Save Our Seminary: What’s Wrong with WTS Philly?

February 7, 2008 at 2:46 pm (Bible, Biblical Theology, Westminster standards)

The natural question that follows the statement Save Our Seminary, is: “From What?” The two most common responses are: (1) The school is facing a financial crisis and an urgent letter appealing to alumni and friends goes out asking them to save the seminary from having to close its doors. (2) Concerned alumni notice that the school is starting to slide down the slippery slope of Liberalism. Recent graduates are starting to proclaim the views of their professors that core doctrines like the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ and the inerrancy of Scripture are out-dated myths. A letter alerting the seminary’s constituency to this sad state of affairs goes out with the hope that pressure can be put on the administration to address these concerns.

As an alum of WTS (ThM, class of 1987) I was greatly relieved to learn that neither of these two concerns were presently applicable to my alma mater. Well then, exactly what is the nature of the peril confronting WTS? A recent graduate of the seminary took the initiative (on his own?) to put up a website, announcing that the seminary is in danger of being lost, and falling into the hands of some very unsavory characters. Two particular threats were highlighted. One, this group is upset with Peter Lillback, the president of WTS for being the keynote speaker at an event hosted by Vision Forum, which, we are told, is “an extremely dubious organization” that has, among other things, an extremely right-wing political agenda. Second, and given the nature of the fifty-plus responses, the really big concern centers around the Biblical Studies department at the seminary, especially the future status of Peter Enns, Doug Green and Michael Kelly. The recent departure of Steve Taylor appears to signal that additional purges are forthcoming.

As a result, the faculty, we are told most assuredly, is deeply divided and as such an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust pollutes the entire campus. The gravity of this situation, we are warned, cannot be ignored, and so we are told,

Many of us have tried repeatedly to address these problems, to little avail. Private conversations with faculty and administrators, verbal and written statements at our WTS exit interviews, letters and emails to board members and administrators, etc., have produced no publicly discernible change in the school’s atmosphere. While the faculty works out its theological disagreements, we alumni continue to receive only cheery letters from the seminary president that downplay the problems (while asking for our donations), while the current students have been told publicly not to concern themselves with the faculty’s internal debates (an attitude both impossible and undesirable, since teachers—and their firings—deeply affect the quality of one’s education).

If WTS continues on its present course, it may well end up as a tiny, ineffective institution talking to itself and hiding from the world. It may cut itself off from the living tradition that has nourished it, and from the larger church and world that need its unique contributions. If the decision-makers there continue to dismantle the Westminster that has meant so much to us, how will we be able to donate to the seminary, to endorse it, or to recommend it to potential students? We hope it does not come to that! We plead with the administration, faculty, and board of WTS to show a watching world how Christians behave when they disagree: not pretending that theological differences are unimportant, but not needlessly ripping the school to pieces, either. Surely Reformed orthodoxy can foster both stability and vitality.

It turns out, according to SOS, that the turd in the punch bowl was put there by the sad sacks in the departments of theology, church history and apologetics. These black-hatted villains are guilty of a vast array of crimes against humanity. They are charged with being unscholarly, avoiding the hard questions, conducting a witch-hunt, sowing division and most serious of all, demanding that the school fall in line with their ultra-strict and exceedingly narrow interpretation of the Westminster Standards.

What are we to make of this? A number of things come to mind. First in importance is that a course on the history of Westminster Seminary should be mandatory for all incoming students. The people behind this website and the majority of those who posted comments are terribly misinformed when it comes to the seminary’s history.

WTS was NOT founded to represent the broad “Reformed tradition” that the SOS crowd is advocating. It was founded to carry on the tradition of Old Princeton, which was lost when the seminary was reorganized in 1929. J. Ross Stevenson, who succeeded Francis Patton in 1914 as president of Princeton, sought to do with Old Princeton exactly what this misguided bunch wants to do to Westminster! The events that led to the changes at Old Princeton has been well documented by, among others, B. J. Longfield, who wrote, “The controversy at Princeton, Stevenson declared, stemmed not from doctrinal disagreement but rather from conflicting attitudes toward Princeton’s mission. What was at stake was whether Princeton would teach Old School scholasticism alone or tolerate divergent theological views. ‘We are the agency of the combined old school and new school,’ he argued, ‘and my ambition as President of the seminary is to have it represent the whole Presbyterian Church and not any particular faction of it.’” (‘The Presbyterian Controversy: Fundamentalists, Modernists, and Moderator,’ Oxford, 1991, p. 163.) Longfield also cites Stevenson claims that the doctrinal distinctives of Old Princeton would not change…immediately. But change they did and in short order as evidence by Emil Brunner being invited to be a visiting professor in 1938-39. Another recognized historian on the subject concurred and noted that the strife in the faculty centered around Machen’s insistence on Princeton maintaining Confessional Orthodoxy.

But Stevenson and Erdman placed the unity of the church above strict doctrinal orthodoxy and promoted peace and tolerance in the interest of the church’s mission. Machen stood for strict adherence to Christian orthodoxy as set forth in the Confession of Faith. Whereas Stevenson and Erdman reflected ‘the non-confessional character of American evangelicalism and the Victorian tendency to sentimentalize faith,’ Machen stood in the Old Princeton doctrinal tradition of Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield. Without an uncompromising belief in the true gospel, Machen insisted, the Presbyterian church would have no message to preach and could offer no hope to a lost world. (David C. Calhoun, Princeton Seminary: The Majestic Testimony 1869-1929, Banner of Truth, 1996.)

SOS complains about how much internal dissention this has created amongst the faculty and the larger seminary community and of course, the blame is placed exclusively on the previously mentioned sad sacks outside the department of Biblical Studies. This too has a very interesting parallel with Old Princeton. Longfield documented this.

Stevenson’s diagnosis of the conflict painted a radically different picture. ‘There has been in the faculty,’ he argued, ‘suspicion, distrust, dissension and division, and as I stated before the Assembly, in this Dr. Machen is involved.’ A censorious spirit among the faculty had given birth to a ‘divisive spirit among the students and . . . a departure from the historic position of the institution.’ In a statement Machen later contested, Stevenson condemned the League of Evangelical Students because it connected Princeton with ‘small institutions and sects which are committed to separation and secession.’ The solution to the controversy engulfing the seminary, he concluded, would be the triumph of a spirit of inclusivism, which, while not tolerating modernism, would make the seminary representative of the theology of the entire Presbyterian Church.” (Longfield, p. 166)

Another historian, and one not kindly disposed to Old School theology that Old Princeton stood for, described Machen and his followers as “extreme conservatives” and “ultra-strict confessionalists” (cf. Lefferts A. Loetscher, ‘The Broadening Church: A Study of theological issues in the Presbyterian church since 1869,’ University of Pennsylvania Press, 1954). Note the similarities in describing Machen and Co. and the language used by SOS to describe the threat posed by the meanies at WTS.

It does appear, judged by the stunning parallels between Old Princeton and today’s WTS, that the SOS crowd is actually advocating that WTS become what Princeton became after Machen and company left!

Wait! I am not done. There is another historical scenario that provides us with some instructive parallels. In 1936, J. Oliver Buswell and Carl McIntire had a similar complaint about WTS strict confessional stance.

“Buswell and McIntire hoped to build a fundamentalist separatist movement with a broader base than the strict Calvinism at Westminster Seminary. In the fall of 1936 they fell into intense fighting with Machen and his closest Old School confessionalist followers. These Old School Presbyterian traditionalists differed with the new-style fundamentalists on a number of the distinctives of fundamentalism. Old School Presbyterians believed in the ‘Christian liberty’ to drink alcoholic beverages and, contrary to almost all other American evangelicals, would not condemn their use. A more substantial rift was the intensification of the Westminster faculty’s opposition to dispensationalism.

These issues split the Independent Board. McIntire and his more purely fundamentalist group wrested control from Machen and his Westminster allies. In the midst of this painful internal struggle, Machen, only fifty-five, died suddenly on January 1, 1937. The more fundamentalistic group, though in control of the Independent Board, was in the minority in the new Presbyterian Church of America; so they soon split off to found the Bible Presbyterian Church. In the meantime, Allan MacRae, who had taught at Westminster since its beginning, had resigned shortly after Machen’s death and in the fall of 1937 became president of the new Faith Theological Seminary organized by the McIntire group.” (George Marsden, ‘Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism,’ Eerdmans, 1987, p. 43.)

For an informative recent analysis cf. Scott Clark’s post ‘Three Ways of Relating to American Religion.’ I have some personal perspectives on this. In addition to being a graduate of WTS, I am also an alum of the now defunct Faith Theological Seminary. Interestingly enough, Faith did require all faculty members to subscribe to the Westminster Standard (amended so as to shoe-horn in a distinctive form of premillennialism). When MacRae and McIntire had a falling out in the early 70’s, MacRae and most of the faculty left and founded what is now called Biblical Theological seminary in Hatfield, PA., which up and until MacRae’s death still required its faculty to adhere to the Westminster Standards. But it no longer does. By the way, there is a website that hosted by the alumni of BTS who are none to happy about what has happened to their seminary when a coup similar to that which occurred at Old Princeton took place stealthily at BTS.

Second, the complaint about Peter Lillback’s speaking itinerary. In addition to his work as a theologian, Lillback has written a very well received book on George Washington and has been asked to speak on the subject in all sorts of venues, including Doug Wilson’s Trinity Fest and rallies organized by the late D. James Kennedy. I personally don’t have a problem with this. It’s not as if Lillback is going over to Syria like Rick Warren and making statements on foreign policy!

Finally, among the fifty-plus people who signed on, a large number did so anonymously for fear of reprisal from the goon squads that do the bidding of the evil forces in the other departments of the seminary that have already been identified. The only thing worse than these rhabdophobic folk were the ones, like John Armstrong who have no direct connection to WTS whatsoever. Despite the claims that he has spent near fifteen years ministering at Westminster, Armstrong has never served the seminary in any official capacity – either as a adjunct or visiting professor or even guest lecturer. Yet he felt compelled to chime in and amen the concerns expressed by this website. Over the last few years, Armstrong has gone out of his way to lecture everyone about the dangers of the TR’s (the Truly Reformed, which he also calls the Angry Reformed or the Vicious Reformed). He did this with the PCA and the recent actions taken by this years GA. He disapproved and let everybody know it. He took umbrage with the action of the PCA SJC in the Steve Wilkins case. He has publicly reprimanded the Southern Baptists and individuals associated with A.C.E. It is well known that Armstrong underwent a theological paradigm shift a while back and has burned his bridges with his past associates, but feels the constant need to return and stand on the charred remains and scream at us over the chasm. Even though he likes to claim that he is a irenic peace-loving soul, he comes across as militant in his views as any old time fire-breathing fundamentalist. WTS does not need any advice from Armstrong on what direction the school determines is most faithful to that envisioned by Machen and the men who founded the seminary.

So here is my proposal to the individuals up in arms about WTS being lost to the Machen type Neanderthals in the departments of Theology, Church History and Apologetics – go over to Biblical Theological Seminary (where, interestingly enough, John Armstrong serves on the board). Chances are, you will never run into anyone on the faculty who has an agenda to enforce an ultra-strict interpretation of the Westminster Standards on the rest of the faculty. Or simply go back to Princeton.

Posted by Gary Johnson

146 Comments

Stephen Young said,

February 7, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Should we be concerned when it seems that a quest for ‘truth’ has eclipsed a concern for following Christ in Christ-like character? Does not a truly faithful concern for ‘truth’ entail living faithfully as well–conducting ourselves in humility and charity especially in the midst of doctrinal disagreement?

I guess I find Johnson’s functional dismissal of this concern through comparisons with those who raised this issue at Princeton Seminary and through sensationalist rhetoric (”black-hatted villians [sic?] are guilty of a vast array of crimes against humanity” disconcerting. Is there a way we can engage this concern without making it sound as though those who raise it have relinquished their commitment to also following what the Bible says–doctrine, among other things?

Stephen
greenbaggins said,

February 7, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Stephen, welcome to my blog.

It has not eclipsed a concern for following Christ in Christ-like character. Are you accusing Gary Johnson of un-Christlike character? The concern for truth and unity is not a zero sum game. It is not as if someone who pursues truth has to pursue it at the expense of Christian unity. Indeed, true Christian unity can only be had as it is embedded in truth itself. You seem to be pitting truth against unity.

Secondly, the issues are those issues surrounding the infallibility, authority, perspecuity, and necessity of the Bible. These issues are fundamental (i.e., the realm of truth), not secondary (requiring unity). For the critics of Enns and others, The Reformers died for the truths that now appear to be under attack from within our own ranks.
Andrew Webb said,

February 7, 2008 at 6:27 pm

You know its uncanny how similar the call for “conversation” we are hearing in this circumstance sounds to the calls for conversation you hear from Open Theists and other groups in the middle stages between evangelicalism and liberalism. We are to assume that almost everything rather than being settled is in a gray area, that feminism and women’s ordination might be a blessing, that plenary verbal inspiration can be dispensed with, that the first three chapters of Genesis are poetry (and who takes poetry literally?), that cessation is mean spirited and intolerant, and so on.

After a while, you realize that the non-essentials about which we “may differ” have become a huge category, and that the essentials have shrunk to a tiny inner core that is only going to get smaller over time. And that the only people we really dislike are the “intolerant.” And one has to ask why? We’ve gone this route before at places like Princeton and Columbia, and in organizations like the RCA, PCUSA, EPC, UMC, ABC, and of late in the CRC etc., etc., etc. When has it ever produced greater orthodoxy, piety, fidelity to and trust in God’s Word?

NEVER.

THIS WON’T BE THE FIRST TIME.

As the PCA BCO wisely reminds us, “Godliness is founded on truth. A test of truth is its power to promote holiness according to our Saviour’s rule, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). No opinion can be more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon the same level.

On the contrary, there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.”
David Gilleran said,

February 7, 2008 at 8:43 pm

This is why the seminary model, in the end, is a failure. Rather than preparing men to pastor, it prepares men to be academics. Far better to go back to the mentoring model than to wring our hands of WTS or any other seminary.
thomasgoodwin said,

February 7, 2008 at 9:37 pm

You know, I’m not against Seminaries per se, but I think #4 is something that needs reconsidering. And I, too, think that a lot of students come out academics rather than preachers, not that they are mutually exclusive of course. And academics typically do not make good preachers.
David Gilleran said,

February 7, 2008 at 9:53 pm

Let me say that I am graduate of a seminary RTS now RTS Jackson. I had some very good teachers some average ones and some poor ones. I can count on one hand with fingers leftover about the ones who taught me what it meant to be a cure of souls. That is something you cannot learn in a classroom or read it a book. Also, I am not anti-scholarship. I think in today’s world what I learned at RTS can be learned in a in different way and more effectively.
Further on WTS, Philly « Leviticus and Stuff said,

February 7, 2008 at 11:53 pm

[...] 8, 2008 by David Gary Johnson at Green Baggins has posted an overview of the issues at Westminster Philly with historical back drop that puts into [...]
pduggie said,

February 7, 2008 at 11:54 pm

“that the first three chapters of Genesis are poetry (and who takes poetry literally?), ”

Almost everyone in the PCA and most of the OPC wants to believe that. Its marginally better than believing that Genesis is errant.

“turd in the punch bowel” [sic]

Awful on two counts!
Towne said,

February 8, 2008 at 12:28 am

I finally agree with pduggie on something….that’s awful on two counts!
Joseph Johnson said,

February 8, 2008 at 2:26 am

In our post-Christian culture, the seminary institution was once a respected part of Christian culture; but alas, it doth appear that our bastions of academic investigation are becoming increasingly culturally irrelevant and look more like quaint icons of a day gone by. I agree with the mentoring model; plenty of men who have a sense of call cannot uproot themselves from their current jobs, amass a gross amount of debt to the department of education and matriculate for three years in a sea of Barthian nihilism. Perhaps, TE’s in our churches would do well to mentor and train young potential clergy through the oversight of their sessions by cultivating training centers and recommend these folk to presbytery for ordination. These are thoughts I’ve had for some time. I know several PCA RE’s that are in this very boat and scoff at the idea of being expected to uproot their families. It could be that the seminary as a vestige of Christendom will soon be a useless institution, particularly if the PC police have their way via the department of education. Who knows . . .
GLW Johnson said,

February 8, 2008 at 7:08 am

My response so far.
Steve Young, you are one of the people who signed on to this saying how ’strongly’ you resonated with the concerns expressed by this website and complaining in a way that echoes the voices of Charles Erdman, Robert Speer and a host of others who opposed Machen by calling into question Machen’s lack of Christ likeness. You sound just like them in claiming that ,’ Christianity is ultimately about Christ and not simply doctrine, or being right’. Have you actually read much of Machen? He responded to that exact charge , by rehearsing Warfield’s remarks that of course Christ is a person and our devotion is to the person of Christ but when the apostle Paul spoke of his devotion to Christ he begin by focusing on a particular doctrine about Christ and that was ‘Christ and him crucified’(1 Cor.2:2). There is a very real danger , as the same apostle warns us , about accepting a different gospel with a distinctively ‘different Jesus’ (2 Cor. 11:4). How would you tell the difference? As for the old pietitistic complaint that WTS is not really training pastors as such but is to occuppied with producing academicians- well it all depends on one’s understanding of what a pastor should be. I for one, having studied at five different seminaries, found that my time at WTS with its rigorous stress on academics, did more to prepare me for the pastoral ministry than all the others combined. Again, Warfield encountered this same kind of mentality when he once said that there should not be any seperation between the devotion and academic preparation for the ministry. Here are his words: ” Sometime we hear it said that ten minutes on your knees will give you a truer, deeper, more operative knowledge of God than ten hours over your books. ‘What!’ is the appropiate response,’than ten hours over your books,on your knees?’ Why should you turn from God when you turn to your books, or feel that youu must turn from your books in order to turn to God? If learning and devotion are as anatagonistic as that, then the intellectual life is itself accused, and there can be no question of a religious life for a student,even of theology. The mere fact that he is a student inhibits relion for him. That I am aske to speak to you on the religious life of the student of theology proceeds on the recognition of the absurdity of such antitheses. You are are students of theology;
GLW Johnson said,

February 8, 2008 at 7:17 am

Hey, something went wrong - I hit the wrong key- here is the rest of the quote-
and, just because you are students of of theology, it is understood that you are religious men -especially religious men, to whom the cultivation of your religious life is a matter of the profoundest concern-of such concern that you will wish above all things to be warnedof the dangers that may assail your religious life, and be pointed to the means by which you may strenthen and enlarge it.In your case there can be no ‘either-or’ here=either a student or a man of God. You must be both.” This is from BBW’s address delivered at the Autumn conference at PTS entitled, ” The Religious Life of Theological Students” and is found in vol.1 of his Selected Shorter Writings.
David Gilleran said,

February 8, 2008 at 7:57 am

Glad your experience did, mine didn’t. It was only after being in the pastoral ministry did the experience come. Yes I read Warfield in seminary about the Religious Life of a Theological Student and found it very helpful. Still the brick and mortar seminary should be a dying breed.
GLW Johnson said,

February 8, 2008 at 8:22 am

Actually, David, this issue is really not about our differing seminary experiences. The same kind of anything can be ,and has been said about college-or high school right on down the line to pre-school!. Why, heck this applies with equal force to the responses people have to their good/bad experiences with churches. Rather, this has to do with whither or not WTS will, in the words of Mr. Young, “reverse this distressing trajectory” and become a seminary that looks strikingly like Princeton post Machen or one that continues the Old Princeton tradition that Machen sought to carry on.
Tom Wenger said,

February 8, 2008 at 8:47 am

David,

I have to disagree with you when you say, “Still the brick and mortar seminary should be a dying breed.” Not because your mentoring model can’t work, but because the brick and mortar concept is not the problem.

I find it amusing that the very SOS voices that are crying out about training pastors are also the ones who are upset about WTS not remaining true to its commitment to be “cutting edge” and a place of academic freedom. THIS is the problem; when seminaries make those their values and not training men to understand the Gospel in all of its glory. I am not saying that Westminster Philly HAS made those commitments; rather, that any seminary that does place academic freedom and being cutting edge at the top of their list will to that degree fail in their pastoral focus.

TO that end the candidates need to be experts in biblical studies, knowing the languages and contexts of the Scripture very well. They need to be trained in the history of the Church’s development, seeing her successes and failures over the years in order to interpret Scripture within that context rather than on their own apart from tradition. They need someone who can explain to them the beauty of the Reformed system and all its implications, and then instruct them in how to make this tradition their own for the next generation.

Often a TE, if he is being true to his flock cannot master all of these specifics let alone have the time to teach them and observe the students progress in them properly.

I went to WSCA and I can say without a doubt that there was a pastoral focus in every class, even the languages. We were constantly pointed back to the Gospel or implications of it, and I’ll suggest that our program was the most academically rigorous out there. But rigor was never the point: the gospel was. We were never simply probing the depths of a particular topic for its own sake, or for originality’s sake, but rather to prepare us for the ministry.

One of the reasons for this success is that WSCA has not desire to be big, and they have refused to establish a PhD program specifically because that detracts from the pastoral focus. The professors thus have a lighter teaching load and can spend time with the students doing the very mentoring that is so important. They demand that all faculty be ordained pastors as well as possess excellent academic credentials which brings a certain kind of person to the seminary; one who teaches with a pastoral focus.

I can say that in my entire time there, I had lunch with a professor on average once every other week, and often more than once a week. And often the faculty members were asking US to lunch. It was rare when a couple of weeks went by without being invited to a professor’s home, and as a result of being smaller in size the fellowship among the students was second to none.

Bricks and mortar aren’t the problem. A desire to be big, and/or cutting edge is because it immediately supplants the pastoral focus. And these things aren’t wrong for academic institutions; in fact, I think that they are crucial. But a seminary should desire to make expert preachers and defenders of the Gospel, not simply innovative scholars.
Dustin said,

February 8, 2008 at 10:27 am

I’m young and no expert but I think Tom’s 3rd paragraph is very insightful. Maybe the solution is not a whole-sale rejection of seminary for the mentoring model but a realization of how both can benefit us in our ministries. Our churches and those leaders over us are much more capable of helping us become better pastors and preachers (through their mentoring, observation, and actual service) than a classroom setting. Being involved in your church and being mentored by another elder or pastor is of primary importance, but as Tom notes, this does not mean the seminary (academic) setting is obsolete. The seminary is able to provide in-depth teaching in numerous areas at a level most churches simply cannot. The church is must be primary and it is unfortunate that some have let the academic realm supplant the role our churches and mentoring should have played. Nevertheless, if we understand the different natures of the church and the seminary, which comes first, and how each is able to prepare us in different ways we will better off.

It seems a growing solution has been the development of extension sites (RTS or the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) for seminaries as well as individual churches starting their own education programs (such as the Bethlehem Institute). This allows men to stay where they are and remain in their churches while still receiving invaluable training at the academic level.
Bill Carson said,

February 8, 2008 at 12:04 pm

From #8:

“Almost everyone in the PCA and most of the OPC wants to believe that. Its marginally better than believing that Genesis is errant.”

While I cannot address the PCA, do not think this quite accurate in the OPC. I think it would be more correct to say that a vocal minority of the OPC ministers do believe what he describes, and a majority simply want to get along and not make waves.

The reason for this is exactly as described above. Men are trained in seminary to be academics, and for some ministers this sets them on a road to seek intellectual respectability and novelty for its own sake. In the presbytery, the other ministers hear odd-sounding things, but out of a spirit of modesty and forbearence, they decline to inquire where these odd-sounding words and phrases are leading.

It seems that a certain proportion of candidates from the seminaries are dumbfounded to discover that ministers and elders actually hold outmoded and old-fashioned ideas. Once a candidate patiently explained to our C&C committee that Genesis 1-3 was not intended to tell us how God created the world. When we told him that perhaps, indeed, Genesis 1-3 could be understood as history, he exclaimed, “But I hardly know anybody at my seminary who understands it that way!”

Exactly.
Stephen Young said,

February 8, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Lane, Andrew, and Gary (I hope you do not mind me calling you by your first names)—I appreciate your taking time to read and to respond to my comment. Also, Lane, thank you for welcoming me to your blog. This is clearly a place of lively interaction with a view to wrestling with important issues for our church.

I feel as though, despite my best efforts, my comment has been misunderstood. Lane, my very point was that one cannot set the quest for ‘truth’ in opposition to Christian character. One of my questions was if it is possible for someone, such as myself, to raise this concern without being labeled as a person who has abandoned the task of following the Bible wherever it leads us in what it does and teaches (again, sound doctrine, among other things). Is it possible for me to raise this concern without being thought of as ‘pitting truth against unity’?

Let me get at this from another angle, which more directly addresses the comments of Andrew Webb and Gary Johnson as well. One of the concerns of many is that some of the people so zealously questing after sound doctrine—-and seeking to turn the current seminary upside-down in so doing (though, from Johnson’s point of view they are restoring WTS to its original place)—-are not doing so in a faithful Christ-like manner. They are not faithfully exhibiting Christ-like character in how they seek to accomplish their end. So, from my point of view, their quest for ‘truth’ has eclipsed a concern for Christ-like character. I should clarify here that those of us raising this concern are not doing so simply with a cry for (false) ‘unity.’ We are exercised about the often rude, imperious, and triumphalist tones that predominate up here at WTS. We are concerned about how rather than resolving issues through attempting the difficult (narrow?) path of Spirit-filled, charitable, and humble interaction and listening that still could result in major disagreement that should not be ignored—rather than this, resolution is being attempted through Machiavellian behavior and political posturing. The concern to win arguments has led people on all sides into behavior that is not honoring to our Lord. I hope that I am cognizant of my own failings in these and other ways when it comes to following Christ.

My point is THIS IS HAPPENING. It saddens me when this point is responded to not by addressing the lack of Christian character in the WTS community, but by comparing those of us who raise this concern with liberals, such as ‘those from Princeton Theological Seminary.’ Such a parallel may or may not be accurate. Regardless, it remains the case that those drawing the parallel have not addressed the character concerns. Functionally and rhetorically dismissing them through sensationalist discourse (“black-hatted villians [sic?] are guilty of a vast array of crimes against humanity”) still does not change anything. From my point of view, this represents yet another Reformed example of doctrine displacing discipleship from its place as a partner.

Gary Johnson, I have actually read a great deal of Machen. I agree that claiming to hold to Christ while rejecting, for example, the Cross, stands as a hollow claim. On the flip side, I question how one can claim to be holding to Christ through correct doctrine, for example, when one shows by his or her life a lack of commitment to following Christ in Christ-like character. Again, why are we not exercised by this as much as we are about faithlessness in doctrine? Lane, you brought up how Reformers died for such important truths as the ones you listed. When will we start using rhetoric about the importance of being willing ‘to die for’ humility and Christ-like character?

The energetic zeal I see on this blog for serving Christ by refusing to compromise on what His Word does and teaches is commendable. My hope is that it could be matched by—and that it would not displace—an energetic commitment to following Christ when it comes to the manner and character of our interactions. Is there a way that we can center on doctrine such that, seemingly subtly, we are not centered first and foremost on Christ? Again, I suspect something like this has happened when concerns for character do not match concern for doctrine.

Thank you again for your interactions and comments.
greenbaggins said,

February 8, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Stephen, let’s posit a hypothetical situation in which someone is teaching something that is obviously false. What is the loving thing for the rest of the faculty to do? Patiently explain their position while allowing such teaching to go on unchecked? How is that loving to the students? Unfortunately, any opposition to error whatsoever is usually seen as unloving, because it is peremptory. I wonder if Jesus’ statements about the Pharisees being whitewashed tombs, brood of vipers, etc. would not be labelled unloving today. It is our definition of “loving” that is the problem here. The kind of dialogue that you are talking about has happend in abundance at WTS. I know: I’ve talked with many professors about how they’ve approached Enns and co. to talk about these things. It has been happening since Enns got there. So I deny that this is any kind of hasty Machiavellian plottings and plannings (how is that a loving statement of yours?). Instead, it is people standing for the truth, and being loving towards the students.
Towne said,

February 8, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Has anyone else observed the troubling way in which Mr. Young keeps referring to truth, consistently setting that word apart with quote marks?

I would like to hear Mr. Young’s explanation, and hopefully an affirmation that he admits to and holds to the reality of objective, absolute truth, and that he would also provide us with a firm denial of the possibility that he is instead a relativist and one who denies the reality of absolute truth. I would prefer to think that I’m misreading his prose style, but for now, I’m quite concerned.
Bret McAtee said,

February 8, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Anyone who thinks that Lilliback spoke to an “‘extremely dubious organization” that has, among other things, an extremely right-wing political agenda,” has informed me of their extremely left-wing political agenda. This is confirmed by their extremely left-wing theological agenda. It is completely consistent that they would complain about their President speaking at a putatively right-wing political organization while complaining that things are to right wing theologically speaking at their Seminary.

I don’t abide by everything that Vision Forum stands for but it is just tripe to say it has a extremely right wing political agenda

Bret
GLW Johnson said,

February 8, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Steven
Granted,
I used a colorful metaphor ( I’ve been reading lot of Doug Wilson over the last couple of years and find myself kinda captivated by his style-blame DW) with the reference to the ‘ black-hatted villiains’ in the departsments of ST,CH, and AP- but were they not portrayed as the culprits in the SOS site and castigated in many of the responses?
GLW Johnson said,

February 8, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Steven
I went back and read your comments and it appears you misunderstand the identity of the people being portrayed as ‘ black-hatted villains’- that is not my assessment of th SOS folks- but ,if you look at that paragraph you will see that the ‘These black-hatted villains…’ are a continuation of the previous mentioned ’sad sacks’. This was my way of capturing the way the SOS folk portrayed the opposition to the profs in the BS dept.
GLW Johnson said,

February 8, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Steven
I must ask, given your last comment, would you agree with the way Machen opponents described him?
Sam Steinmann said,

February 8, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Gary,

I’ll answer some of the questions you are putting to Stephen, as I share some of his concerns (but not in the WTS matter, where I’m an ignorant neutral party.)

It’s possible to contend for “truth” (true doctrine), and not to be rightly contending for truth (Jesus Christ.) For example, the Inquisition in dealing with non-Christians was contending for true doctrine (Trinitarianism), but I would argue that it was not contending for truth.

I’ve seen this up-close in one extremely poisonous church fight; one of the men involved, whom I continue to respect and consider a Godly man and a father in the faith, acted in very difficult circumstances in an extremely abusive way (exceeding his legitimate authority to get the right result); 20 years later, the damage that did is still very evident in many lives. He was contending for “truth” and right, but he didn’t do it rightly–and as a clear consequence, Christ the Truth was not clearly shown or contended for.
GLW Johnson said,

February 8, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Sam
Are you then saying that Machen and those that followed him in establishing WTS ‘didn’t do it rightly’?
Sam Steinmann said,

February 8, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Gary,

Not at all. I am simply not familiar enough with the history to have an opinion.

I am merely stating that one CAN contend in an ungodly fashion for true doctrine.
pduggie said,

February 8, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Someone once made the note that Machen never said boo about female ruling elders in the old PCUS.

I don’t’ know if thats true or not, but its interesting.
GLW Johnson said,

February 8, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Sam
My point in the post is that the SOS people are complaining about the same kind of thing that Machen’s critics did- Machen was accused of being mean-spirited and divisive in his battle to maintain the Old Princeton tradition. When Old Princeton died, Machen help to found WTS and it is historical dishonesty to claim, as the SOS website does, that Machen envisioned that WTS would represent the kind of ‘broad’ Reformed tradition that he deliberately opposed. It is stunning to me to think that Machen and especially Van Til ,would warm to the proposal that would include views as distance to Old Princeton as those espoused by NT Wright or Karl Barth would now be deemed acceptable at WTS. Biblical seminary has taken that route and I for one would hope that WTS does not.
Jim Cassidy said,

February 8, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Sam,

I don’t think there’s a disagreement here. No one here is saying that we ought to contend for the truth in an ungodly manner. The Scriptures says that we must speak the truth in love.

I think that where SOS goes wrong is to believe that just because someone is contending strongly for the truth that such a contending is itself ungodly. The problem with SOS and the post-conservative evangelicals it represents, is that contending - ITSELF - is an ungodly and un-Christ like behavior.

However, it seems to me that those who are concerned about the doctrine at WTS are carrying themselves in a way similar to that of Machen in the 1920’s. They are contending earnestly, but are doing so in a cordial way. The doctrinal issue has been made the concern and not the person holding the doctrine. This is the way Van Til carried out his polemics. From what I heard, the one time Barth and Van Til met, Barth said to him “you condemn me in your writings”, to which Van Til responded, “no, not you, but your theology”. Now, we can banter about how wise (or unwise) it is to separate the man from his theology like this. But the point is this: un-Christ likeness comes in when a contender for the truth makes the debate personal and attacks the character of the person in question. However, the little that I have seen and heard about the current situation has shown me that they, like Machen before them, are trying to speak the truth in love (I’ve studied under most of these men and am sure it would be in no other way. They are some of the most gracious and charitable Christian men I know). Certainly, I know of no evidence to the contrary.

So, the point is this: contending for the truth is not ITSELF un-Christ like. After all, our Lord himself contended against error; so did Paul. But the postmodern minded folk seem to think that to contend at all is wrong (after all, that is a fundamental doctrine of postmodernism). Well, if it is wrong, then not only does Machen stand condemned, but so does Paul and Jesus. I don’t think we wanna go there.
David Gilleran said,

February 9, 2008 at 8:09 am

Gary,I have been away from the desk so I have now just read your post. I have no disagreement about what you said about Machen and the reason for the start up of WTS. Anyone who goes to school there should know WTS was started to continue Old Princeton i.e. Calvinism in the Princeton tradition. Who ever thinks that it was started for another reason is wrong.
GLW Johnson said,

February 9, 2008 at 8:19 am

Jim
I think you have hit the postmodern nail squarely on the head. When all is said and done this is what the SOS folks are really upset about. And I am afraid that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Time will tell, but given the overwhelming tone of the people who signed on to the SOS site, anyone who actually opposes the direction that this group wants the seminary to go will be labelled, as Machen was, as a mean-spirited, nasty, argumentative, and decidedly unChrist-like individual who deserves to exiled on some remote island in the South Pacific distanctly removed from contact with civilization.Of course their own attitudes are never subjected to the same analysis. They can freely heap contempt on the heads of the professors in the other departments of the seminary ( and I was not the only one who was disconcerted about this-Temper Longman signed on but said that casting aspersions on the other professors was totally unnecessary) with total immunity. The double standard is quite glaring.
Douglas Wilson said,

February 9, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Gary, glad you are enjoying the style!And, just for the record, I think Gary’s recounting of the issues with Machen and the liberals in the formation of WTS is dead on. And I believe he is exactly right that the same forces of liberalism are at work in our denominations and seminaries today, and that this “save our seminary” site provides a good representative sample, as I have noted on my blog.But, having exhausted myself in this agreement, let me go on to raise a pertinent question. Is Peter Lillback’s book The Binding of God now within the pale? Is he okay then? Because I have taken a pounding for some years now for accepting his scholarly account of the Reformers’ theology. You want to know where Wilson is on a bunch of this FV stuff? Read Lillback. I am not here representing Peter Lillback as a member of any faction, but that book was simply first-rate — and whether it was first rate or not, it does represents my views on a number of the controversial FV issues. Or is Lillback okay because he has aroused the ire of some quasi-feminists (because he spoke at an “ultra-right” conference that way)? If that is so, then maybe someone can explain why, when we in Moscow have aroused the ire of leftists, screamers, and intoleristas, we get conservative evangelicals piling in on their side. If we were following the same play card, the TRs should be calling for Lillback’s head, along with all and sundry who have made their accusations against him for whatever reason.This is simply another way of saying that, in these controversies, we have more than black hats and white hats going on here. We have red hats and green hats and yellow hats, but some folks have just a black and white tv. This whole thing is more than screwy.
greenbaggins said,

February 9, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Doug, I for one do not accept Lillback’s view of many things. I especially dispute his driving a wedge between Lutherans and the Reformed on the doctrine of justification. Further, the Lutherans held to the third use of the law, as is clear from their confessions. I don’t know that I would call for his head. However, I do disagree with him on a fair number of issues.
thomasgoodwin said,

February 9, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Not sure Lillback’s work is “first-rate”. Certainly not according to several scholars. “The Binding of God” reveals a serious lack of formal analysis, in my opinion. Plus, the feeling among some Reformation scholars is that he ‘over-read’ Calvin in certain areas. So, as a “TR”, I appreciate the *amount* of work Lillback put in, but I don’t share all of his conclusions.
Michael Metzler said,

February 9, 2008 at 10:16 pm

I agree with Wilson: this thing is screwy – primarily because the web site is alarmed about Lillbeck speaking at a Vision Forum conference. I’m less creative than the poster on this one, and so I personally have a hard time imagining what this has to do with the now notorious Machen Warrior tradition of rejecting the substance of true religion for the sake of academic, political, arrogant, and vicious bickering among faculty and students over theological propositions (often not historically essential propositions at all). An easy place to attack perhaps; and perhaps some of the analysis in the primary post and some of the comments here are correct; there seems to be a fundamental incoherence between wanting love within the seminary while publicly criticizing ecumenical relations between the seminary community and other Christian traditions.

However, Steven Young speaks wonderful sanity. I think it is a shame that his explanations here have been explained away along with the web site in question. I think he has been handled a bit unjustly in fact, and his arguments left largely untouched. What would a group of people have to do to persuade WTS defenders there might be a big moral issue going on at the seminary? Young writes:

“resolution is being attempted through Machiavellian behavior and political posturing. The concern to win arguments has led people on all sides into behavior that is not honoring . . . My point is THIS IS HAPPENING.”

I think Young’s point is clear and simple enough. Is this happening or is it not? Are WTS defenders willing to address THIS question directly before getting out the guns of assassination aimed at the person posing the question? With so many current and recent associates of WTS claiming that it not only is happening but happening to such a degree that they can no longer in good conscience support the seminary, explaining this all away as merely the rise of liberalism, or postmodernism, or sentimentalism seems like an unjust game of conspiracy theory. Suggesting some possible explanations might be fair enough, although I wonder if just staying out of it and not grabbing a dog by the ears is the safest path. But an entire dismissal of all the concerns through imputation of motives and poisoning the well with labels like “liberal”? This reply seems to just prove Young’s point.

I disagree with Wilson on this related point: “If that is so, then maybe someone can explain why, when we in Moscow have aroused the ire of leftists, screamers, and intoleristas, we get conservative evangelicals piling in on their side.”

Many people, including X-members of Wilson’s church and even his own brother, have offered cogent explanations of why it is that Douglas Wilson – and not a more general “we in Moscow” — has aroused unusual ire from such a broad spectrum of people (i.e. just about everybody, as Wilson here seems to admit).

Thanks
Michael
http://www.poohsthink.com
Ron Henzel said,

February 9, 2008 at 11:07 pm

Stephen and Michael,

Now both of you have accused people at WTS of “Machiavellian behavior.” Are you aware that you are essentially leveling charges of deception and manipulation? What evidence do you have of this?
Darryl Hart said,

February 9, 2008 at 11:26 pm

From my perspective, the point being lost here is that neither side in the WTS embroglio is the Machen party. I haven’t even seen any of the conservatives there claim him. That may be okay. The flower fades, times change. But it is important to consider that WTS has distanced itself from the form of Reformed Christianity that Machen articulated. That form of Presbyterianism was orthodox (with systematics central as opposed to biblical theology), it was militant and polemic (contra the laments about Machen’s warrior children), and it was ecclesial (it took office and ordination seriously, not every member ministry, word and deed ministry, or parachurch energy).
Michael Metzler said,

February 9, 2008 at 11:33 pm

Michael who? Me?
Ron Henzel said,

February 10, 2008 at 12:06 am

Yes, Michael, you. First you declare that, “Steven Young speaks wonderful sanity, and then you quote his charge that, “resolution is being attempted through Machiavellian behavior.” You are essentially endorsing his charge of deception and manipulation. Or would you now like to take the opportunity to distance yourself from what you wrote?
Stephen Young said,

February 10, 2008 at 12:19 am

You know, I wonder how different this discussion would look if we could all sit down–face to face–over a meal together. I realize this is difficult in view of how geographically spread out all of us are from each other.

So, that said, if any of you, especially those of you who have taken issue with what I have written here, are ever in the Philadelphia area–drop me an email ( Stephen.L.Young at gmail dot com ). My wife and I would love to have you over for lunch or dinner.

For now, I am tired and ready to sleep. I hope and pray we all worship our Lord well today. He who gave himself for our sins in order to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father–he is certainly worthy of all our praise.
Michael Metzler said,

February 10, 2008 at 1:17 am

Ron,

I thought I was pretty clear on what my point was, but perhaps not. I don’t distance myself from what I intended to write, but I do distance myself from your reading of it! I recommended the best course of action was to not grab the dog by the ears. What the web site in question offers is a good deal of eye witness testimony and seems to be sincerely expressed. It is also consistent with what I think countless others have observed in the Westminster tradition, including myself. Frame’s ‘Evangelical Reunion’ was one of the first theology books I ever read. However, I do not know what in the world a web site like this is doing on the world wide web at this stage of the discussion/concern. At best, these people have not taken judicial steps in their launching of this site, or else they are getting harassed about this issue a good deal more than they have let on.

Further, at my quick glance, I only saw disorderly eye witness testimony, and some of it was anonymous (although the anonymity does not seem a big deal in this context given how sincere and charitable the comments have been). But I have not seen example, argument, primary document, evidence, etc. So, no, I’m not claiming to know what Stephen claims to know. My point is that the truth value of his proposition is what is at issue here; if you want to defend WTS, then argue for the falsity of this claim. But conspiracy theories, ad homs, name calling, imputation of motives, and character assignation, are, in my humble opinion, only lending credence to Stephen’s claim: that intimidation and arrogance will the be the response to questioning the leadership of this reformed institution that current students are currently under. Hope that helps.
Ron Henzel said,

February 10, 2008 at 6:36 am

Stephen and Michael,

Why can’t either of you two gentlemen take responsibility for the words you either use or endorse?
GLW Johnson said,

February 10, 2008 at 9:09 am

Doug I fail to see how Lillback’s ThD diss. factors into either my post or the complaint of the SOS crowd. What would you do if someone came along used the same kind of reasoning and drew the conclusion that since I mentioned David Calhoun ,and he wrote a glowing endorsement of Guy Waters’ book critiquing the Federal Vision, therefore any reference to Calhoun’s work on Old Princeton is a de facto refutation of the FV? By the way, your son Nathan is also a gifted writer.
Daryl, I concur with your analysis, but would suggest as I tried to make plain in my post, that the SOS crowd are woefully in the dark about Machen and the purpose for founding WTS. Second, while every nuance of Machen’s WTS can not be duplicated (and this would apply equally with any seminary over time, i.e. MacRae’s BTS or L.S. Chafer’s DTS) the direction that those sympathetic to the concerns of the SOS website and to the indiviuals in the Biblical Studies dept. that the site defends,- this is NOT the kind of seminary that Machen & Co. envisioned when they founded Westminster.
Douglas Wilson said,

February 10, 2008 at 11:52 am

Gary, my point about Lillback was a simpler one. Sorry for being confusing. Here it is again.

Lane and someone else say they don’t agree with Lillback on everything, which is fine. But “not agreeing” can occur on a range of issues. I can “not agree” with a brother over the south Galatian or north Galatian issue, and I can “not agree” with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s views on Sharia law. I can “not agree” with Arius on the Deity of Christ. Sometimes not agreeing is followed by going out for a beer, and other times it is followed by a heresy trial.

If Lillback is the kind of president for WTS that TRs can support in this dust-up, over against the SOS website, then I think that is fine and great. I am not questioning it, and am glad for it. He is apparently not going to be charged with “denying the gospel,” even though a number of people in the FV camp are in agreement with the basic take on Calvin represented in that book.

Put another way, Calhoun’s expertise on old Princeton and his views on Guy Water’s book are neither here nor there. But a glowing reference to Calhoun’s work on Princeton is at least an indication that you believe him to be within the pale, even when he is blurbing Waters’ book. For this reason, Lillback cannot simultaneously be a defender of the grand old seminary on the one hand, and an mentor of heretics on the side. I think he is a fine leader for the seminary, and I think he wrote a fine book. You might differ with the book, but if you support him as president, this means you believe his work on that book is within the pale. If it is within the pale, even though you differ, then it follows that we who agree with that book are also within the pale — even though you differ with us. Which is what I have been trying to say throughout this controversy.

Let me end with a couple notes of thanks. Thanks for your kind words about Nate’s writing. I agree with you. And when I said earlier that I appreciated your analysis of the problem of creeping “academic respectability” in Reformed institutions, I really did.
GLW Johnson said,

February 10, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Doug. It appears that the stress and strain of the FV controversy is beginning to take its toll on you.Again, your are grasping at straws here- just because ’some’ in your FV camp appreciate Lillback’s work on Calvin cannot be taken to imply that Lillback therefore would put his imprimatur on the FV distinctives. You do know that Lillback is in the OPC and that the OPC report on the FV passed(like the one in the PCA) overwhelmingly- and that Lillback did not often a dissenting opinion.
GLW Johnson said,

February 10, 2008 at 12:34 pm

correction: I got my letters inverted- Lillback is in the PCA
Michael Metzler said,

February 10, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Ron,

I think you are further supporting Stephen’s paradigm in your approach to this discussion. I have not endorsed his truth claim, but rather the spirit in which he writes; but since I defend his right to express his opinion — something it seems to me he is willing to take responsibility for — I begin getting the same treatment. Since your last comment is clearly not a direct interaction with my two paragraph reply to your criticism, I’ll now bow out of this conversation, leaving you again with my last statement:

. . . But conspiracy theories, ad homs, name calling, imputation of motives, and character assassination, are, in my humble opinion, only lending credence to Stephen’s claim: that intimidation and arrogance will the be the response to questioning the leadership of this reformed institution that current students are currently under.
greenbaggins said,

February 10, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Stephen, I edited your email address, because trolls take advantage of any fully written out email address on the web to send spam.
Stephen Young said,

February 10, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Thanks Lane.
Tim Harris said,

February 10, 2008 at 3:26 pm

I think Darryl Hart’s very important point (#3 is getting buried by a sea of nattering noise.

I would caveat his claim by noting some exceptions. Prof Lane Tipton anchored his teaching in the Confession from time to time. While he claimed, if I remember right, primacy of Biblical Theology, he subtly turned it to the de facto service of ST, along the lines outlined by Warfield and Murray. However, it is true that very few of the faculty see themselves as propagating a confessionally anchored inheritance — or if they do, they are very quiet about it.

Several professors acknowledge the need for teaching-ordination of professors, and presbyterial accountability, though that view is far from universal.

The right wing is held by the old and the young, while the left wing is middle-aged (I am simplifying of course). This might seem to bode well for dealing with the current problem, since “age and guile always beats youth and enthusiasm,” and the very young will be there the longest. However, the elderly Right is not “militant and polemic” to use Darryl’s terminology. Therefore, the Left wing will soon be inheriting the mantle of the ancients, unless something very unusual happens soon.
GLW Johnson said,

February 10, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Tim H.
‘I am simplifying of course’- do you think? That breakdown is not the least bit helpful and in fact clouds the issues. Is that grid applicable to other theological controversies, like say the one that involves the current one whirling around the Federal Vision or does your crystal ball need polishing before you can tell us the outcome of that one?
Ron Henzel said,

February 10, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Michael,

Stephen accuses people of “Machiavellian behavior.” You quote him approvingly (your spirit-versus-letter disclaimer notwithstanding). I point out that “Machiavellian” is an adjective meaning “marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith,” and now you use me as an example of “Stephen’s paradigm” concerning un-Christ-like character? I see how it works with you, Michael. Thanks.
Tim Harris said,

February 10, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Dr Johnson,
I recently finished the MAR at WTS, which I took over a several year period in parallel with my career — my experience with the entire faculty is what I based that taxonomy on. It was not meant to “clarify the issue,” but to shed some light on the political lineup, which is an unfortunate but inescapable aspect of every institutional struggle. No offense intended, sir. If it is not helpful, ignore it.
GLW Johnson said,

February 10, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Tim
I didn’t take offense- I just think that your analysis was simplistic and does injustice to both parties involved. Age demographics , the kind employed by Harris and Gallop in their polls, are not all that helpful when applied to ‘institutional’ controversies like the one we are discussing. To begin with the most obvious, it ignores dynamics like confessional identity and theological conviction-which are not determined as such by those kind of demographics.
D G Hart said,

February 10, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Gary, agreed that SOS is not the trajectory of old WTS. I tried to write as much over at their blog but my post was graciously bounced.

The problem is that I don’t think the current right wing is either the direction of old WTS. I’ll give one basic example — Tim Keller. In my time there Keller walked on water in everyone’s estimation. I see few there now who would not want to embrace Keller as one of them. And yet for the life of me I can’t see any resemblance between Keller’s and Machen’s Presbyterianism — aside from the glue usually used by experimental Calvinists to include Whitefield, Tennant and Edwards in the Reformed fold. To put it another way, I don’t think New Life was the sort of Presbyterianism that old WTS represented.

This makes it hard to know how to root.
GLW Johnson said,

February 10, 2008 at 7:31 pm

DGH
It comes down , I think, to whither or not the SOS concerns as expressed by their claims that the seminary needs to be preserved along the lines that are represented by the trajectory presently being pursued by individuals such as Peter Enns. As I sought to make clear in my critique of Enns in the chapter of the Warfield book that edited for P&R, it is difficult for me to harmonize Enns proposals with those of Old Princeton’s doctrine of Scripture.In that regard I cast my lot with those identified as the ‘right wing’ element of Westminster. Van Til, for one, would be most distressed by the developments that have occurred in the Biblical Studies department.
John Ronning said,

February 11, 2008 at 3:41 am

Quite a striking difference between this site and the Save Our Seminary site — the latter (with all the broad minded rhetoric) apparently doesn’t allow comments disagreeing with their goals, their view of Peter Enns, etc. — at least they didn’t post my comment and I don’t see any others on there. Ironic isn’t it?

Thanks, Gary, for also linking to our BTS alumni web site, where people are also free to comment in disagreement.
John Ronning
GLW Johnson said,

February 11, 2008 at 8:17 am

JR
They have a statement saying that only comments that reflect their concerns will be posted. DG Hart had a similar experience.Equally as troubling were the instructions about posting anonmously and the sinister cloak and dagger ‘ Deep-throat ‘ suggestion that the atmosphere around WTS resembled the Nixon White House. Allowing the likes of John Armstrong-who as I pointed out not only did not attend WTS but greatly embellished his association with the seminary, but this probably did not surprise you since you are very much aware of Armstrong’s behavior and activities in relationship to Biblical.
Tim Black said,

February 11, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Lane and others,

You may be interested in my brief reflections on the SOS petition at alwaysreformed.com.

Tim Black
greenbaggins said,

February 11, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Thanks, Tim. I really appreciated what you wrote.
snubnosedinalpha said,

February 11, 2008 at 5:40 pm

I get the sense that we are operating with a slightly less-than-realistic picture of what the Old Princetonians and WTS founders were actually like. Here are some questions that I posed on Mark T’s blog (to which I received no answers):
The question swirling around WTS is this: What is the place of historical-critical scholarship within Reformed theology? Punching-bag? Tool? Now, with respect to Old Princeton you have a mixed bag. You have Robert Dick Wilson and co. strenuously attacking Wellhausen’s hypothesis. But then you have E.J. Young and William Henry Green rejecting Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. Of course you have A.A. Hodge and Warfield insisting upon the infallibility of Scripture’s didactic content (however, note that in Old Princeton lingo “errorless,” “infallible,” and the like are used more or less interchangeably and do not carry the technical meaning they do today in our post-Chicago Statement world). But that fact cannot be divorced from the fact that Warfield saw Calvin’s doctrines of creation and the accommodated character of Scripture (a notion very similar to Enns’ idea of inspiration, I might add) as precursors and precedents for his own theistic evolutionism. Nor can Old Princeton’s high view of Scripture be cordoned off from, say, Vos’ contention that both Jesus’ and Paul’s thought was dependent upon and structured by Second Temple Jewish apocalypticism.
A second big question is: What does it mean to carry on the Old Princeton tradition? What does that look like? Does it mean continuing to teach theistic evolution in the name of Warfield? Does it mean taking non-traditional, critical stances on questions of special introduction, if the evidence so leads, as Young and Green did? Or does it mean fighting with all our might against source-critical hypotheses like Wilson did? Does it mean abandoning Van Til to return to Warfield’s evidentialist apologetic? Does it mean setting Jesus and Paul in their Second Temple context like Vos did? What does it mean?
The issues surrounding our relationship to the tradition of Old Princeton are manifold and complex no matter which side of the debate one falls on. But, frankly, the two big questions I raised above leads to one more: What do we owe Old Princeton? Why this easy assumption that “Old Princeton” (whatever that even means) embodies orthodoxy and any fresh grappling with the data (particularly data to which Old Princeton had no access) constitutes a lapse into heterodoxy? I don’t think anyone can or wants to employ a crass axiom of “Warfield said it. I believe it. That settles it.” Sooner or later we’ll have to come to grips with the fact that the diverse theological solutions offered by the Old Princetonians don’t satisfactorily handle many of the problems that have cropped up over the past century. Do we really do them justice by sweeping such issues under the rug in their names? More importantly, do we honor Jesus and serve His bride well in so doing?
I haven’t any great answers to any of these questions. For my part, when I look at WTS’s current biblical studies faculty I see men faithfully asking: What would Vos say about the Dead Sea Scrolls, about Covenantal Nomism and Paul? What would Warfield say about Genesis and Enuma Elish? What would Green say about the authorship of 2 Peter? Given the ways the Old Princetonians did their scholarship, if they had access to the information that has been dug up in this century, would they say the exact same things they said then or would they say something else? Perhaps asking such questions represents a departure from Old Princeton. Perhaps not.

As my Greek prof used to ask us: Thoughts? Feelings? Snide remarks?
D G Hart said,

February 12, 2008 at 6:26 am

Snubnosedinalpha (I regret having to type that): Yes, Old PTS and WTS were open to a host of critical issues and were engaged with contemporary scholarship — Just like Enns. But you fail to see a huge difference. They were churchmen and bound by the claims of the confession and catechisms on their scholarship while also being bound by the communion in which they were ministers of the word. No offense to the bib. studies faculty at WTS, but I don’t see that concern for the church (visible as opposed to invisible, which is really ethereal and makes no claims) in their efforts to engage the academy. Theirs is academic work disengaged from the assemblies of the church.

Another important difference — Old PTS and WTS had no fears about polemics. For all of Save Our Seminary’s concerns for cutting-edge scholarship, it lacks an edge that actually cuts because the folks there want peace almost at any price. I thought the point of scholarship was in part to argue your way to truth or wisdom. Instead, like so much biblical scholarship today, the attitude of SOS seems to be scholarship for the sake of whatever.
GLW Johnson said,

February 12, 2008 at 6:49 am

# 62
The last I checked, Lane does not allow anonymous comments. Who are you? It is obvivous that you are more than bit little sympathetic to the concerns of the SOS gallery. Since you did ask for snide remarks,I must say that your comments are also a taint superficial even a bit supercilious to boot .They have the appearance of relying on what amounts to theological ‘Cliff notes’.You did ask for snide remarks.
snubnosedinalpha said,

February 12, 2008 at 10:44 am

Sorry, gents, didn’t realize that this was a no-anonymous-comments zone. I thought my name would link to my blog but, alas, I have again betrayed my technological illiteracy. My name is David Williams. I just finished at WTS last December.
Dr. Hart, I’m a bit baffled by your taking the Bib studies faculty at WTS to be unconcerned with the church. Apart from the practical theology dept at WTS, they are the most pastorally and missionally-oriented dept in the school. I know you’ve read the SOS website and (at least some of) the comments there. Everyone who’s signed that site has been impressed by the bib studies faculty’s laboring to edify the church and not just engaging in sterile academics.
Further, the Bib studies faculty members are active churchmen. Al Groves, a profoundly pastoral man, was an elder at New Life Glenside. Doug Green and Mike Kelly still are elders in their respective churches. Steve Taylor has long been noted for his service at Tenth Pres. I’m just not sure what you’re counting as “churchmen.”
You do have a point about the polemics of old PTS and WTS. I’m not sure that the SOS crowd really wants peace at any price, however. It’s not like theological arguments haven’t been made by the bib studies folks (e.g., Enns’ I&I) and likeminded WTS students and alums. The point of SOS is to get the attention of and voice our concerns to the WTS board.
Mr. Johnson, thanks for the snide remarks. The sources of my comments are mixed. For Warfield’s evolutionism I am relying on B.B. Warfield, Evolution, Science and Scripture: Selected Writings, edited by Mark Noll and David N. Livingstone (Baker, 2000). My Vos comments come from his Pauline Eschatology (P&R, 1979). Admittedly, the rest were picked up from various and sundry secondary sources (or “theological ‘Cliff notes’”, as you say).
Perhaps my comments are a taint supercilious and superficial. But my comments were framed by questions which I, personally, find quite difficult. Have you any penetrating and insightful answers to those questions to add to your snide remarks?
Yours ever,
David
D G Hart said,

February 12, 2008 at 3:42 pm

David (I thought it was Art); would you ever go to Pete or Doug or Steve for an explanation or defense of Presbyterian polity, or why this is a biblical form of government? This is partly what it meant to be a churchman at Old WTS and PTS. It meant having a sense that Presbyterianism was the best expression of Christianity, not simply because of Calvinism, but also because of its form of govt. and worship.

I don’t doubt what you say about Pete et al as far as their care for others in the church. But my mother cared for others in the church. That didn’t make her a churchman. (She wasn’t Presbyterian either.)
GLW Johnson said,

February 12, 2008 at 3:56 pm

David
Hello, nice to meet you. You are relying on a secondary source for your take on BBW and evolution. I had Noll for a PhD course on Old Princeton at WTS. I challenged him to show from BBW writings where he ever identified himself as a ‘theistic evolutionist’. Warfield never did. He affirmed the special creation of Adam and argued for what we would call macro-evolution as over against micro-evolution- please consult the book on Warfield that I edited for P&R for further details. Your take , or reading of Vos do not support your claims and more importantly( in my opinion) do not support Enns’ claims that ’stories that are made up’ are embedded in the OT.
snubnosedinalpha said,

February 12, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Dr. Hart, I can’t say as I’ve ever gone to Pete or Doug to ask about Presbyterian polity. That’s not necessarily because I think they would have a quarrell with Presbyterian polity. I assume that since Doug, Mike and the late Al Groves are elders in Presbyterian churches, they likely endorse Presbyterian polity (though, I don’t know if they would say or even why they should have to say that that is the only faithful form of church polity).

Dr. Johnson, Evolution, Science and Scripture is a collection of B.B. Warfield’s articles, lectures and book reviews touching on the subjects of creation, evolution, science, etc. Hence, primary source. Noll only contributes a 31 page introduction and brief introductions to each of the articles, etc. contained in the book.
I may have spoken a bit carelessly in saying that Warfield affirmed “theistic-evolution.” Again we butt up against the shifting semantic values of phrases. For Warfield, “theistic-evolution” denoted the conjunction of theism with the doctrine that speciation occurred solely through the outworking of potentialities latent in the primordial world-stuff (all under God’s providential guidance, we might add). Warfield repeatedly rejected time and again “theistic-evolution” in this sense because he objected to the ’solely’ bit of it. So, yes, in a sense, he denied “theistic-evolution” as a sufficient explanation of all the data.
However, nowadays (at least in my experience) “theistic-evolution” usually denotes any doctrine of creation that allows for newer/higher species to emerge/derive from older/lesser species. Warfield clearly allowed for that which “theistic-evolution” denotes today.
For example, Warfield argues that “the scriptural account fo the origin of man cannot be satisfied by any evolution pure and simple, that is, by any providentially led process of development, but requires the assumption of a direct intervention of power from on high productive of something that is specifically new.” However, says Warfield, “This conclusion does not necessarily involve the denial of the interaction of an evolutionary process in the production of man. It involves only the affirmation that this evolutionary process, if actual in this case, is not adequate for the production of the effect, even though the evolutionary process be theisticaly conceived, i.e., as the instrument of the divine hand in producing man. It requires us to call in, at least at this point, an act of God analogous to what we know as a miracle, a ‘flash of the will that can,’ and to insist that in man God created something new, the elements of whose being were not all present even potentially in the precedent stuff.” (Warfield, “The Manner and Time of Man’s Origin,” in Noll & Livingstone, pp. 215-16) Here we have a great example of Warfield’s nuanced approach to the question of human origins. That God specially created man does not entail that man did not evolve. Evolution could be part of the story, says Warfield. It cannot be the whole story, though. He makes room for mankind deriving from lower species so long as that, at the point where we transition from ape to Adam, God imparts to man properties “not all present even potentially in the precedent stuff.” Such an account intentionally leaves room for Lucy in Adam’s family tree. In our present day context, such a position qualifies as an instance of “theistic evolution.”
As for Vos, see Pauline Eschatology, pp. 27-28, n. 36, where he writes:
“Of course, the Jewish eschatology has its basis in the OT. This, however, can not wholly account for the agreement between it an Paul as to data going beyond the OT. There is no escape from the conclusionthat a piece of Jewish theology has been here by Revelation incorporated into the Apostle’s teaching. Paul had none less than Jesus Himself as a predecessor in this. The main structure of the Jewish Apocalyptic is embodied in our Lord’s teaching as well as in Paul’s.” I’m not sure how my claims for Vos (i.e., the one’s I actually made) fail to be supported by this and like passages. Ad fontes!
As for Enns’ and “made up stories” embedded in the OT, I’m just not sure what you’re getting at. Please, elaborate.
snubnosedinalpha said,

February 12, 2008 at 6:27 pm

ps. Nice to meet you too, Dr. Johnson.
Jeff Cagle said,

February 12, 2008 at 7:04 pm

SNiA (#68):

However, nowadays (at least in my experience) “theistic-evolution” usually denotes any doctrine of creation that allows for newer/higher species to emerge/derive from older/lesser species.

Theistic Evolution has a more technical definition. It generally refers to the belief that all of life (save, perhaps, man) came about through the process of evolution, which was guided at (some or all) points by God.

Jeff Cagle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution — cites Warfield as “accepting of or open towards” T.E.
GLW Johnson said,

February 13, 2008 at 9:28 am

Jeff
I hope you don’t put too much stock in the generic data compiled by Wikipedia. They rely exclusively upon secondary sources for their information. I have encountered ‘experts’ on Plato,Augustine,Kant,Barth, et.al. who never read a single page that any of these men-but got all their information from Wikipedia- and actually consider themselves competent authorities!
There is one more misperception that was raised that I didn’t address that needs to be corrected - the claim that if the Old Princeton men had the ‘new and up to date’ scholarship that we have today , they would quickly get into lock-step with the times and low and behold they would embrace the views of, say an Enns or a NT Wright. In addition to falling into the kind of arrogance that C.S. Lewis referred to as ‘chronological snobbery’- this mentality assumes that the reason people don’t accept their veiws is because they stick their heads in the sand and refuse , like the laughable advocates of the Flat Earth Society, to deal with the real world of scholarship. Here is an interesting tidbit-Charles Briggs threw that very charge at Old Princeton. He triumphantly declared that the if the Westminster divines had known about all the discoveries that he had at his disposal-particularly the Graf/Wellhausen school of higher critism- then they would have sided with Briggs over against the Old Princeton men. He even enthusiastically embraced the findings of ‘modern’ Feudian psychology and pure undiluted Darwinism claiming that the doctrine of man and sin as stated in the Westminster Standards needed to be updated along these lines.It was the Old Princeton OT scholars like Robert Dick Wilson and OT Allis that responded to the critics like Briggs. How many OT scholars today embrace the views that Briggs so confidently championed? Sadly, the one who most resembles Briggs views, especially regarding the concept of ‘inspired ‘OT myths, teaches at WTS of all places.
Jeff Cagle said,

February 13, 2008 at 9:46 am

No, I don’t. I agree with you; it was just a convenient Google-hit at hand, and its basic definition of T.E. seemed agreeable to my experience with the term.

JRC
Jeff Cagle said,

February 13, 2008 at 10:00 am

Oh, sorry, I missed the import of #71.

No, I agree that Wiki is not an expert on Warfield’s views. I mentioned that simply as an aside, but I can see how it came across as an endorsement. Note to self: be more careful in expression.

Jeff Cagle
John Ronning said,

February 13, 2008 at 10:01 am

#68; “As for Enns’ and “made up stories” embedded in the OT, I’m just not sure what you’re getting at. Please, elaborate.”

I believe this was directed to Gary, who I hope won’t mind me interjecting an answer. On pp. 54-56 of Enns’ book he says that Genesis 1 is a made up story; made up by the Babylonians, modified by God when he revealed Genesis 1 to Abraham. God changed the theology when he revealed in to Abraham, but not the cosmology (that would be too hard for Abraham to accept). So acc. to Enns, Genesis 1 presumes a flat disk earth with a solid dome above, waters above and below (he’s even got the picture!). This means, necessarily, that God could not have said “Let there be a raqia`” because there is no raqia` (the solid dome in this view). So, according to Enns, God told Abraham that he said “let there be a raqia`” when in fact he said no such thing at creation. Strange that if someone says that’s not the Westminster Confession view of Scripture, such is regarded as an exceedingly narrow view of the confession.

Enns also says that it is well known that references to Philistines in Genesis are anachronistic. If Enns means something different than what most people mean when they say this (anachronisms are a feature of poorly made up stories), he doesn’t tell us.

I’m also left wondering if Peter Enns and other scholars play pope to tell us what parts of the Bible we can really believe or if we all get to be popes?
GLW Johnson said,

February 13, 2008 at 10:31 am

Thanks, John- that is it exactly.
snubnosedinalpha said,

February 13, 2008 at 11:09 am

Good morning, all!
Mr. Cagle, thanks for the link.
Dr. Johnson, I’ll take your silence on the Warfield and Vos passages I adduced as a tacit concession of my points concerning them. As for your allegation of “chronological snobbery,” well, it betrays a fundamental misperception of the issue. The central problem is not that old PTS lacked access to today’s scholarship. The problem is that they lacked access to concrete historical data. They totally lacked access to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epic of Atra-Hasis. Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh were fresh out of the dirt and had hardly been studied when the century turned. We could go on and on. It’s not so much that we’re now privy to new theories about the Bible (although, that is, of course, true). Rather, we are now privy to lots of heretofore unknown information about the Bible’s historical and literary context.
The current WTS Bib studies crowd has pointed out time and again that whenever old PTS had access to such contextual information, they allowed it to inform their exegeses and theology (see, e.g., Vos above). Such contextual information is all one has to go on when identifying a text’s genre, a word’s semantic value, and so on. Sometime’s such data leads one to revise or reject traditional readings. Old PTS wasn’t averse to such revisions if the data so indicated (e.g., Green and Young on the authorship of Ecclesiastes). The fact is that the current Bib studies faculty at WTS has plenty of old PTS and old WTS precedent for what they’re doing.
I’m just not sure what to make of your comments on Briggs. Do you really think that the extent of our knowledge has not changed, that the pool of data has not expanded in the past century? Do you really think that the grounds of the debate are precisely where they were when Allis and Wilson took issue with Briggs, such that all we need now do is pick one side or the other of that old controversy?
Let’s try this again. Given the ways Vos, Green, Young, Warfield, etc., handled information from the historical and literary context of the Bible, what does it mean to follow their example when presented with fresh information of that sort? Secondly, if we’re going to adhere to the letter of what the old Princetonians said, why shouldn’t WTS endorse “theistic evolution” (in the modern, wikipedia sense) or non-Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes?
Tim Harris said,

February 13, 2008 at 11:21 am

JR (#74) — excellent statement. However, re anachronism — this term can loosely be used for “proleptic reference,” for which we should have no problem. Kind of like saying, “the Vikings lived in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark,” even though those names and political entities weren’t current until long after the Vikings.
snubnosedinalpha said,

February 13, 2008 at 11:53 am

Nice to meet you, John. I have to admit that I’m a bit confused by your taking Genesis 1 to have been revealed to Abraham. I can’t find that written anywhere in my Bible, much less in Enns.
Anyways, I guess the cosmology issue is as good as any to illustrate what the Bib studies guys are trying to do. ‘Raqiya’, as Enns notes, doesn’t mean ‘expanse.’ It means something more like solid dome. That’s why the LXX translates it ’sterowma’ and the Latin translates it ‘firmamentum’ (hence the KJV’s ‘firmament’). Job 37:18 refers to it, writing, “Can you, like Him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?” It has windows in it (see Gen 7:11 and 8:2) and waters above it (Gen 1:6-7; Psalm 104:3; 148:4; Proverbs 8:27-28). This cosmology was pretty common in the ancient Near East. We find it, for example, in Enuma Elish:
“Then the lord (Marduk) paused to view her (Tiamat’s) dead body, that he might divide the monster and do artful works. He split her like a shellfish into two parts: half of her he set up and ceiled it as sky, pulled down the bar and posted guards. He bade them to not allow her waters to escape….”
Enns is just saying that there’s no reason why God shouldn’t feel free to employ the common ancient Near Eastern genre that we today call “myth” to assert His authorship of and dominion over the earth. In so doing, why shouldn’t God speak in terms of the cosmology with which His audience was familiar? What if God doesn’t care whether His hearers have a modern, scientific cosmology or not? What if He is more concerned about procuring their undivided loyalty and worship than about given them lessons in astronomy?
Calvin pretty much thought more or less along these lines. Commenting on the waters above the heavens in Genesis 1:6, he writes:
“Moses describes the special use of this expanse, “to divide the waters from the waters,” from which words arises a great difficulty. For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.”
He says something similar about the greater and lesser lights in 1:16:
“I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words…. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which, without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend…. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from [astronomy] in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction….. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage.”
Enns has good precedent in Calvin (and Warfield, I might add) to say, in effect, that “that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher” but rather adapts his discourse to common (ancient Near Eastern) usage. You might disagree with Enns. That’s fine. But it’s just silly to point out his take on Genesis 1 as a radical departure from the Reformed tradition. Again, I say Ad fontes!
GLW Johnson said,

February 13, 2008 at 12:18 pm

David
I did in fact address the very sources( particularly your reliance on a flawed secondary source) you mentioned- as for your claim -’Ad Fontes’, please show me from BBW own writings support for your defense of Enns. It is also obvious that you are totally unfamiliar with Briggs.
Tim Harris said,

February 13, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Calvin is describing phenomenal language, not language caught up in contemporary mythology.
GLW Johnson said,

February 13, 2008 at 1:56 pm

David
Have you read the chapter I wrote in the book I edited for P&R on Warfield?
Among other things I demonstrated that BBW rejected the incarnational approach to Scripture that is at the heart of Enns’ model. I also sought to show that Old Princeton did indeed rejected Briggs’ notion of ‘inspired’ myths in the OT-Enns’ proposals are strikingly similar to those of Briggs. I am not the only who views Enns̵

Green Baggins

Save Our Seminary: What’s Wrong with WTS Philly?

146 Comments

Stephen Young said,

greenbaggins said,

Andrew Webb said,

David Gilleran said,

thomasgoodwin said,

David Gilleran said,

Further on WTS, Philly « Leviticus and Stuff said,

pduggie said,

Towne said,

Joseph Johnson said,

GLW Johnson said,

GLW Johnson said,

David Gilleran said,

GLW Johnson said,

Tom Wenger said,

Dustin said,

Bill Carson said,

Stephen Young said,

greenbaggins said,

Towne said,

Bret McAtee said,

GLW Johnson said,

GLW Johnson said,

GLW Johnson said,

Sam Steinmann said,

GLW Johnson said,

Sam Steinmann said,

pduggie said,

GLW Johnson said,

Jim Cassidy said,

David Gilleran said,

GLW Johnson said,

Douglas Wilson said,

greenbaggins said,

thomasgoodwin said,

Michael Metzler said,

Ron Henzel said,

Darryl Hart said,

Michael Metzler said,

Ron Henzel said,

Stephen Young said,

Michael Metzler said,

Ron Henzel said,

GLW Johnson said,

Douglas Wilson said,

GLW Johnson said,

GLW Johnson said,

Michael Metzler said,

greenbaggins said,

Stephen Young said,

Tim Harris said,

GLW Johnson said,

Ron Henzel said,

Tim Harris said,

GLW Johnson said,

D G Hart said,

GLW Johnson said,

John Ronning said,

GLW Johnson said,

Tim Black said,

greenbaggins said,

snubnosedinalpha said,

D G Hart said,

GLW Johnson said,

snubnosedinalpha said,

D G Hart said,

GLW Johnson said,

snubnosedinalpha said,

snubnosedinalpha said,

Jeff Cagle said,

GLW Johnson said,

Jeff Cagle said,

Jeff Cagle said,

John Ronning said,

GLW Johnson said,

snubnosedinalpha said,

Tim Harris said,