Sinews of discipline at Westminster Theological Seminary...

If you could recommend a seminary to a prospective student, which one would you recommend and why? Are there one or two others that would be at the top?

What about a couple seminaries in the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition that you would be less inclined to recommend? Why?

DMS,

Tim wrote above, "David and I believe the training of pastors is best done in the context of the local church."

Acting on that conviction, David, Tim and their churches started two pastoral training colleges housed in their churches: The Reformed Evangelical Pastors College (in Toledo, where David serves), and ClearNote Pastors College (in Bloomington, where Tim and I serve). The two churches cooperate in this work, sharing about half the classes via a video conferencing link between our two locations. The lion's share of the learning, though, happens in elders' meetings, deacons' meetings, pulpits, counseling sessions, mentoring appointments, small groups, Sunday school classes, etc.

We are just now graduating our first class of men who have completed the three-year program.

Will they have an accredited degree? No. Will they have the accepted "union card?" No. Will they be widely accepted in churches? Not likely--at least not at first.

Will they have a real education in the work of shepherding souls? Yes. And they, too, will have been shepherded all through their time with us.

If you are interested in this kind of approach, or know someone who might be, please feel free to email me at sbaker at shepherdchurch dot com.

-Stephen Baker (Dean, ClearNote Pastors College)

>So who are the ones making this argument?

Direct quote from the article linked above:

"Some of his supporters are condemning the hearing, due to begin Aug. 25, as a 'heresy trial.' They say the trustees want to harden the school's national reputation as a fortress of ultra-orthodox Calvinism, and purge perceived 'liberals' from the faculty."

>I also don't believe that the majority of WTS faculty who voted that Enns is w/in the bounds of the WCF were making an argument against heresy.

I spoke about sheep saying they didn't need protection--not shepherds. Faculty members aren't "sheep."

"Some of his supporters are condemning the hearing, due to begin Aug. 25, as a 'heresy trial.' They say the trustees want to harden the school's national reputation as a fortress of ultra-orthodox Calvinism, and purge perceived 'liberals' from the faculty."

Actually we dont know who the source for the quote is. Faculty member, former board member, student, alumni who serves as a TE could be any & students are the closest to being sheep.

Tim,

In an unrelated comment - I heard you talking about Donna Campbell recently. She was a good friend of ours at Reformed Presbyterian. Somehow we lost touch with her after she moved - I just found her again - didn't know if you knew she's at WTS which was her dream job:

http://www.wts.edu/library/information/librarystaff.html

Robert W. Jones

I checked my 2006 copy of the WTS Alumni Directory and you are not in it. Are you presently a student at WTS? If not what could you possibly know about the matter except what you got from second or third hand sources? Your comments about Dillard and Groves in particular are out of line with my own exposure to those two professors.

Perhaps I should not have brought up Dillard & Groves although there have been many who have argued that the attack on Enns is rooted in a mistrust of the OT dept historically as well as Harvie Conn. (although you didn't object to my mentioning him).

This is the quote from an unnamed source:

"Some of his supporters are condemning the hearing, due to begin Aug. 25, as a 'heresy trial.' They say the trustees want to harden the school's national reputation as a fortress of ultra-orthodox Calvinism, and purge perceived 'liberals' from the faculty."

You characterize the quote as:

"Lots of sheep think the seminary's action is scandalous. You know, criticisms of the "Don't you idiots know that the church has repented of heresy trials?" sort. Well, there you have it: "No heresy any more," say the sheep, "so don't bother guarding us--we don't need your care." '

Maybe you didn't characterize Enn's supporters in the worst light but your mischaracterization of an unanamed source(who may or may not be sheep) is not a accurate view of Enn's supporters(WTS faculty, students, or alumni).

In other words you just b/e someone says "A" is heresy & you disagree does not mean you don't believe in heresy.

As an outsider looking in, and without knowing much of the details in this matter, it strikes me the tone and approach is similar to that of those defending Federal Vision.

We're not understood

Deny any reason for concern

Process is not afforded

Attack the persons, institutions and mechanisms

When process is to be afforded, say it will not be fair.

When process is completed, say it was not fair, that's why we left it (before it was completed).

This leads me to think we have an intelligent, articulate professor who is well liked by many students and professors but who teaches that Scripture cannot be understood in a normative way. It makes me glad the Seminary has the courage to deal with this and protect the integrity of Scripture.

W

Bret--"avoid the virus"? Are we talking such contaminants at Westminster as Michael Horton, Scott Clark, Robert Godfrey? Seriously? And two kingdom theology of the Reformers is "radical"? What do they teach you at Mid-America?

Are we talking such contaminants at Westminster as Michael Horton, Scott Clark, Robert Godfrey? Seriously?

The following are a couple of interesting reads whatever position one holds. Both involve Scott Clark.

http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2008/07/recently-i-paid-visit-to-p...

http://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&title=the_doctor_makes_a_housecall_c...

Mr. Chambers, would you care to enlighten us about what those links prove other than that Reformed Protestants do not agree? Oh my.

>Why is rubbish like this permitted on this blog?

If you read the post and understood it you'd recognize that "Richard", the fellow who used "contaminants", was actually, at least in relative terms, defending that Clark fellow as well as Horton and Godfrey. If you wish to pick a fight it would be with somebody besides "Richard" I should think.

On the other hand Dr. Clark you have been known to embrace some rather intemperate language on occasion including some which is distinctly devoid of any ennobling tendency (a ditty mocking Pastor Wilson, etc set to the Brady Bunch lyrics comes to mind).

Well, I run a reasonably busy blog and I feel your pain but men like Horton and Godfrey do not deserve the sort of low-brow abuse received here.

As I said, one can say what one will about me. It's probably true. As they say, I give as good as get. Godfrey and Horton have been heroic in their defense of the gospel, of the Reformed faith and confessions. Frankly anyone who speaks like that about them ought to have his head examined. Really.

Reformation rhetoric was aimed at enemies of the gospel. Norm Shepherd is an enemy of the gospel, The FV doctrine is an enemies of the gospel (as judged by many of the NAPARC churches including the PCA!). Calvin and Luther aimed their heated rhetoric at anti-Trinitarians and moralists and papists. They didn't aim their sometimes over-heated rhetoric at each other. Okay, Luther did go over the top in re Christology and the Supper and Calvin complained about it!

I would hate for history to get in the way here but notice how Calvin spoke toward Melanchthon. They came to have significant differences but Calvin never spoke about him the way Godfrey and Horton have been described here.

It's typical of the illness of our movement today that such heated rhetoric is aimed not at those who corrupt the gospel openly but against those who hold the wrong social views!

I don't think, last I checked, that one's social views are the "main hinge" (Calvin) of religion or the article of the standing or falling of the church (Alsted). The gospel is. Thus the sort of rhetoric I've used against the moralists is appropriate. Okay, I've used some pretty strong language about theonomy but this isn't a theonomic blog is it?

Dr. Clark,

I'm sorry. I was wondering if you were referring to Richard's comment not Bret's.

Mr. Chambers, would you care to enlighten us about what those links prove other than that Reformed Protestants do not agree? Oh my.

Why Darryl they weren't offered as an argument and therefore were not offered as proof of anything. They were offered--as I clearly stated--as interesting reads which I believe they are. Of course I recognize that what is and isn't interesting is entirely subjective. I take it then that you didn't like them? Perhaps a link to the interaction between you and Ron at Greenbaggins might be more agreeable?

Ah well, you can't please everybody. But that group there in Wittenber...I mean Escondido, do seem a bit sensitive. My goodness, is everyone who disagrees with them a Shepherdite a Federal Visionist or ::gasp:: one of those nasty theonomists?

>I appreciate your willingness to take time out of your schedule to stand up for others and rebuke sin, but I think there may be some miscommunication/misunderstanding to clear away before the "aim" and "fire" phases.

When you don't take the time to do things properly you wind up shooting yourself in the foot...

Mr. Chambers: Sensitive? Who me? You did link to one or Bret's posts which also involved me. And it also indicates that a view that is quite clearly taught in the OPC's Book of Church Order (I imagine it is also in the PCA's) -- that church power is only spiritual and moral, not political or civil -- is deemed by Bret to be radical and a virus. I have been called a lot worse, sometimes even by myself. But it would be good if people could represtent the facts truthfully.

The so-called 2k doctrine has been around a long time, going back to Augustine's notion of the two cities, and even Christ's teaching about God and Caesar. In American circles a 2k view became the norm for Presbyterians when the Americans revised the WCF in 1787 on the duties of the magistrate.

I am bizarre enough as it is without having my 2k views deemed radical or a virus.

Mr. Hart,

You read theonomists to be saying that church power should extend to the civil sphere?

Mr. Dove, I read theonomists and Jim Wallis to be saying that the Bible should be the norm for public life (as opposed to some formulation of general revelation). Because saints, either individually or collectively in the church, are the ones who have some inkling (by virtue of the HS) to understand the Bible correctly, the move to make the Bible the norm then also elevates those people and officers who are subject to the Word and minister it. I do not believe that God granted jurisdiction of civil society to the church in this age of redemptive history. He has to some believers whose vocation is that of public servant. How those folks balance their duties to the Constitution and to the Bible is tricky, just as tricky as it was for JFK to juggle the Constitution and the papacy, and for Mitt Romney to juggle the Mormon elders and the Constitution.

Mr. Mark Allen Chambers, I was not saying that you were not stating things truthfully about me.

Nor did I suggest you did.

My point was the less charged one of whether critics of the 2k position can recognize that it has a long and honored position in American Presbyterianism.

No Darryl, your point, and the one I took issue with, is your reprehensible accusation that your opponents are dishonest. You wish they would “represent the facts truthfully.” Who is really being dishonest here?

On blogs or not on blogs, my impression was that believers should not slander other people.

Then why do you Hart? Why do you call them dishonest?

Calling the 2k view a virus may not be slanderous.

“May” not be? Is that a carefully worded slight of hand or are you simply being obtuse? One does not slander a “view” Hart. A view may be misrepresented but it is men that are slandered, calling them dishonest for example.

But it surely isn't charitable.

To whom? You and your compatriots or the church at large? Feminists think patriarchists to be mean and uncharitable. So what? If you think that charge uncharitable you’d do well to point out the error of it rather than spending time calling others dishonest.

I do not believe that God granted jurisdiction of civil society to the church in this age of redemptive history.

I’m at a loss to understand why anyone claiming to understand Theonomy would write such a thing. I hope this is not an intentional misrepresentation for it is certainly an incredible demonstration of ignorance, especially coming from one as credentialed as yourself.

Those looking for a direct response to the charges and misrepresentations of Dr. Hart are invited to read them at the following link.

http://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&title=two_kingdom_

clarification&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments

You’d do well to address the arguments of your opponents Hart rather than level false accusations of dishonesty.

Now we've tied up enough blog space here and I don't want to presume upon the hospitality of the owners. If you'd like to continue this I'll be more than happy to engage you at ironink.

For anyone who cares, here is an attempt to correct some misunderstandings of the alleged virus known as 2k and is a response to the link from Bret above (I tried to post this at ironlink but I exceeded some cpu limit -- or I have a virus):

Jetbrane: you write: "R2Kt virus goes on to say that the Church as the Church must not even seek to use moral persuasion when it comes to issues that are non-salvific (narrowly defined) that apply to the public square. According to R2Kt virus thinking the Church as the Church cannot speak to these issues because the Bible doesn’t speak to these issues."

I don't know of anyone who holds this implication of what you perceive to be the 2k view. The church may use its power of persuasion all the time (and does every time a minister steps into the pulpit and proclaims the word of God). The question is one of jurisdiction. When the church declares the word of God, in worship or in its courts, it is using powers of persuasion all over the place.

What is more the 2k position in no way denies that the Word of God speaks to matters of morality that affect civil society. Clearly the Bible says things about lying, cheating, stealing and killing, and the state makes laws about such things. But simply because the church ministers the word of God on these "issues" does not mean the church has jurisdiction over civil or political affairs. The 2k position says that it doesn't. (It's like a father who disciplines children; his status as an administrator of offspring discipline does not give him the authority to administer discipline to children of another father.)

One more correction, the 2k view says nothing about pluralism being desirable. It does concede that pluralism exists and it argues that it gives the church a way to minister in a pluralist setting without seceding or rebelling against the existing powers. But many 2k people would argue that they'd prefer to live in a less pluralistic society.

Where you and I differ probably the greatest is over your contention that the 2k view will make the church impotent. Here you hold up Mass. Bay as a model of separating the two powers, civil and ecclesiastical, and I suppose as maintaining its vitality. But the 2k view argues that the collapsing of membership in the civil society and in the church, as all state churches do, does not make the church potent. In fact, it was one of the chief ways by which the church becamse corrupted.

Look at what happened to the Puritans' Half Way Covenant. Infant baptism was not simply a church matter -- as in the 2k view -- but also a civil matter -- as in the anti-2k view. And what happened to the Puritan churches then. They had to fudge biblical teaching to accommodate the demands of civil society. (This, btw, is also what happened even to churches after the separation of church and state. When the PCUSA was the most vigorous in asserting its public influence -- say as its four-square support for the 18th Amendment or when John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State -- it was a church fairly impotent theologically.)

So the 2k view holds that the church is most vigorous when she is spiritual and eschews the temptation to reform society or back legislation or shape public policy. That seems to be what Paul was getting at when he talked about preaching and the cross being foolishness to the Greeks -- the great political theorists -- but the power of God unto salvation.

Dr. D. G. Hart writes,

Jetbrane: you write: "R2Kt virus goes on to say that the Church as the Church must not even seek to use moral persuasion when it comes to issues that are non-salvific (narrowly defined) that apply to the public square. According to R2Kt virus thinking the Church as the Church cannot speak to these issues because the Bible doesn’t speak to these issues."

I don't know of anyone who holds this implication of what you perceive to be the 2k view. The church may use its power of persuasion all the time (and does every time a minister steps into the pulpit and proclaims the word of God). The question is one of jurisdiction. When the church declares the word of God, in worship or in its courts, it is using powers of persuasion all over the place.

So, D. G., does this mean that I can expect Reformed Churches that believe in R2K theology to preach from the pulpit on the evils when the State seeks to take on the prerogatives of God? Does this mean that I can expect Reformed Churches that believe in R2Kt to proclaim from the pulpit that God’s prohibition against theft applies to confiscatory taxation of the citizenry by the State? Does this mean that that I can expect Reformed Churches that hold to R2k views to proclaim from the pulpit clearly against the evils of abortion and homosexuality? Does this mean that I can expect Reformed Churches that hold to R2k to speak against ideologies like socialism, feminism, fascism, historicism, multi-culturalism, etc. that so influence our culture that are anti-Christ at their core?

I would like to attend services where some of these public square issues are addressed by graduates of Westminster West. But, given what you say later that won’t ever happen because you believe that the Church is not charged with speaking to those issues since that would be like trying to discipline other people’s children.

What is more the 2k position in no way denies that the Word of God speaks to matters of morality that affect civil society. Clearly the Bible says things about lying, cheating, stealing and killing, and the state makes laws about such things. But simply because the church ministers the word of God on these "issues" does not mean the church has jurisdiction over civil or political affairs. The 2k position says that it doesn't. (It's like a father who disciplines children; his status as an administrator of offspring discipline does not give him the authority to administer discipline to children of another father.)

First of all let’s keep in mind that two Kingdom theology can not be equated with what is being passed as two Kingdom theology by R2k types. Two Kingdom theology when handled by the Puritans was Two Kingdom but not Radical two Kingdom. Your version of two Kingdom theology is not THE version of two Kingdom theology.

Second, in the first blockquote you insisted that my perceptions of R2K are nowhere present and yet in the second blockquote you prove that my perceptions are correct. In the portion you quoted from an earlier statement of mine I said, “R2Kt virus goes on to say that the Church as the Church must not even seek to use moral persuasion when it comes to issues that are non-salvific (narrowly defined) that apply to the public square,” and now you are saying that the Church may not speak to the civil realm because that would be like a Father disciplining children that were not his. I would say that my perception in the italicized portion immediately above has been confirmed by no less of an authority then you.

D. G., you keep injecting elasticity into that word “jurisdiction.” When the Church speaks to public square issues it is not taking jurisdiction. Jurisdiction belongs to the civil realm. What the Church is doing is providing godly counsel. Using your illustration, when the Church seeks to speak to the public square of the culture it is not the case of the Church taking jurisdiction if only because the Church can be (and usually is) ignored. If the Church had jurisdiction she couldn’t be ignored. Rather it is the case of offering advice to the parents of other children who are tearing up the shared living space.

Keep in mind that when you say that Church doesn’t have the responsibility to speak to the public square that is just another way of saying that it doesn’t have the responsibility to correct bad theology. I say this because all action in the public square is the result of and manifestation of bad theology. I can’t understand why any Christian would say that it is not the Church’s role to correct bad theology wherever bad theology is found.

Third, I realize that R2Kt will speak to the personal and individual ethics of those who confess Christ. I’ve nowhere denied that. What I’ve denied is the willingness of R2Kt types to correct the bad theology of the Public Square that leads to a creation of a culture that impresses and shapes Christians to think in a anti God honoring way. This unwillingness to speak to these issues then is compounded when some of these same Christians send their children to be indoctrinated into a pagan covenant by sending them to the State Churches.

One more correction, the 2k view says nothing about pluralism being desirable. It does concede that pluralism exists and it argues that it gives the church a way to minister in a pluralist setting without seceding or rebelling against the existing powers. But many 2k people would argue that they'd prefer to live in a less pluralistic society.

I’ve read other R2k people advocate pluralism. I will notch this up to disagreement in the R2K camp.

But… FYI… pluralism doesn’t exist, or if it does exist it exists in the same way that pluralism existed in ancient Rome, which is to say that it exists as long as nobody takes their God or gods seriously and instead resolve to live, move and have their being in the State.

Where you and I differ probably the greatest is over your contention that the 2k view will make the church impotent. Here you hold up Mass. Bay as a model of separating the two powers, civil and ecclesiastical, and I suppose as maintaining its vitality. But the 2k view argues that the collapsing of membership in the civil society and in the church, as all state churches do, does not make the church potent. In fact, it was one of the chief ways by which the church became corrupted.

Look at what happened to the Puritans' Half Way Covenant. Infant baptism was not simply a church matter -- as in the 2k view -- but also a civil matter -- as in the anti-2k view. And what happened to the Puritan churches then. They had to fudge biblical teaching to accommodate the demands of civil society. (This, btw, is also what happened even to churches after the separation of church and state. When the PCUSA was the most vigorous in asserting its public influence -- say as its four-square support for the 18th Amendment or when John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State -- it was a church fairly impotent theologically.)

All because one generation fudged doesn’t mean that the whole system is wrong. The problem isn’t the system but rather those who fudged their theology in the system. The problem was a lack of willingness to do Church discipline compounded by a pure church doctrine and the insistence that membership be anchored in a conversion “experience.”

We have not escaped the problems of a State Church D. G. Our unofficial official state Church is now the government schools. We have embraced putative pluralism in exchange for established churches and what we got in return was a state religion. We ditched the religio licita of Christianity and ended up embracing the religio licita of Humanism where the civil realm and the church realm remain collapsed.

Still, I am not arguing for a established state church as you seem to think I am. I am arguing that the Church speak to the bad theology that incarnates itself in our culture.

But let’s look for a point of agreement. Let’s agree that the Church must get its theology right before it can council the culture. I would go on to say that once we have it right it must speak to the bad theology that surrounds it in the culture. In my estimation Churches should be as or more concerned with teaching their people the wrongness of non-Reformed theologies as they are concerned with teaching their people the ungodliness of the theology that incarnates itself in our culture.

So the 2k view holds that the church is most vigorous when she is spiritual and eschews the temptation to reform society or back legislation or shape public policy. That seems to be what Paul was getting at when he talked about preaching and the cross being foolishness to the Greeks -- the great political theorists -- but the power of God unto salvation.

You keep on using that word “spiritual.” I do not think it means what you think it means. Spiritual realities are always behind legislation and public policy and so if the Church was being spiritual she would speak to these issues. Finally, the salvation that God brings is cosmic. It is not narrowly defined as being limited to the salvation of souls but rather extends to include the renewal of all things. That is the kind of salvation that we need to be concerned with.

Stephen,

Look at the name Dr. Hart has below his post. It is "Darryl Hart." I used D. G. because he writes his books (at least the ones that I've read) as D. G. Hart.

Now, can we please get to the matter at hand and quit reading mountains into my using somebody's authorial name.