Discipline, denominations, and blogs...

Tim,
Sorry for the leaps of logic. Still haven't got the knack of being clear.
PoMos argue that words don't really matter anymore. What is a vow but "giving your word"? So if words aren't important, what is?
Peter Wood in "A Bee in the Mouth" argues that it is authenticity as represented by anger. Many blogs do that very well. Others might argue that it is quantity, as in "scientific consensus". Others might argue it is temporal relevance. Others insist it is "sincerity" of intent--witness Cancun. Blogs do all of these things.

And as you so ably pointed out, for 25 years your Dad did anti-blogging -- otherwise known as editing.

Two totally distinct institutions? If that's the case, tell the web/marketing guys to take down every reference to WTS and Machen and start acting like it and stop riding WTS's coattails when it's convenient.

Craig and Trey, I am certain the good people at Redeemer and WTS are better able than I to answer all of your questions or comments, and I would defer to them of course. But your posts nevertheless demonstrate that the seminaries are indeed distinct institutions, while also noting the undeniable historical and confessional continuity between the two, a dimension of the history for which I imagine all in Dallas (and certainly all of us here) are very grateful. We have found Redeemer Seminary (under Chancellor Ryan and President Vanderhill, together with a very able faculty) to be a most excellent place for men to prepare for the ministry, along with other students taking classes towards other ends.

I attended the hand off service and it was beautifully done; the new seminary is indeed carrying forward the historic distinctive of Westminster and I certainly hope that the Dallas campus, together with its Austin and Houston extensions, will be a catalyst for new church plants in the southwest. The same for the new RTS campus extension in Houston as well.

Trey, its not coattails, as I see it. The Dallas seminary is telling the story of its development. Its roots are in Westminster Philly. Their stated desire is to carry forward what Machen began. To say less might appear to be 'hiding' something! Acknowledging one's roots and history is essential for all, and the way Redeemer Dallas does so seems perfectly appropriate to me. Now of course, if you don't like the substance of their teaching that's a different matter, and one you should take up with their board.

All the best,

David

>>And as you so ably pointed out, for 25 years your Dad did anti-blogging -- otherwise known as editing.

Dear Rob,

Actually, Dad spoke and wrote for those twenty-five years. His editing days were mostly gone after leaving I-V's "His" magazine. And Dad taught me to hit the word count spot on each time I submitted an article for publication so I'd avoid editors harming the piece. This was his practice for twenty-five years and it worked.

Concerning the rest of your comment, I couldn't follow most of what you wrote, but "Anger?" Pomos have a habit of accusing those who disagree with others in public of being motivated by anger. As in, "You just wrote that because you're angry at him." I can't speak for others, but in my case, this is almost never true.

Unless, of course, the anger they are referring to is anger at lies, rebellion, fear of man–what we used to call "sin." If that's what's meant, I plead guilty. I'm often angry at sin–most frequently my own.

* * *

Concerning the argument about Westminster in Dallas now called "Redeemer," like most stuff in the Reformed and Evangelical world today, it's all marketing. Those behind the seminary want the historic street cred of Machen and his men with the cultural cachet of Tim Keller and his acolytes and the deep pockets of Skip Ryan and his former parishioners.

Westminster in Dallas is just like Westminster in California and Reformed in Orlando and Charlotte, except Westminster in Dallas decided to put one foot in Tim Keller's wide boat while keeping one back on the dock. It will be interesting to see which foot wins. Sexuality will be the determinant and I'm voting on Tim Keller.

Of course, I don't think Westminster in Dallas will fall in the water between the two because it's apparent that the dock is already picking up and moving towards Tim with Westminster's president, Peter Lillback, bringing woman officers to his church.

When we gonna wake up?

Love,

Tim,

Im an avid antagonist of church marketing, and wonder why you conclude that Redeemer Seminary is simply in a marketing mode of operation.

Kind regards,

David

Pastor Cassidy: "I attended the hand off service and it was beautifully done; the new seminary is indeed carrying forward the historic distinctive of Westminster and I certainly hope that the Dallas campus, together with its Austin and Houston extensions, will be a catalyst for new church plants in the southwest."

Pastor Cassidy, it sounds like you certainly desire a good thing: the planting of biblical churches in the southwest. I'm not so sure Redeemer Seminary shares the same goal you do...sure they want to plant churches, but if they were desiring a "pastors college", one wonders why it is that in choosing the name "Redeemer" located in Texas, with satellites in Austin and Houston, they invited someone from the northeast rather than you, a pastor in Texas with a church named "Redeemer".

I think the answer is obvious.

I wonder how many of the men leaving that seminary 5 years from now will have the marks of the Holy Spirit, or a branded clerical collar stating the origin of its material: "Made in Manhattan".

Trey,
The position you have described is exactly what Redeemer denies. We would not support that view nor do the instructors we welcome. The professors and leadership we've met simply do not fit the the form you are suggesting is the case. Perhaps you are in a position to make a different conclusion. Perhaps you are close by - we should meet - or have sponsored students there, or examined men who have graduated from Dallas, or work with them? I'd be glad to know.

Craig,

I'm flattered that you think I might've been able to address that gathering in Dallas. I am pretty sure I know the answer to your question as well, and it doesn't have a lot to do with geography or names. I'm a nobody in mid-size city who at the time was totally unknown to the guys in Dallas (different presbytery, and I've been here only a short time). We remain grateful for the work of the seminary, and the grads I've met in our presbytery impress me as godly men with sound doctrine who work hard to care for the flock. I am grateful for that good fruit.

For the Faith,

David

Dear David,

It's rare that a discussion here on Baylyblog leaves me flummoxed, but I'm that right now. Can't tell up or down, right or left, black or white, so put me out of my misery, please. I used to think I knew, but now I'm mystified (which might be a move in a good direction if you can only convince me).

To the question: if Redeemer is orthodox as you say, and employs and puts out good men committed to the sort of strong biblicism Calvin and Machen were committed to, why is my dear brother and gold standard in accuracy, Craig French, so concerned? And what about Trey? Is there really no fire, but only smoke?

Each of your responses is patient and upbeat and you never give an inch, so I'm really wondering if you're not right and Redeemer is unRedeemerish?

But there we have the fly in the ointment. Back about twelve years ago, Marvin Olasky called to ask what I thought of women serving the Lord's Supper. I was caught flat-footed and didn't know what I thought about it since I'd never heard of it, then. Now, though, I know it's one of many Redeemer look-at-the-birdie innovations calculated to make feminists feel at home in confessionally patriarchal congregations--much like woman small group leaders, woman officers (on the deacons board), woman directors of the diaconate, woman Bible teachers (of mixed sex groups), woman preachers (under the authority of their husbands or the session, of course), woman directors of small group ministries, woman participants in session meetings each and every meeting, and so on.

Later I found out Marvin's church was named Redeemer, and then it all made sense. And now that he's moved to New York City, he's again found a home at another Redeemer where all the men are weak, the children are non-existent, and the women serve the Lord's Supper and are quite strong, thank you. You get my drift?

Names mean something--particularly the name "Redeemer." Yet you act as if the name "Redeemer" has no significance theologically, all's well in Redeemer-land there in Dallas, and Craig French must be smoking something. Are you being disingenuous, or is this really your conviction?

Help me, brother; as I said, I'm flummoxed.

Love,

Daniel Clair Davis is also chaplain at Redeemer Seminary...tending to the souls of those who will be entrusted with souls.

>>Keller seems to recognize ordination of women as being unbiblical...

Actually, I'm of the opinion it would be better said that he recognizes it untenable for the present in the PCA. Or possibly, like his RPCES Hurleyite friends, the man doesn't really believe in ordination itself. (Check out the RPCES Synod archives on deaconess and ordination for the back-story on this, showing perfectly the game plan of the look at the birdie Redeemerite crowd. You can find those archives at the PCA archives.)

Love,

Dear Fred,

Excellent point. Really, maybe the greatest scandal of our churches is the almost-complete absence of pastoral care on the part of all our officers, starting with pastors. And really, I wonder if it isn't partly a function of our enthrallment with the Plymouth Brethren hypocrisy of claiming no pastor while every last one of our churches has one.

Teaching elders teach, you know; not shepherd.

Love,

Tim,

I can't speak for Dr Olasky, a brother I certainly respect. Better ask him though. He was an elder at Redeemer Austin (before my arrival), but then took a year teaching at Princeton. When he returned to Austin and UT he transferred his membership to All Saints PCA, and since then has moved to New York, and attends Redeemer Manhattan, so far as I know. He and Susan remain very good friends with many people here, and we are grateful for their testimony and work.

What I can tell you is that women have never served communion at Redeemer Austin, and a suggestion that they should would have been met by strong opposition (not least by most of our women!), both in this congregation's earlier years and certainly now as well. The Lord's Table is administered only by our TEs, and the congregation is served only by ordained elders and deacons. Fr. Bill can back me on that one. So can Fred Greco.

Our view is not universally shared by all in the PCA (as you well know), or in the South Texas Presbytery, or even by other PCA churches in Austin. Since the seminary serves a broad spectrum of students - many new to Reformed soteriology and the debates we have amongst ourselves on worldview issues - it would not be surprising if the seminary, while teaching Reformed distinctives, also allowed for wider views on practice that arise in their student's ecclesiastical setting.

We have greatly enjoyed the many blessings of the seminary classes here, and hope the seminary will prosper in its mission. These classes have represented only the first year curriculum, and the seminary has yet to decide whether to add the second year in Austin (we hope that they will). Our Session in no way governs the Seminary, but we count it a joy to host the classes, and our members have been edified by the ministry of men like Sinclair Ferguson during his teaching times in Austin.

I don't know Craig or Trey, but respect them and seek to hear well their concerns on the basis that you trust their judgment. I can only tell you what I have encountered here, which has been fruitful, orthodox, and promising. Far from saying that they have no reason to be concerned - we should always be concerned! - I hope they will understand my directing them to the administration in Dallas to answer the questions about the seminary's positions on specific matters.

Whatever questions you may have about Redeemer Presbyterian Church PCA in Austin I will be happy to answer as able.

For the Faith,

David

@DPC:

Methinks it’s time to invoke the “one of our elders sits on the SJC,” “Sinclair Ferguson teaches at the seminary,” “my reading list is oh-so broad” narrative. And whatever you do, don’t note that your congregation spawned Rich Lusk, even though it took place prior to your arrival.

If this fails, then you can add the brothers Bayly to your list of Reformed Hate Bloggers, though I advise you not to pretend that you don’t know them.

Ecumenically Yours,

TLOFB

Its a genuine concern. We do wish to be Biblical, right? Thank God for the courts of the Church, but that's hardly the only place where we can explore and talk together about the Scriptures and how these shape the ministry we seek to bring to God's people. Blogs are apparently another place for discussion (at least, at times!). But to the main point, the Bible is where we want to start and finish on our discussions, as opposed to cultural whims or the latest fads. To say, however, that I am for some new order of nuns is a complete mis-reading of my comments, as that was my tongue in cheek response to the comments of others. As for Mary, she's not only a great example of a wonderful woman serving God (One might say THE example), she is an example to us all. There are many women we might also mention, from Sarah to Anna to Priscilla. Church history offers great heroes to us as well. Can we learn from them? I hope so. As for Trinity issues, again its a larger point, having to do with how the Trinity is reflected in man as the image of God.

I note that you don't seem to use a name, though perhaps David and Tim know who you are. If so, fine. If not, then this will be my last response to your comments, as I simply don't answer anonymous posts.

@Pastors Tim and David: of all people, pastors should appreciate the value of anonymity, which is similar to confidentiality. I really shouldn’t have to explain it. If need be, I’ll gladly contact you off list.

Re Paul or John Knox; perhaps you would include such greats as the writer of Hebrews or John Calvin in your list of persons who used anonymity, because both concealed their names at one time or another — and I could cite hundreds of others, if not thousands, who have done the same throughout the course of church history. Therefore, please give me a break by assessing the content of my comment with resorting to ad hominem arguments. If I am sinning, then I implore you to delete my comments. If I am not, then I implore you not to make an issue where none exists.

As for Cassidy, he knows exactly who I am, as we’ve had this conversation before and he’s even engaged a complete misrepresentation of me on his own blog. Unfortunately, that’s not the only point of dishonesty in his comment because his claim of anonymity as his excuse to ignore me is not true either. You can check this by the dishonest answers he gives to folks who don’t conceal their identities.

He doesn’t answer me because he cannot answer me without incriminating himself or else lying, unless, that is, he states what he really thinks such as he did on the Biblical Horizons blog. No one can read this comment in context

http://biblicalhorizons.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/fault-lines-and-earthquakes/#comment-790

and conclude that “modern day nuns” is tongue in cheek. It was a direct response to Jim Jordan’s comment where he used the word nuns sans humor. Both men were deadly serious. Both men spoke the abundance of their hearts in a forum of like-minded fellows (I cannot use the term believers).

The bottom line is that Craig and Trey are on to much more than the limited scope of their comments indicates. David Cassidy consistently says different things to different people, depending on their point of view. He tailors his answers to his audience. I personally have no idea what he really believes, or even if he really believes anything — but I do know that he has given me and many others good reason to distrust everything he says, simply because his answers on critical questions continually contradict themselves whenever he’s pressed for specifics.

As for me, I remain,

The Least of the Brethren (TLOTB)

[NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Again, TOLB used a fake e-mail address for this comment.]

Please forgive the typos my grammatically-challenged keyboard inserted into my comment above. I tried to eliminate the double spaces at the end of sentences, though ;o)

Tim and David,

Thanks very much for noting how the anonymity matter hinders good communication. All I can tell you about Mr Least is that I don't have any idea at all who he is, except to say that he is a poster who enjoys making unfounded accusations anonymously. I know exactly who he isn't.

Eileen is correct to note that in a blog post - in which I reproduced one of Mt Least's anonymous comments as an example of exactly what isn't helpful in blogging - I said I did not know which Pastor White the post was referring to. Should I have? On reflection, yes. Sorry about that Eileen. What threw me was the somewhat wild rhetoric employed in his post, asking whether I knew if Pastor White was clear of 'bowing his knee to Baa'l, and asking the same of me. Had I bowed the knee to Baal? Huh? This apparently had to do with remarks made by Jim Jordan, which I'd certainly never heard before. I suppose Mr Least (and others too) think I should be better informed about everything everyone says, but as it happens I am not, nor do I intend to try to change that - I simply have too much to do to entertain such a notion, whatever importance others attach to what in their opinion ought to be known. As soon as my error in regard to recognizing Pastor White (Wes White) was pointed out to me, I cleared that up, in the comments section and thanked Wes and TE Carpenter for bringing it to my attention.

As for what I believe, I'm an ordained TE in the PCA, examined by two
presbyteries, and took one exception when examined, on sabbath recreation. My position is unchanged. I've been preaching here for some years now, and no one in the congregation, our session, or in our Presbytery has ever suggested any error in the same. Because I was a speaker at Auburn Avenue a year ago, on issues surrounding Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anabaptist theology, in particular how theology in these communions influences some evangelicals to join Rome or Constantinople, I am suspect number five or six for some who are
concerned about FV theology in the PCA.

There are others who don't like one bit that we don't go for some of the hip, culturally 'relevant' approaches to worship many find so fascinating. They seem especially disturbed that we are strongly liturgical, and not only sing Psalms metrically but chant them too, antiphonally. Its quite beautiful actually. Of course we sing lots of great hymns too. Our worship services are on the church website should anyone wish to cast an interested - or even suspicious - eye upon them.

Mr Least evidently feels that I won't answer him because I can't answer him. On the contrary, I won't answer him for the very clear reason I've stated; it goes without saying that even if I tried to do so, I may not be able to answer him to his satisfaction, but that's a different matter altogether.

For the Faith,

David

Pastor Bayly,

I'll try my question again in a shorter form. How did I violate Scripture? I understand how I violated your policy here, and I respect that this is your blog. But you said that I violated Scripture by what I wrote, and it seems only right for you as an elder to say which Scripture I violated and how I violated it.

Chuck,

Thanks for your comments. My comment on "Pastor White" referred to the Pastor White mentioned in the blog post. At the time, I didn't realize that he was referring to Wes. When I did know that was the case, I cleared it up. Not sure what else could be done about that.

I'm sorry you don't find credible that I didn't know about the quotation from Jim Jordan that your friend noted in his post. As I said, one can assume that I keep up with everything that others do, but I don't. I don't have time to do so. That's for many reasons. I wrote one piece for the Bib Horizons blog. One. Not exactly a big contributor.

With best regards,

David

Chuck,

One further note: I find those comments about my colleagues in the PCA both distressing and deplorable. I do not agree with them at all. Obviously ministers in the PCA - and other denominations - will disagree at times over theological matters and over polity and practice as well. Name-calling (not name-naming Tim!) is never wise, whatever Luther's practice might have been in his time.

Call me over-sensitive if you like, but I strongly disagree with that kind of rhetoric on all sides of theological debate.

Oh, and sorry for the typo up there: it should have read, "When I knew..." rather than 'when I know...'

Many thanks again,

David

FWIW,
Redeemer Seminary isn't yet accredited, so its graduates won't be properly recognized unless they graduate as an affiliate of Westminster (Philly). So until the accreditation committee meets again with a favorable result, there's a strange adolescent sort of arrangement between WTS and Redeemer, and one should not take either extreme (two separate, mother-daughter) too seriously.

It is correct, however, to note that several of the former WTS faculty who relocated to Dallas were supporters of Peter Enns. I can only suppose that Enns turned down offers to teach there because he decided to further radicalize his position and work with Biologos (Francis Collin's outfit--funded by Templeton Foundation) instead.

From my own personal experience, the separation can only be a good thing for WTS, though time will tell what will happen to both of them.

Dear Eileen,

No, clearly the order of creation is the basis of the 1Timothy 2 prohibition, so wherever man is man and woman is woman, faith leads him and her to fulfill God's design. If we spend our lives trying to delimit the places where God's design is to be affirmed and obeyed, obedience will grudging and scarce, and we'll find we've turned into the very Pharisees we abhor.

As I've said before, public excoriation of a man who is an officer of Christ's Church by a woman is not good. Godly feminine deference is better.

>>Honestly I would be very encouraged if the men with the responsibility to do so would deal with the serious issues

As would I.

Love,