, the faculty, President Lillback, the administration, and the board all welcomed me, making it plain that I had safely secured the post and would be promoted once my dissertation was finished. That was not a promise put in writing, but I was told to expect advancement as I met the benchmarks published in the faculty manual.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that that's correct:

i) If so, I can understand why he'd feel that after receiving the red carpet treatment, the rug was pulled out from under him. 

ii) Why would the current regime change its mind about Fantuzzo? In his previous letter, he said a student was recording his lectures, which he interprets as surveillance. If, as a result, the current regime acquired more information about his views, that, might in turn, cause Lillback et al. to reconsider. Keep in mind, too, that during this period there was some change in the composition of the faculty (e.g. adding Beale) as well as the board. So the ground may indeed, have shifted. 

When competent administrations make decisions affecting the future of OT studies at a seminary—of all departments—do they leave the OT department out of the process? Wouldn’t responsible leadership give special consideration to the members of faculty with expertise in the field? So, why did the Lillback administration snub Doug Green and Mike Kelly?

If the current regime deemed the OT dept. to be the source of the problem, then you're not going to consult the very people you intend to replace. 

And why did they keep my other WTS colleagues in the dark? Is it because plans to eliminate Doug were already in the works?

That raises a logistical question. If the current regime planned to cashier the OT faculty, it would be quite maladroit to begin ousting OT profs. unless they had replacements lined up. But timing that is tricky. So it wouldn't surprise me of there were overlapping negotiations with overlapping timelines. It's like selling your house to finance the purchase of a new house. Unless you coordinate the closing dates, you will end up nowhere to live during the interim.

(5) If a fair and open competition were being held, why was Peter’s “presidential constitutional prerogative” required both to block my promotion and to appoint Iain Duguid?(6) And when Peter finally announced Iain’s “nomination” to faculty, why did Jeff insist that there would be no discussion of the matter? Don’t public and fair competitions welcome frank and open conversations?The truth is I wasn’t passed over: Peter Lillback treated my colleagues and me with contempt because I was being eliminated. His actions in my case were simply the next phase in what’s amounting to a ‘totalitarian purge’ of the WTS OT faculty.

Why must there be competing applicants for an open position? I could see a problem of Lillback appointed Duguid, and unilaterally imposed him on the roster. But what's the problem with Lillback nominating Duguid, subject to the approval of the full faculty and board? 

Keep in mind, too, that Duguid is clearly more qualified that Fantuzzo. He's a seasoned Reformed OT scholar who's published several commentaries or expository sermon series. He has extensive pastoral as well as teaching experience. 

Lillback responds to Longman

Here is part of Lillback's response to Longman:

Like Chris Fantuzzo, I was passed over for a faculty position. In fact, this happened for three positions that I was asked to interview for at WTS. However, unlike Dr. Fantuzzo I had not had the privilege of competing for these positions with a three year written and mutually agreed upon contract behind me. In regard to this matter, I’m sure you know that I believed we needed to hire an experienced senior scholar to lead our OT department. To that end, I used my presidential constitutional prerogative to nominate Dr. Iain Duguid, one of your former students here at Westminster and a Cambridge PhD with many years of seminary and college teaching experience. This nomination was next supported by a faculty vote with no negative votes and two abstentions. This then became the faculty nomination that went to the Board where it unanimously carried. I am grateful that Westminster is now strengthened with an OT scholar who studied under you and has achieved his doctorate from such a world renowned institution as Cambridge. I believe Dr. Duguid is also your successor as senior editor of an OT commentary series that you helped launched with our distinguished deceased professor, Al Groves. As you know, the world famous Westminster Hebrew Institute that Al started still operates here on our campus and has been named in honor of Professor Groves.

So given my experience through these many years, I never could have imagined I would serve as President of WTS. But I was asked to do so, and when I accepted the call of the Board of Trustees, I had no awareness of the massive theological challenges that confronted WTS when I came. My desire had only been to restore a campus plagued by years of deferred maintenance and a reputation of functioning at too large a distance from the ministries of the local church. And these circumstances were complicated by a board that was deeply divided in the midst of an administration and presidential transition.

Tremper, in the spirit of Christian brotherhood I wish to let you know that I am praying for you. My prayer is that God will spare you from a bitter spirit that forgets or overlooks the cross and grace of Jesus Christ. And along with these prayers, I am praying that our Professor Waltke event will not be used for political ends. Perhaps you did not know, but Dr. Waltke has been a personal friend for many years. He preached at all three of the churches I pastored. I had him speak at a men’s retreat. He taught with you at my church for the “Streams in the Desert” seminar. I asked him to deliver my presidential inaugural keynote address here at WTS, which he did. I asked him to deliver the first Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. lecture, which he did. I’ve visited him several times after he left RTS and moved to Knox Seminary in Fort Lauderdale. I’ve actually been close enough to him that he discussed with me his decision years ago to leave WTS, as well as his difficult media experience that prompted his leaving RTS, and then even his decision to retire from teaching so he could better care for his wife. I’ve also republished several of his articles in recent months. My gratitude to Dr. Waltke is due in large measure to his trenchant teaching many years ago as well as his ongoing writing and teaching, that delivered me from a descent into the unbelief that too often seems to follow the embracing of higher critical methods.

You apparently are so concerned about our honoring of Dr. Waltke that you claim to know my very motives even though we have not communicated for many years. Dr. Waltke was invited by me to come to WTS, as the above recitation shows, out of a career long love that a student has for a godly and significant professor. It is the same kind of love that motivated me to interview Dr. Van Til so long ago when he was deeply distressed in the final years of his long and fruitful life in the aftermath and uncertainty of the Seminary’s long theological battle. I saw the same sort of wounds in my esteemed professor Bruce Waltke in the aftermath of the Biologos interview, particularly given the fact that his dear wife could no longer fully support him due to her challenging condition.

The plan to honor him emerged when I met with Bruce and his wife many months ago, long before there was any awareness of what would ultimately become Professor Doug Green’s decision to take an early retirement from the faculty, rather than confront the weighty and likely personally painful public theological battle that so many seem to wish to have. The idea to have some of Bruce’s cherished friends and former students from Dallas came to me early on as well. This was because I believed that Dallas Seminary, due to its dispensational commitments, would not celebrate Dr. Waltke’s career and retirement even though his contributions to the study of the OT and the Scriptures are immense. In this context, I encourage you and others to set aside what to me seems to be an apparent and/or expressly published “disappointment” with Dr. Waltke and seek to honor him as a father in the faith and a giant in your discipline. Your criticisms of Westminster in this context, whether intended or not, seem to have the tendency to dishonor him. To honor Dr. Waltke, even if he’s controversial to many in your circles even as he is in mine, clearly is the right thing to do. So I did not invite Bruce to WTS to use as a political football. Dr. Van Til and Dr. Waltke will be remembered for their positive contributions to the study of Scripture and the defense of the Christian faith. It is my prayer that this will be what you will be most remembered for as well.

Although you profoundly disagree, it is my desire to treat Doug Green with utmost respect. He was and continues to be a valued person and professor. He is still teaching Aramaic with us. Although he could not in good conscience support the commitments of Westminster’s faculty and board and thus chose early retirement instead of entering a process of theological review or taking the route of a reconsideration of his exceptions to the Seminary’s views, we endeavored to honor him in several ways. The first was by allowing him to co-write the announcement of his retirement, supported by clarifying FAQ’s that he approved. We honored him by posting his Psalm 23 paper at his request, a paper that had never been judged by the board or faculty. We have provided him a fully negotiated and thoughtful severance contract drafted and reviewed by his own legal counsel that honors him and protects his family. We are pleased that he has secured a new position in his homeland of Australia. In fact, members of our faculty that you have criticized in your posts helped him secure this position. And so we will steadfastly continue to honor him by keeping our mutual legally binding agreement with him. Theology, of course, deeply matters to us. We will continue to teach, declare and defend our historic biblical and theological beliefs in many positive ways in the days ahead.

https://www.facebook.com/tremper.longman/posts/839220956097200

God with us

Tremper Longman and Iain Duguid had a brief exchange over at Green Baggins on christoteolism:

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/is-typology-part-of-grammatical-historical-exegesis/

But it's striking that Longman never responded to Duguid's follow-up question. You'd think Isa 7:14 would be an excellent test-case to compare and contrast christotelic hermeneutics with the alternatives. So why did Longman back out? Did he suddenly realize that it was a tactical blunder for him to comment on Isa 7:14? That he better not tip his hand any further, because he'd already shown too much? What he said about Isa 7:14 was already pretty damaging for christotelism.  

BTW, here are two good studies of Isa 7:14 and Mt 1:23:

http://98.131.162.170//tynbul/library/TynBull_1970_21_05_Motyer_Isaiah7_14.pdf

http://jimhamilton.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Virgin-Will-Conceive-Formatted.pdf

• • 
    
  
  iain duguid said,

October 1, 2014 at 5:18 pm 
Jonathan,
If I can clarify the concern that I think Lane is raising, it is this: were the Old Testament saints able genuinely to see the gospel during the Old Testament period through a proper understanding of the Scriptures that they had then (albeit dimly), or did that have to wait until the coming of Christ? If the gospel is not visible (even though present) in the Old Testament until the coming of Christ, how were Abraham and Moses saved? On some level, the gospel has to be visible through ordinary exegesis of the OT texts in the OT period if it is to be the means by which God’s people were saved, which is a central tenet of Reformed theology.

Of course they didn’t have as full an understanding as we have (just as we don’t have a full understanding of the events that will surround the Lord’s return), but they did see enough of the gospel to place their trust prospectively in Christ. So, to take the Isaiah 7 passage, I’m sure the prophet’s original audience didn’t understand the fullness of what it meant. But they could see the contrast between that first young woman’s faith in Immanuel (“God with us”) and the cynical skepticism of the Davidic king, Ahaz. The initial fulfillment in the form of the destruction of the northern kingdom and of Syria was a rebuke to Ahaz and a call to the contemporary audience to trust in the promise of Immanuel, a promise in seed form that flowers completely in the coming of Christ. 

This is not to speak directly to the views of specific people, or to say that the gospel is equally clear everywhere in the OT. But I think that one concern of critics of the TRV is that it sounds as if the gospel is not actually visible through a normal, plain reading of the OT by itself, without the NT. And that, it seems to me, does raise significant theological questions. Does that help to clarify matters?

Tremper Longman said,
October 1, 2014 at 7:17 pm
Iain,
Jonathan is totally correct. And as much as I respect you, as my former student and friend, your attempt to argue that the original audience would even have a glimmer of a future messianic hope, not to speak of any kind of specific understanding of the virgin birth of Christ in Isaiah 7:14, is hardly persuasive. The thought process that you are attributing to the original audience is highly improbable. And unnecessary. It is true (and Dan and Doug would agree) that there was a messianic expectation that arose from the Old Testament, that was present in the intertestamental period, but it was not well understood until the resurrection of Christ. Again, in this case, I think Jonathan is exactly right.

iain duguid said,
October 1, 2014 at 8:57 pm
Tremper,
Thanks for your response. I also respect the many things that I learned from you. I’d just like you to clarify what you said, since clarity is of the essence in this discussion. When you say “there was a messianic expectation that arose from the Old Testament, that was present in the intertestamental period, but it was not well understood until the resurrection of Christ”, do you mean that there was no genuine and clear messianic understanding within the Old Testament itself before the intertestamental period? Or, to put it more precisely, that Isaiah’s contemporaries did not understand on some genuine level that through the suffering servant of whom he spoke, the Lord would take away their sins – that that knowledge only became clear after the coming of Christ? Or would you say that the Old Testament saints knew the gospel, truly and genuinely on the basis of what had already been revealed, even though much of the way in which God would fulfill these rich promises was not yet apparent to them?

For me, this is one of the pivotal questions in this debate and I ask it because I’d genuinely like to know how you are processing these things (regardless of where other people may be – I don’t know enough to speculate on what their answers might be).

Alien DNA

It's amusing to see urban legends in the making. The tactic is to create a damaging narrative of the opposition, and hope that catches on. Since, moreover, you're playing to a sympathetic audience, they are likely to assume the worst about the opposition. So the pejorative memes and urban legends stick. 

On example is the "toxic" environment meme. Under the new regime, WTS has a "toxic environment." I've seen several critics try to popularize that part of the new narrative. And there are other plot devices in the WTS narrative:  

https://www.facebook.com/chris.fantuzzo?fref=nf

Fantuzzo Chris Emily Hi Linda, Yes, I think alumni who are using this phrase have in mind their training under 80s-90s faculty like Dillard and Longman, Silva, Conn, Gaffin and Ferguson (and certain students of theirs) before the inauguration of Peter Lillback in 2005. It appears to many that the new Westminster admin. and board is rolling the clock back before Dillard, utilizes Machiavellian tactics to achieve its ends, and has redefined WTS so narrowly and militantly that it has become an embarrassment to serious Christian scholarship.September 30 at 7:23pm · 1

I understand that Fantuzzo is bitter about his experience. And I'm certainly open to the possibility that he was treated shabbily. Given mixed signals. Hung out to dry.

In addition, it does indeed appear to me, as an outside observer, that the current regime is turning the clock back to before Dillard. And I'm glad they are resetting the clock–after the doctrinal power outage. 

Is Fantuzzo saying the exegetical work of Duguid, Beale, and Poythress is an embarrassment to serious Christian scholarship? 

Fantuzzo Chris Emily Linda, I'm indebted to a friend for the following way to see the movement at WTS. Early Westminster was all about authority/inerrancy (faculty symposium called Scripture and Confession). Middle Westminster was all about interpretation/hermeneutics (with earlier contributions from Kline and Murray), while building on earlier interests in authority (the 80s faculty symposium was called Inerrancy and Hermeneutic). New Westminster has returned to a focus on authority, sadly without much reflection on what was learned about interpretation during the middle Westminster years. This can be seen in the Confession regulating document "Affirmations and Denials," and in recent faculty publications, esp. by Lillback, Garner, and Beale, which many alumni think reveal an alien (DTS) DNA. Only a few of the current faculty and Lillback board members were actually trained at middle WTS. And for many alumni who were trained during its salutary middle period, what was most positive and constructive about it has died with Peter Lillback's presidency and must be sought elsewhere.October 1 at 5:16am

There are some stubborn fact that get in the way of Fantuzzo's relative chronology. Take the false dichotomy between authority/inerrancy and interpretation/hermeneutics. E. J. Young represents "Early Westminster." And he was certainly strong on inerrancy. Yet he also wrote major commentaries on Isaiah and Daniel, as well as a devotional commentary on Ps 139. 

Murray represents "Early Westminster." Yet his systematic theology was an exercise in exegetical theology. 

Conversely, O. Palmer Robertson represents "MIddle Westminster." The "salutary" period. He taught there during the 70s. Yet he's a critic of Dillard/Longman. So Fantuzzo's very schematic version of Westminster history suffers from too many serious anachronisms. 

I will address the "alien DNA" meme in a moment. 

But this also tells us something about why Westminster is changing in the direction it is hermeneutically. Bruce, Peter and Greg and others (notice that this celebration is being co-sponsored by others from Dallas) are all part of a group that were associated with Dallas seminary forty or so years ago (Dave Garner also has a DTS background).Their spiritual leader was S. Lewis Johnson of Believers Chapel. This group departed from their DTS background by rejecting dispensationalism, but they maintained a more literalist understanding of interpretation which includes a commitment to meaning found in the conscious intention of the human author.Without question, this theology stands behind their rejection of Christotelic and affirmation of something that they call a Christomorphic reading of the New Testament use of the Old Testament. 

https://www.facebook.com/tremper.longman/posts/830513933634569

Could it be, as some of us who support Dr. Green have recently surmised, that the dispensational background of some of the key players at WTS is significant here? Of course, I’m not at all saying that Professors Beale, Lillback, and Garner (all of whom have degrees from Dallas Theological Seminary) are dispensationalists. Far from it. But with dispensational literalism comes a rather narrow grammatical-historical hermeneutic, and with that a focus on the human author’s intent as decisive for interpretation that has been influential far beyond the confines of dispensationalism itself. Even when people leave dispensationalism proper they often retain that hermeneutical orientation.I sense that, in drawing our attention to the Believers’ Chapel connection, Dr. Longman is on to something quite important here.  I can easily imagine how people with that grammatical-historical bias who came to WTS with its conviction that Christ is pervasively present in the OT, and who were strongly opposed to the view of the NT’s use of the OT presented in Peter Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation, would think it necessary to say that the OT writers had those NT Christological ideas in mind.  But these imported hermeneutical ideas simply don’t sit well with the Old Princeton heritage of WTS. 

https://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/dallas-and-the-dutchman-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-christotelic-controversy/

Fantuzzo, Evans, and Longman are all recasting the issue in terms of "alien DNA." The rejection of the christotelic hermeneutic is driven by the "literalism" of their residual dispensational hermeneutic. And that "simply don’t sit well with the Old Princeton heritage of WTS."

Unfortunately, that allegation has to cut and tailor the facts to fit the theory:

i) Poythress, Duguid, and Trueman don't have a DTS background. I notice that Fantuzzo, Evans, and Longman simply ignore that conspicuous piece of counterevidence.

ii) But even on its own terms, dispensational DNA was part of the original gene pool of Westminster. Allan MacRae was one of the founding faculty members of WTS. Yet he was an ardent premillennialist. Indeed, he later became an editor of the The New Scofield Reference Bible. Here's a sample of his approach to prophecy:

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/27-daniel/macrae_daniel_text_audio/macrae_daniel_lecture10.pdf

Presumably, Machen was aware of MacRae's eschatological outlook. Yet he hired him anyway, and promoted him after Wilson's death. 

Beale's amil hermeneutic is far less dispensational than MacRae's premil hermeneutic. 

iii) Compare Dillard/Longman's OT introduction to E. J. Young's OT introduction, and ask yourself which one doesn't sit well with the Old Princeton heritage of WTS. 

iv) In addition, is Evans claiming that Old Princeton espoused a christotelic hermeneutic? The leading exegetes of Old Principle were Charles Hodge, J. A. Alexander, and Geerhardus Vos. Is it Evans' contention that they utilize a distinctively christotlic hermeneutic? Is so, I'd like to seem him present the documentation. 

No honor among thieves

Critics of Westminster have made a big deal about how the board/administration (allegedly) mistreated Christ Fantuzzo and Doug Green. They insist that this isn't just an issue of hermeneutics, but ethics. How we treat people we disagree with. People come first. They accuse WTS of engaging in "political machinations" and the like. 

That's the rhetoric. In that regard, it's been revealing to see how the critics treat Bruce Waltke. Now, in general, you might think they'd view hin as a sympathetic figure. A fellow victim of the Reformed purges. He was pushed out of WTS, then pushed out of RTS, by the same faction that went after Enns, Green, and Fantuzzo. 

But it turns out that the critics have other priorities, and when crunch time comes, people are not the priority after all. It boils down to power politics.

You see, WTS is hosting a retirement party for Waltke. When the critics saw that, they saw an opening. They could accuse WTS of hypocrisy. Longman even has a full-blown conspiracy theory. He assures us that the retirement party is a decoy to throw people off the scent. 

However, for the critics to exploit this opportunity, they had to sacrifice Waltke. After all, since the party is in his honor, they can't attack the party without implicating Waltke. So Longman has indicated that Waltke is complicit in the diversionary tactic. He's an enabler of the wicked WTS regime.

The retirement party was just too tempting an opportunity for the critics to resist. So they treat Waltke like a pawn on their chessboard. To win, you must sometime sacrifice one of your own pieces to secure a positional or tactical advantage. And as the critics have now revealed, it's all about winning. Winning at any cost. 

To take advantage of this opening, they must do their best to discredit Waltke. It's striking to see how ruthless they are in pursuing their aims:

• 
  
  Pete Enns I hesitate to comment here, but for the record, BKW strongly and enthusiastically endorsed and backed I&I publicly and TO THE ADMINISTRATION when the book was released (6/05). He also spoke at my inauguration as full professor the following spring (3/06) and cited the book in his comments, and even at one point gently chiding WTS for not "taking the incarnation seriously enough" (i.e.,applying it to a doctrine of Scripture as I do in I&I). 
• By June of that year he had made a 180 degree about face without offering an explanation to me, only calling me to insist his name be removed from all endorsements at Baker and counseling me to "recant" or he would take proper steps with the administration (I refused, obviously). To this day I can only speculate why he made this sudden change--though I understand the dynamic perfectly. The reason he has given me and others since has never succeeded in laying to rest my profound disappointment.
  Yesterday at 9:07am · Edited · 1
• 
  Tremper Longman Yes, Pete I have never understood it either though I have tried to get an explanation from him. It was a dramatic and unexplained shift.
  Yesterday at 11:05am
• 
  DebeDave Harris But maybe you could comment briefly on this, Dr. Enns?
• "A theory that entails notions that holy Scripture contains flat out contradictions, ludicrous harmonization, earlier revelations that are misleading and/or less than truthful, and doctrines that are represented as based on historical fact, but in fact are based on fabricated history, in my judgment, is inconsistent with the doctrine that God inspired every word of holy Scripture."
• -- B. Waltke
• I'm not sure what you are alluding to when you say he called for you to "recant," but maybe you could hazard a guess? From my limited experience with Dr. Waltke, I gather he takes time to make up his mind about some things, but when he does, he is very firm.
  Yesterday at 11:07am
• 
  Tremper Longman I would say this that the point is that Bruce had made up his mind when he endorsed the book. I am assuming he did not do it mindlessly or without reading it or coming to a thoughtful conclusion. That is not Bruce's style. If that quote represents his mature reading of I and I he has unfortunately misunderstood it. He certainly misrepresents it.
  Yesterday at 11:13am · 1
• 
  Pete Enns I also responded in writing to Bruce's later views of the book.
  Yesterday at 11:56am
• 
  John Davis I would rather believe in Bruce Waltke's integrity that perhaps his initial public comments were based on a casual reading and confidence in a friend and colleague, whereas a careful reading led to his written comments.
  Yesterday at 12:10pm
• 
  Pete Enns I would have rather believed that, too.
  Yesterday at 12:35pm

https://www.facebook.com/tremper.longman?fref=ts