WTS & Enns: HOW we handle ourselves is most important!
April 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm (Uncategorized)
I am a vested interest by-stander. I am a graduate of WTS (MAR, ‘99). I studied under such as Gaffin, Ferguson, Davis, Enns, Green, etc. I have fond affection and appreciation for all the men under whom I studied. I am appreciative of and supportive of the mission of WTS. I pray for God to yet bless it with more success than its great past record.
Full disclosure: I am also persuaded that Enn’s hermeneutic moves in heterodox directions. My point in this post however, is not to debate that or prove it. You see, what I think really does not matter at this point.
After all, I am only a vested interest by-stander.
And so are you a vested interested by-stander: pastor, layman, alumnus, current student. What you think is not as important right now as how you handle yourself.
As vested interest by-standers, we have more responsibilities than we do rights in these matters. We have the right to expect those responsible to seek the truth and to do so consistent with the high standards of grace and mercy reflecting our Savior full of grace and full of truth.
Yet beyond this we really have responsibilities; responsibilities to behave ourselves in a way becoming the gospel we profess.
It is wrong for whisper campaigns to be prosecuted against Pete Enns. It is wrong to prosecute whisper campaigns against Pete Lillback, Carl Trueman, et.al. By whisper campaign I am including innuendo, fact-less accusations, etc. Again the issue here is not whether or not the charge of heterodoxy in Enn’s hermeneutic is valid. The issue is how we, as by-standers with vested interests behave.
I too have first-hand knowledge of some of the things going on. I too, like Lane, have sought not to use such information in the discussions here at GreenBagginses, precisely because it would not serve toward achieving the goal at hand. If at the end of the day Enn’s defenders say, “we have evidence of x-y-z sin by his critics” and critics of Enns say, “we too have evidence o x-y-z sin by his defenders,” then we actually are in agreement - such behavior no matter where it is sourced is wrong!
I think we need to realize that these men, both WTS leadership and Enns, by necessity of the matter, must be circumspect in how much they discuss and divulge. Such confidentiality is not necessarily a mark of nefariousness. It is rather (I am persuaded) a mark of wisdom, maturity and humility.
I believe the audio of the special WTS chapel in which WTS’ president and board chairman answered student’s questions give a demonstration of how not to behave. The students whose questions I heard all seemed have an underlying presupposition that Enns’ has been the subject of injustice. Thus, the questioner asked a question intended to evoke an answer that would prove this injustice.
Given the nature of the question, delving into areas that must be maintained in confidence at this point, the president and chairman came across as evasive to those pre-convinced of their bent toward injustice for Enns. Rather than act with maturity and trust for men who have not given reason to not be trusted, this only served to prove the presupposition of the students.
I fully expect the retort, “you haven’t seen and heard other clearly egregious things,” proving that there is a nefarious bent toward injustice. My response is quite simple: I’m not naive and I have done my own research. I am persuaded that there is another valid explanation:
· Enns’ views in question are problematic for some.
· There is a certain procedure they must follow; a procedure intended to promote justice, truth and peace for all involved, including Enns.
· Such a procedure is one which, if acted out in public would unnecessarily harm people involved, Enns and/or his critics.
If you have formed your opinion of nefariousness based on the report of another, I challenge you to not give credence to it. I’ve been through such affairs before. I plead with you; recognize that the one sharing such accusations is behaving in a way not consistent with the gospel of peace and purity. God will not honor such behavior. When you go off and act upon convictions based on such sources, you are setting yourself up for the Lord’s chastisement. Often such chastisement is experienced by God giving you more and more self-fulfilling prophecy, to the end that you destroy yourself. I’ve seen this pattern first hand. By God’s mercy I’ve been kept from it myself.
If you are young in experience as a churchman, that is if you have few years under your belt serving as a elder in a reformed denomination, let me urge you (as one who made such a mistake) to refrain from the foolish sinfulness of assuming that you have wisdom beyond your years. The book learning of seminary is wonderful. It takes the humbling crucible of ministry to move such ministry from head to heart, where real wisdom from Christ is found.
There are always two sides to any story. Even more, when even just a few additional factors are added (e.g., players, events, issues), the sides multiply exponentially. That is the case here with these circumstances.
Far too many (often current students) have in public manners spoken egregiously against Enns’ critics. Such blog sites as Save Our Seminary are sadly full of anonymous comments that publicly defame men such as Lillback and Trueman, in a manner they cannot biblically address even if they were guilty of some of the things laid at their feet.
Enns’ critics believe at least some of his positions are heterodox. Rather than shame him in public manners such as blogdom, they’ve chosen to pursue such convictions consistent with their vows to WTS and to Enns himself. It is a shame to Enns when those who purport to support him contra these men act in a manner that is ungodly. Would that some of Enn’s supporters think about this before they open their mouths.
Men such as Lillback and Trueman, like Enns, are men who leave clay foot prints when walking in the rain. They are also men who have demonstrated a credible profession of faith. When they are vilified by Enns’ defenders we bring shame on the Church and her Lord.
This is not the world, where we debate things in an auditorium packed with hand-picked supporters from both sides, before CNN cameras, ask questions designed to make things interesting, and then try to persuade others through spin that our guy is right. This is the Church. How we handle such things reflects on Christ’s witness in the world (cf., John 17:20 ff.).
The matters before Enns and the WTS leadership are very important. For them, finding the truth is most important. But for us, merely vested interest bystanders, HOW we handle ourselves in these matters is more important than the outcome.
Reed DePace
TE, PCA
its.reed said,
April 9, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Thanks Tim
Kyle said,
April 9, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Reed,
Thank you!
Kyle
RGL Avant said,
April 9, 2008 at 3:35 pm
“Enns’ views in question are problematic for some.”
>Yest this point there is little doubt. But its not as self evident as too many here seem to indicate since Enns’s veiws were viewed as confessional by the faculty. too many also insinuate that Enns’ views are not only outside the confession but that he denies the gospel as well. To indicate that someone denies the gospel is a most serious charge indeed & one that is thrown out w/out a lot of hesistation.
·
“There is a certain procedure they must follow; a procedure intended to promote justice, truth and peace for all involved, including Enns.
Such a procedure is one which, if acted out in public would unnecessarily harm people involved, Enns and/or his critics.”
>But many of us have real questions about the process & the more things are done in secret then the more questions are going to be asked. As many of you will point out that the faculty was divided when they approved of Enns’ views so too was the board when they voted to suspend him.
I also listened to the chapel audio but got a little different impression than you. The tension was obvious but what I seemed to sense was a student body under pressure & exasperated by a process they did not understand or trust. In fact the most negative statement seemed to be the one which indicated that there was some “bad fruit.” This did not seemed to be pointed at anyone in particular but at those who have created an atmosphere of suspicion & mistrust.
RGL Avant said,
April 9, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Not only have a number here pronounced Enn’s guilt but you have already picked out his next teaching position. (TEDS, Biblical, etc.) Before he has been dismissed.
Dr. Peter Enns suspended from WTS - Page 5 - The PuritanBoard said,
April 9, 2008 at 4:00 pm
[...] Interesting related article by Reed DePace over at Green Baggins. [...]
its.reed said,
April 9, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Ref. 3:
Avant (your name?):
I do sympathize with your perspective. Yet it demonstrates the kind of presuppositions that lend themselves to harm.
First, the phrase “secret” tends to have a negative connotation. Better to use the phrase “confidential.” Things are proceeding in confidence, not in secret.
Second, your explanation seems to presuppose that you (or others) have a right to know things occurring in “secret.” I would simply observe that assuming such a right is a far cry from actually having it. On what basis do you have such a right? As a vested interest by-stander, I would argue that no such right exists.
Such a right is not present even if a pre-conviction that injustice is occuring is accurate. At some point, yes, vested interest by-standers have a right to know some degree of both what has occurred, why it has occurred, and what are the conclusions. Yet I find it hard to imagine what grounds now could be laid for even a student to ask the kinds of questions I heard in the audio of the chapel.
Suppose for the sake of argument that Enns was being treated unfairly. In what way does that harm a current student? Such injustice can be seen and responded to in time before harm comes to any student’s degree.
Or is it supposed that students have a right to defend Enns, to take some action to make sure that the administration of WTS behaves in a manner consistent with justice. O.k., I’ll go along with that for the sake of argument.
So how should such students proceed? Acting on innuendos, second hand reports, etc.?
The behavior I’ve seen is not consistent with the kind of behavior exemplified in Scripture. The lack of respect, the breaking of the 5th commandment, the simple disrespect for elders is appalling.
Suppose a student is truly struggling with the appearances of injustice. O.k., look to the Scriptures and comport oneself with the wisdom found therein. Look the the example of humility of Peter, John, and Paul before the Sanhedrin. Look to the example of Daniel before the king. Look to the wisdom of Proverbs which speaks more about how we guard our speech than how we exercise our rights to speech.
A humble and gentle appeal, one not laden with presuppositions that Enns has been treated unfairly, will receive honest and sincere answers. Even where, for the sake of confidentiality, the details cannot be offered, good faith responses will be given.
I do sympathize with your concerns. Yet why do you have concerns with things occurring in confidence? On what basis are such concerns legitimately before you?
Scott said,
April 9, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Thanks Rev DePace for putting this in perspective.
As an outsider looking at this, not knowing any of the parties involved, it seems we lose sight of what God requires in our conversations and intents.
I am fearful as I contemplate the scope of the Ninth Commandment and realize how fall short of its applications I fall.
How high the standard God has set, how wide and practical its application and yet how we so freely ignore it and are prideful and strident. We slander, malign and presume malignant intention on one another so freely.
Our Larger Catechism perhaps explains it best, what God requires of us as Christians:
Question 144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things: Whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requires; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of: Whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.
Question 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calls for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, tale bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults;hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.
By God’s grace, and for His Honor and Glory, we must do better.
Thanks again for reminding us of that.
its.reed said,
April 9, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Ref. 6:
Scott: good complementary post. Thanks.
s. e. hoffmeister said,
April 9, 2008 at 6:04 pm
hi reed,
I was at the meeting on that Tuesday took the day off work to witness it.
I did hear that student and his statement of “bad fruit” “good tree” motiff.
It seemed that he was suggesting that because of his “personel conversations” with “unkown faculty” that the same said “unknown faculty” had mentioned to him that they were unhappy with the goings on.
In retospect because we share experience in dealing with problems from the church to presbytery the problem becomes in part an expectation of good things.
I do not know how much these students get to witness the government of either the church or Westminster at their best moments, I really do not think there is a fine moment when these types of things happen.
I also do know in real value as do you all that goes on in ones life when things this big go haywire.
There seems to be a no win situation. If it is confidence it becomes secret, if its to slow its stalling for time etc.
We have both witnesed with strange disbelief as things are done and said all in the name of process.
The names of the past are invoked in a way to suggest that the whole idea is not to repeat the same problems and yet here we are.
I was just told by a friend that the day Shepard was fired he was given a ride to the Sem by a student who learns later that his Prof. is being fired ..imagine the things that he felt,thought.
In the end we love these people, we grow attached then something happens and we hope that something good will occur and then….
It would be nice for a change to see that the system really works and even after all that has gone on I do pray that the true and living God works a great work, that people do become more Christ like, that the Holy Spirit does comfort us in this time and we can look back and say “yes it did work,by the grace of God it worked”.
David Gray said,
April 9, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Pastor DePace
Well spoken…
RGL Avant said,
April 9, 2008 at 10:03 pm
First I’m not a student. I graduated from WTS in the early 90s. I’m also not associated w/the SOS site & have not signed it. Do I have a right to know every detail? I don’t want to know every detail. But I am concerned about WTS as a grad & by what the seminary has already announced & by what faculty & board members have told me. I have serious questions about the process.I’m not questioning the motives of the president or administration but I do have questions about the procedures. As someone who loves & cares for WTS I belive I can ask those questions & that my asking dosen’t mean I’m questioning the motives or hearts of the president or administration.
This also hasn;t kept others though here from: 1.insisting that there is nothing wrong w/the process & procedures.2. insinuating that Enn’s is guilty of more than we know. 3.insinuating that he rejects the gospel. 4. declaring that his hetrodoxy is self evident even though the faculty declared him confessional. 5. picking out other seminaries he should teach at even though he has not been dismissed yet.
I also have questions b/e it appears to me that many are not just setting their sights on Enns but also on much of the past WTS tradition that Enns draws from. Clowney, Conn, Dillard, Silva, Longman, Groves, Waltke, Green. Some seem to be implying that this whole 2nd generation have sent WTS in the wrong direction or even that these men betrayed Machen’s vison.
Matt Beatty said,
April 9, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Lane,
I seem to recall a post (but can’t/won’t dig it up…
where you said that Wilson’s unwillingness to denounce some of the FV-Stout types would be sufficient grounds for you to vote against Wilson transferring into your Presbytery. By the same line of thinking, would you be obliged to vote against two-thirds of the men at your seminary transferring in as well? If not, why not?
Thanks,
Matt
Ben Dahlvang said,
April 10, 2008 at 2:05 am
Thanks for those thoughts. Very helpful indeed.
I would take one issue with your words, however, in the 2nd to last paragraph. WTS is not a church. Your point there would be valid if this was a denominational crisis, instead of one at an interdenominational seminary. This point, it seems to me, has been missed by some of the critics of the current suspension process and has led many to think everything should look exactly like a denominational judicial committee, or some such thing. Such things don’t always apply in Academia, even Christian Academia.
Other than that, thanks for those instructive words and I hope they do not go unheeded in this particular WTS student.
its.reed said,
April 10, 2008 at 6:12 am
Ref. 11:
Ben: I did think about this distinction. While I did not spell it out, I specifically did not think of WTS as a local church. Nor did I ignore that it is not formally affiliated with a specific denomination.
Yet these are at best evidence of irregularities in its relationship to the Church (universal). It is an institution committed to promoting, in a specifically biblically valid manner, the mission of the Church. As such, it operates under the umbrella of biblical procedures and values.
its.reed said,
April 10, 2008 at 6:17 am
Ref. 9:
RGL: none of your numbered points deny the point of my post here. In fact, some may even support what I am saying.
As to some here insisting the procedures are o.k. - I am one who does so, but only in response to rash challenges by those in public places.
So you have questions and concerns about procedure. That’s fine. Such questions should be directed to the people involved with them. They should not be aired to others who are not first-hand involved. That only serves to fan the flames of innuendo, gossip, and sin on the part of others.
Should there come a day when you believe the process has proceeded in a sinful manner, I pray God grace you with the humility to know what to do with such conviction. As for me, I find no biblical imperative that requires one to broadcast such opinions to others.
RGL Avant said,
April 10, 2008 at 9:50 am
So did the minority of the board sin when they made public the minority report?
Tim Harris said,
April 10, 2008 at 9:53 am
Reed — friend, this topic seems to be the single one that we disagree on in a complete 180 degree sense, and it has come up again and again.
Discussions of doctrine, including — no especially — potential heresy should be public, public, public. There should be faculty debates, open to the public. The nub of the contended issue should be identified, and speeches given arguing for each side. Presbyteries should do the same, in full session.
The students are right to feel grieved by the secretive process, and we should not assume that those that spoke are mindless shills for Prof Enns.
its.reed said,
April 10, 2008 at 10:18 am
Ref. 17:
Actually Tim, I don’t think we disagree here. Chalk it up to my lack of clarity.
I’m all for discussion/debate of doctrine/heresy. I am perfecty comfortable with the discussion on whether or not Enn’s approach is heterodox, etc. My bone here (and with other similar conversations) is with the propensity for some to attack people, rather than positions.
Debate Enn’s position vs. someone like Gaffin’s (as exemplified in his recent book God’s Word, In Servant Form). Yet when one resorts to attacking the person (of either in this example), then I believe we stray into the kind of sinfulness I am challenging.
I recognize that often there is a fine line. E.g., I recognize that it is valid, in debating the position, to discuss the possible results flowing from such a position. E.g., will those who buy into Enn’s hermeneutical approach find it to be only a stopping point before finally drifting into a full higher-critical hermeneutic? I believe such is most likely inevitable if Enn’s position is consistently adhered to.
Now in saying that I am not saying that such a result in Enn’s intention, desire, or that it matters not to him the result of following his position. I recognize he believes his position offers support to actually stop people from ending up with that result. I.O.W., such an opinion is not an attack on Enns.
Yet it appears to me that far too many have trouble identifying the dividing line and staying on the right side of it. I know I have in other circumstances.
To wrap up, I fully agree with your point. In fact, I’m even willing to consider that there is some degree to with confidentiality is over-used in such circumstances.
My problem is not with the what but the how we proceed to deal with such things. Opposition to Enn’s position by the administration, board, and/or faculty, in whole or in parts, is not in and of itself wickedness toward him.
its.reed said,
April 10, 2008 at 10:20 am
Ref. 16:
Avant (would love to know your name):
Seems to me that that is a question which cannot be answered by someone who does not have full detail of the circumstances. Rather than try to ask that question, if it really did appear to be a problem, I’d address myself directly to the board.
As it is, seems like a red herring to me. Whatever point you’re trying to make isn’t brought out by it.
RGL Avant said,
April 10, 2008 at 11:13 am
At this point in the debate I am more concerened w/the process than I am with debating Enns’ views. I have serious questions regarding the fairness based on my outside observations, discussions w/faculty, & discussions w/board members. You believe the process is fair obviously based on discussions you’ve had w/someone at WTS.
I believe that discussion of the process is warranted & essential b/e if supporters & critics of Enns do not believe that the process & procedures are open & fair then one side will cry foul. If everything is kept secret(confidential) & Enns is acquited & restored to the faculty then his critics will cry whitewash & if the process is kept secret & Enns is fired then his supporters will cry hit & run.
The board minority have revealed their report in part b/e they believe that their is some unfairness to the process.
I believe I can question the process & procedures w/out questioning the motives of those involved.
its.reed said,
April 10, 2008 at 11:30 am
Ref. 20:
I haven’t offered any firm opinion about the process. Rather I am challenging the uniformed discussion that ends up in gossip and/or slanderous behavior - all in the name of making sure fairness is achieved.
Your second paragraph actually assumes bad motives on the part of both critics and defenders of Enns.
We need a lot more humility in such matters. If Enns position with WTS is restored, I will not ask whether or not the process was rigged. I will ask for the reasoning behind the decision. If I agree, I will maintain my supoport of Enns.
If I disagree, then it will end - because of a difference in conviction over the position in question, not because I assumed something nefarious behind the process.
its.reed said,
April 10, 2008 at 11:37 am
Ref. 20:
Once again, is there a reason you feel the need to not reveal who you are?
RGL Avant said,
April 10, 2008 at 11:46 am
My point was not to question the motives of either critics or supporters but rather to point out that when the process is kept secret/confidential that it will usually lead to someone crying foul.
I think one reason the students sound disrespectful in the chapel audio is that they feel as if they are being kept in the dark & this naturally leads to suspcion & mistrust.
its.reed said,
April 10, 2008 at 11:57 am
Ref. 23:
On what basis do they think that the “secrecy” means something wrong? They have to presumse something they do not know. They have to impute wrong motives to the leadership to assume that some injustice is occuring.
While your point may not be to question motives, it necessarily does. Why does “secret” necessarily mean wrong? Why does a student need to assume that because something is secret it must mean something is wrong? Why can’t it be like this:
Student: “WTS administration, why is the process secret?”
WTS administration: “Because of the need to protect people’s reputations.”
Student: “Will the process be fair?”
WTS: “Yes.”
If the evidenc comes forth that the process was not fair, then what should the student do? How about leaving vengeance to God?
Yet we’re not even talking about a completed process. We’re talking about one that was just initiated. Again, a student (or other vested interest by-stander) must presume something they have no right presuming.
By the way, where was the minority portion of the board’s opinion made public? Do you have a copy? How did you get it? Did you check with the majority of the board first to see if it was o.k. by them for you to use it?
How we behave is more important.
RGL Avant said,
April 10, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Your motives may be good but the process & procedures you choose be unfair.
When I say I don’t question the motives of the administration dosen’t mean I can’t question the process they chose to reach their goal. Their motives might be good(even if I disagree w/them) but their methods questionable.
The minority reprt. I have a copy & it is already online. I have not used the report nor have I published it.
RG Avant (everyone calls me RG)
aboulet said,
April 10, 2008 at 12:43 pm
reed: By the way, where was the minority portion of the board’s opinion made public? Do you have a copy? How did you get it? Did you check with the majority of the board first to see if it was o.k. by them for you to use it?
I was the one who was sent the minority’s report the day before the chapel with Dr. Lillback and two board members. I was told that the board meeting was an “open meeting” from the board member who gave me the report. This means that documents can be released, so long as every member of the particular position (in this case, the minority) is in agreement. The minority report was composed by and signed by the nine that voted against the recommendation.
I was then told I would be able to copy and disperse the minority report, which I did with the help of my friends both before and after the chapel message.
The majority of the board have no say in what the minority position chooses to do.
its.reed said,
April 11, 2008 at 7:58 am
Ref. 26:
Art Boulet: Thanks for your response. I must say it sounds very disturbing, fitting in with the kind of behavior I am challenging in my post here.
First, I’ve never heard of a minority releasing a statement without the agreement of the majority; at least I’ve never heard of such among a group of men who seek to maintain the integrity of their claim to be serving for the glory of Christ and the well-being of His people.
What steps did the minority take to maintain the confidence of their brethren in the majority? Did they submit their written statement to the majority and ask for their acknowledgement of at least the accuracy of their statements. At the very least, the minority statement should have some statement appended to it documenting that the majority acknowkedged the minority’s action without endorsing their conclusions. Such a statement would serve well to further the discussion while maintaining unity. Did the minority do this?
May I have a copy of this report to check for myself what steps the minority took to maintain their unity with their brethren in the majority?
Second, I must say that on the face of it such an action is very disappointing. If there was no other recourse, if the majority was of such a mind as to squelch all further discussion and move ruthlessly toward some decision to fire Enns without any other due process, then by all means releasing such a report would be appropriate.
But that is not the case, is it? In fact, both the president and chairman have affirmed publicly their committment to make sure that due process is rigorously followed. They have given public testimony that Enns will be treated fairly and with justice, being allowed all reasonable measures to defend himself.
Further, the process at this point, as I understand it, involves both a sub-committee’s work, and the faculty’s further input, before the matter even stands before the full board. At every step along the way Enns will be afforded all the rights and protections consistent with Christian charity and commitment to justice. We have that promise from men who have not done anything to demonstrate that their word is worthless.
How did the minority statement, how did the action of the minority of the board then serve to promote the peace, purity and unity of the brethren at WTS? As I said, a very disappointing action on their part.
Third, even more disappointing Art was your action of distributing the report prior to special chapel at which the president and chairman affirmed their commitment to justice for Enns. I assume you did so out of a desire for justice. Well, did you distribute some statement from the majority as well? If not, why not? Saying you didn’t have one is not good enough. If justice is that important, then taking the time to make sure that there are no opportunities for misunderstanding and ill will among brothers is imperative.
As it is Art, handing the report out before the chapel reminds me of the kinds of actions that protestors take before a campaign stop by a presidential candidate. You know they have laws to stop such behavior at polling places. Candidates aren’t allowed certain actions right before the vote because such actions can unduly prejudice the voters.
Of course, I think they learned this from Presbyterian polity. As you may be aware, most (all) BCO’s contain a prohibition against actions that would “circularize” the court. That is, actions taken by an individual(s) prior to a meeting of a court which are intended to persuade the members of the court to a particular opinion, before the facts of the matter are heard, are forbidden. Such actions are forbidden, as may be obvious, because they are wicked. Whether the one circularizing intends it or not, he is taking an action which is intended to influence another’s conviction regarding the truth - without regard for a just process intended to bring out the truth.
I’m sure Art you did not intend such by your actions. I do urge you to repent nevertheless.
aboulet said,
April 11, 2008 at 10:39 am
its.reed:
What steps did the minority take to maintain the confidence of their brethren in the majority? Did they submit their written statement to the majority and ask for their acknowledgement of at least the accuracy of their statements.
Yes.
May I have a copy of this report to check for myself what steps the minority took to maintain their unity with their brethren in the majority?
Yes.
How did the minority statement, how did the action of the minority of the board then serve to promote the peace, purity and unity of the brethren at WTS?
I could ask the same thing about the majority: how did suspending a professor promote the peace, purity, and unity of the brethren at WTS?
I’m sure they both had their reasons that we can merely speculate about, but not know truly.
I assume you did so out of a desire for justice. Well, did you distribute some statement from the majority as well?
We already had the majority’s viewpoint: they voted to pass the motion. We read the motion, we saw their position. This minority report was the 9 explaining why they voted against the motion. Seems like it is fair to hear both sides, doesn’t it?
As it is Art, handing the report out before the chapel reminds me of the kinds of actions that protestors take before a campaign stop by a presidential candidate. You know they have laws to stop such behavior at polling places.
So far as I know, there was no voting going on in the chapel.
I think that the students should be given any information that people on the board desire to make public.
Let me stress again: I was given this document by a member of the board (the same board that you are defending) and was instructed to hand it out to as many students as I could.
You are asking me to trust the board’s decisions in some areas (i.e. to suspend Enns, that Enns will have due process, etc.) but not in other areas (i.e. hand out this minority report to students). Which one is it? Trust them, or not?
That is, actions taken by an individual(s) prior to a meeting of a court which are intended to persuade the members of the court to a particular opinion, before the facts of the matter are heard, are forbidden. Such actions are forbidden, as may be obvious, because they are wicked.
WTS is not a church and does not function according to the BCO.
And it was not before the facts of the matter were heard. Let me say again, Jack White posted the majority’s position on the WTS website the day after the board meeting. The public was made aware of their position. So your example of the BCO and church courts is not valid in this situation.
I’m sure Art you did not intend such by your actions. I do urge you to repent nevertheless.
Honestly, if I did something wrong I would repent.
But I didn’t.
Andrew Duggan said,
April 11, 2008 at 11:54 am
If I understand all of the above correctly, it seems to me that it would be charitable to view the publication of the minority report of the actions of the board as equivalent to recording one’s negative vote and / or the filing of a protest of an action, rather than characterizing it as circularizing. Now if that happened before the board acted, then it is a different story, but protesting an action already taken is not circularizing. Simply because the board yet may take further action does not make all comments on recent but past actions circularizing those future further actions.
To insist on silence from those who disagree is contrary to the 20th Chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
FWIW, I am no fan of Enns doctrine of scripture, and I think the seminary waited far too long to act, and has not yet acted in the way it [I think] it should.
its.reed said,
April 11, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Ref. 29:
Andrew, the circularization I had in mind was not the board, but the student body.
Where is the insistence on silence? Don’t read into my words things not there. The issue at hand is the actions we take, and how they serve to promote peace, purity and unity. I’ve never said, “everyone just shut up and blindly trust.”
Quite frankly, I’m a little flumoxed that some seem to want to read my cautions in such an obviously misrepresentation of what I’ve said.
its.reed said,
April 11, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Ref. 28:
Art: your explanations ring hollow in my ears. Sounds a lot like defending actions on the basis of merely countering the wrong actions of the other side.
Approaching such matters with a pre-conceived notion of nefariousness, merely because of a doctrinal difference, is a problem. It tends to skew one’s perspective.
I’m sorry that my cautions ring hollow in your ears. I do trust you and your conscience to Christ however. Peace.
RGL Avant said,
April 11, 2008 at 1:14 pm
As I’ve said before many of us believe that the process used to suspend Enns were unfair. I blieve this is why the minority on the board made public their dissent. (which you can find easily on other sites.)
You believe that the the process has been open & fair but I & at least 9 board members believe that it has not been.
The peace, purity, & unity were disturbed by the process.
its.reed said,
April 11, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Ref. 32:
I guess maybe I’ve not been explicit enough. My point here does not rest on whether or not the process has been fair.
> If the process up till now has NOT been fair, and/or
> If the process from here on out WILL NOT be fair,
> That does not justify the kind of behavior I am challenging.
Plain and simple, wickedness on the part of others does not justify responding in man-centered manners. We as Christians are called to a higher standard.
Why did Paul ask forgiveness when he learned that the man he called a white-washed sepulcher was the high priest? After all, he was right, wasn’t he? For all we know that HP did not come to faith, and maintained a system which sent people to the grave with no hope. It is clear that this HP acted without fairness or justice in view.
Why did Paul repent, and publicly? Because the 5th commandment was in view. Because Christ, as His Savior, had redeemed him from the curse of the 5th commandment and he had the joy of expressing his faith through obedience. To not do so, to trust in man-centered means would have been to express unbelief.
Why did Peter and John respond humbly when they rejected the demand of the Sanhedrin? Why didn’t they organize a rally? After all, the Church at that point had thousands of members. All those folks showing up at once at the Temple would have put a lot of pressure on the Sanhedrin to “do the right thing.”
Why did they take the beating at the hands of men with no commitment to justice? Because the 5th commandment was in view? Because Christ, as His Savior, had redeemed them from the curse of the 5th commandment and they had the joy of expressing their faith through obedience. To not do so, to trust in man-centered means would have been to express unbelief.
Why did Jesus stand silent before the most wicked abuse of authority ever to be? Because in this way, and only in this way was he able to fulfill all righteousness. If even for one moment he had slipped, say like Paul before the HP, then Jesus would have disqualified himself from being our Atonement.
Brothers, you keep making the same argument:
> The administration (and/or others) have acted in a manner that has not promoted or resulted in justice for Enns.
> Therefore we are justified in taking actions that are consistent with the world’s way of handling such affairs.
> We are justified in acting in manners completely inconsistent with the biblical pattern.
Don’t you see that you are expressing unbelief in Jesus?
I truly do sympathize. If you’ve read any of my other comments on other posts here at GreenBagginses, you’ll note I do not have a reputation for being a hardnose (although I enjoy playing hard ball
). I do understand the frustration and pain you experience as you se a man you respect (apparently) suffer injustice.
It matters not, in terms of my advice here, whether the process has been fair or not. What matters in how we express our trust in Jesus to be Enn’s, and our, vindication.
How we behave is most important.
Let me end with one challenge. I fully recognize that you disagree with me (I am speaking at least to RG and Art). Art, you are a student on campus. Why not print out this whole post aloing with all the comments and hand that out to the students on campus? Why not do it as a means of expressing your confidence in God’s vindication of your actions and convictions about the process? Why not let the Spirit work in the hearts of your brothers and sisters and see where things come down?
Of course, please, before you take up such a challenge, ask the administration what they think about the idea. If they think it might hurt more than help in the present circumstances, then by all means refrain.
After all, the 5th commandment is always in view, and we still need to express our faith in Christ and his finished work on our behalf.
RGL Avant said,
April 11, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I’m not a student on campus & can’t speak for their reactions or how they have or handled themselves. (I’m not there & don’t know all the circumstances).I’m not organizing rallies or calling alumni to picket or call in protest.
I have however reacted to comments here that have stated that the process is fair & that the administration is above reproach in their handling of Enns b/e I believe that the process has been unfair from the start. Some of you have made comments regarding the fairness of the process that I believe are incorrect. Some have even insinuated that there is more to know. I’ve stated before that while the President & administration’s motives may be ok but that the process has been rushed & unfair.
Are you saying that if I believe that the process is unfair that it is worldly for me to express so publicaly even though the administration has made the suspension & previous faculty vote public?
its.reed said,
April 11, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Ref. 35:
RG: I think my comments speak for themselves. You need to decide for yourself whether or not your actions are consistent with the biblical pattern. I did not single you out personally for the subject of this post.
If you are defending the kinds of actions that I have challenged, such as the comments as S.O.S., then I’d say you need to consider what you are saying.
Beyond that, and only as you’ve asked, I will say that you’ve been pretty consistent in saying that to you the actions of the administration are not above reproach, and therefore you are justified in calling them into question here at GreenBagginses.
I would simply ask:
>How much of your concern have you expressed to the administration whose actions you deplore?
> How much have you sought to work out with them your concerns?
> What does it serve to bring into question their actions with people who have little to no chance of first-hand interaction with those in question?
> How does questioning the actions here, in this public arena, rather than there, in private with those involved, serve to promote peace, purity and unity?
Again, such actions are consistent with the way the world behaves, not the way Christ would have his people behave.
What great and terrible injustice is occuring that compels one, requires one for the sake of the glory of Christ, to raise questions and concerns about men who cannot readily speak for themselves in an arena that has not direct involvement in the affairs?
What goal do you hope to acheive by airing your concerns for the administration’s dirty laundry here? How in any way is that consistent with the biblical commands to love one another?
Again, no argument here against arguing the merits of the matter, to wit, whether or not Enn’s position warrants the action of suspension or any other action. By all means, debate and discus that. Disagreeing with a Lillback, Trueman, or a Gaffin in terms of their disagreements with Enns (I’m not making any innuendos here, just using these names for illustrative purposes) is all well and good.
But that is not what is in view in my challenges. How do you justify someone who is not even a student on campus taking public his claims that the administration has not acted with justice, in an arena that is not first-hand involved?
How do you justify that when the process is proceeding, according to the agreed upon standards of justice and fairness, as published in WTS’ procedures and by-laws?
RGL Avant said,
April 11, 2008 at 3:35 pm
To be honest I don’t think of this blog as the best forum to discuss the process but neither do I think that this blog is the best forum to come to a decision regarding his confessional views either.
I responded when this blog stated that: “There would be oodles of faculty discussion, faculty meetings, board meetings, evidence gathering, in short, what has happened with Enns. … I am only trying to point out here that the process is not at fault in any way that I can see.”
I did not interject when you were having purely a theological & confessional debate about his book but when you addressed the fairness of the process.
Am I addressing the process w/WTS? Yes.
But lets be fair. This blog has not exactly limited itself to only discussing the confessional & theological views of Enns.
1. Some have discussed his next teaching post BEFORE he has even been dismissed.
2. Some have insinuated that the board is suspending him for more than his confessional views.
3. Others have insinuated that not only is Enns at fault but Dillard through Groves as well.
4. One recent comment implied that Enns insulted his former teachers & colleagues at WTS by saying he learned scholarship at Harvard. Talk about implying bad motives.
5. One person even commented that Enns was denying the gospel.
I havn’t seen much of a challenge to any of these comments when they came up.
its.reed said,
April 11, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Ref. 36:
RG:
With no wish to debate the point about the inappropriateness of some comments here at GreenBagginses (it happens), …
While, agreeing in principle that some comments indeed are at least inappropriate, …
Aren’t you just making another form of the same argument I challenged in my last post? Aren’t you, in effect, justifying your discussion of process here because others here have (purportedly) made (somewhat) egregious comments about Enns?
Isn’t this just a variation of, ” well the other guy didn’t something wrong first.”?
As to the specific comments you allude to (reference), I think I know what you are referring to in 1, 3, 4 and 5 (not sure about no. 2). I actually do not believe such are out of bounds, in terms of discussing the merits/demerits of Enn’s position(s). None of these impugn his motives. Rather, what is in view is his position, not his person.
One in particular, your no. 4 is a reference to a comment from Dr. Johnson on aother post here. I am scratching my head where you come up with Johnson’s comment in any way questioning motives.
If you wish to speak to that however, then the place to do it is on that post, referencing that comment specifically. Further, it would be proper to make your case focus specifically on that issue.
Using that comment, however, as a launching point for questioning the justice of the process is just wrong.
RGL Avant said,
April 11, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I was not trying to justify my discussion of the process by pointing out others’ crossing a line. In other words I am not saying well X said this so I can now say Y. I was only pointing out that there has been some inconsistency regarding the discussion.
I don’t believe there is a problem discussing the process & procedures regarding Enn’s suspension & possible termination. I think it should be as public as possible. In fact the board meeting was not a closed door meeting w/members sworn to secrecy as has been seen with minority issuing their dissent. The faculty vote that supported Enns was not secret. The more public the less chances that someone will cry foul. I’m sure if Enns is vindicated in the process then many here may very well cry out about the process.
I’m willing to let this be my last word on the subject. But I’m not the first one to bring up the procedure. This blog did as I quoted earlier. I merely countered what I believe was an erroneous statement. I believe that even if the goal is good & rghteous you only harm your own your self if the procedure is not fair & just.
If you don’t want to discuss the process fine. But if the procedure is not just then it will cause WTS far more harm than good.
RGL Avant said,
April 11, 2008 at 6:00 pm
The comment made by Dr. Johnson was probably minor. (its the accumulation of comments like this. Maybe questioning his motives is not the best way to put it. I would just say why do you assume that his thanking WTS for teaching him REformed theology & Harvard for teaching him scholarship is a slap at the professors at WTS. Also the comment assumes that his colleagues at WTS would prob be offended. Something you wouldn’t now unless you talked to them. As I said it was a minor point. But its a comment that if I heard I prob would have given him the benefit of the doubt.
its.reed said,
April 11, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Ref. 38;
RG: don’t know what to say. I keep saying how we handle ourselves is the issue. You keep shifting; first claiming injustice in the process, then pointing out the errors of others, and now saying all you intended was to discuss the generic idea of the process.
Maybe I should be grateful that you seem to be moving in the direction of agreeing
I’ve never said we should not discuss process in a genric sense. But that’s not been the subject has it. You’ve been seeking to explore your perception of injustice in the process.
Such questions are best addressed to the parties involved, not by-standers.
RGL Avant said,
April 11, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I’m not disagreeing that how we handle ourselves is unimportant. How we handle ourselves. how the board handles themselves. The minority. etc. But I’m also saying that b/e his suspension is a public act then the process is also up for critique esp b/e there are some problems at least w/how the process started. I only hope that the process from here out will be fair in spite of the way it was handled by the board during its meeting.
Until I do more study I’m not prepared to critique or defend Enns’ book.
its.reed said,
April 12, 2008 at 7:12 am
Ref. 41:
RG:
Until you have spoken with those you believed have at least erred in the process - so far - I’d suggest you have no right to speak about it in a manner that calls these men and their actions into question.
Distinguishing between motive, goal and action is somewhat irrelevant here, as all can be a source of sin.
Assume that Enns has been treated unjustly, and by at least some in the administration/on the board. How is justice promoted for him by ignoring the teaching of our Lord to first o to the one whom you think has offended?
Further, I am not willing to give you the conclusion that any injustice has occurred “so far”. All you are acting upon is reports, at best second hand, from folks who likewise do not seem to have gone to the men in question.
This is a lot of heat off a fire buil out of sticks of one side of the story, innuendos, and insinuations. There is no pressing need to compel us to jump now into the fracas. Indeed the fracas is uncalled for.
Disagree with at least some of the actions, say the suspension. Question in your heart whether or not it is called for at this point. There is still a long road of procedure before our brothers (they are Presbyterians
).
Why not share with them the grace and mercy of our Lord by which we live? Why not pray for them earnestly, then spend so much time questioning them in a manner that has hopes of acheiving justice itself?
How about this, have you contacted any members of the minority of the board, and asked them for their advice? Have you asked them if they think injustice has occurred, or are they merely disagreeing with the process so far? Further, do they think it appropriate to debate and discuss such in arenas that have no first-hand involvement?
I am confident that some (all? I do not know them all) are gripped by sufficient maturity in Christ to have the wisdom to discern good from evil.
RGL Avant said,
April 12, 2008 at 9:24 am
As I said b/f I’ve talked to board members & faculty
its.reed said,
April 12, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Ref. 43: And it is safe to assume that includes members of the majority (board) and minority (faculty)?
Assuming so, have you asked them about how such conversations impact them?
At the very least, such would help you express yourself in a manner that enables you to make your point while demonstrating respect for those you disagree with.
RGL Avant said,
April 12, 2008 at 11:05 pm
“How is justice promoted for him by ignoring the teaching of our Lord to first o to the one whom you think has offended?”
I can only assume you are talking about Matthew18. I don’t see how it applies to a public suspension made by a board to someone else. We’re talking about a public event which should be done in the open & therefore should be open to a public review & should be open to questions from all parties.
It’s quite a strech to see how Matt. 18 applies to something like this.
Yes I’m making my opinion known to those involved that I believe that the suspension of Enns is being done in a unfair & unjust way. I don’t believe that their public suspension of him then shuts down discussion of the procedures used to suspend him. We’re not talking about individual sin(which I’m not accusing them of) but of procedural fairness & justice. I also don’t believe that I am showing the board or president disrespect by discussing the procedural fairness.
The minority faculty? What do they have to do w/this? The faculty were not involved in the suspension. Complaining about the procedures intiated by the board has nothing to do w/the majority or minortiy faculty. They didn’t suspend him.
If you don’t want to discuss why I believe the process so far is unfair then fine we don’t have to discuss it. If you believe that I’m showing disrespect to the board & president by openly discussing the process used to suspend Enns fine; I disagree. I believe a public discussion of the procedure is not only respectful but the board & president should welcome it as it should help in showing that the procedure is just. If a discussion shows that the procedure is not then it can be corrected. But a public discussion of the process & procedures used as well as the reasons behind them are as warranted as a public discussion of his confessional views & his books.
ReformedSinner (DC) said,
April 12, 2008 at 11:23 pm
“If you don’t want to discuss why I believe the process so far is unfair then fine we don’t have to discuss it.”
Please post (if the blogger allows) why you think the “procedure is unfair.”
ReformedSinner (DC) said,
April 12, 2008 at 11:26 pm
RGL Avant said in another blog
4 April 2008 at 8.43 pm
“One of the basic problems I see w/the board’s suspension is that it is a suspension w/out a due process. Even if you grant Hart’s thesis that Enn’s is a modern day Briggs you have to admit that briggs was given his day in court. My understanding is that Pete was not even present when the board suspended him. I think thats why so many of his supporters feel like he was sandbagged.(or hit & run) The issue of Pete’s orthodoxy or being the cause of disunity at WTS dosen’t mean you don’t give him a fair chance to defend himself in front of the board.
The goal of a “confessional” seminary (which WTS claims it is now & as far I know Pete does not dispute) does not mean you do it w/backroom deals.”
I replied him
ReformedSinner (DC)
8 April 2008 at 10.11 pm
Well, it would be nice if you actually present the whole context than your “guess” RGL, especially when your comment questions the integrities of Godly men that leads WTS. Having sympathy Dr. Peter Enns is one thing, making character assassinations on fellow brothers in Christ without any prove of evidence is another.
If others want to know the explaination publicly given is that the Board arranged a time with Dr. Peter Enns and both sides mutually agreed on a date and time. However, when the board meets on that agreed date and time that Dr. Peter Enns informed them that he cannot make it because of “prior commitments.” The Board decided that they made a good faith offer for Dr. Peter Enns to defend himself, and he did not ask for an extension in a timely matter and so they decided to have the meeting without him.
Now, you can make your own judgments on whether or not the board did the right thing, but it sure doesn’t seem like the board were plotting to “sandbagged” Dr. Peter Enns.
Care to elaborate more on this RGL?
its.reed said,
April 13, 2008 at 7:28 am
Ref. 45-47:
RG: Your response and ReformedSinner’s responses to you demonstrate the kind of behavior I am challenging.
I am sorry brother to chide you in this setting, but have continued to make public behavior that is at least unwise on your part, resulting in you leaving insinuations that harm the reputation of others.
Letting the board know of your concerns is not sufficient. Asking for clarification and understanding is. Your response is the typical example of listening to one side and then presenting that as if it is a fully accurate depiction of the actual events- all with the result that the appearance is given that the board, in this one instance at least, treated Enns without “due process”, thereby resulting in injustice.
RG, I assume you’ve heard the explanation from the board chairman why Enns was not present, and why the board proceeded to suspend him. Afterall, this is available on the audio of the special chapel.
If you doubt the veracity of the explanation (ReformedSinner has summarized it wisely), did you ask the board chairman for a clarification? Did you check with Enns himself? If not, in what way have you ensured that the board whose decision you call unjust was given “due process” before you accused them?
Or do you have private information which leads you to conclude this, but are not at liberty to speak? Then how is justice served by your use of such information in a secretive manner that others listening cannot verify, but must merely take your word for it - in opposition to evidence to the contrary?
Brother, I say this without rancor or delight, but you are dancing around this. You keep going back to, “I’m not doing anything wrong talking about the process.”
If by that you mean, discussing what is the exact process, enumerating the steps, presenting the explanation of both those who think the process is flawed, and those who think the process is sufficient - and in that context assessing the wisdom of the board’s action, all the while being rigorously careful that you do not leave any even unintended insinuations or innuendos lyong around; why then we could have an academic debate in which no one’s reputations were attacked.
C’monRG, that’s just not the case, and you know it very well. The argument, (if I might provide an encapsulation of the whole debate, including your comments, but not limiting to them), goes like this:
> Enns is a great guy whose teaching is right one target.
> Some folks he works with think his teaching is heterodox.
> How dare they accuse him of being a heretic! How outrageous!
> Look the administration is out to get him!
> The majority of the faculty told the administration Enns is o.k.
> But that adminstration is ignoring the faculty.
> How dare they!!!!!
> The board didn’t give Enns a chance to be present and defend himself.
> Even a minority of the board says so.
> How dare they!
> These men have comitted injustice against Enns.
> These men seem bent on injustice against Enns.
> What’s up with these men, why are they acting so wickedly?
> We got’ta do something to stop them!!!!!
> It’s not enough, we got’ta do more!!!!!!!!!!!
> Still not enough, let’s start a website where people can offer annonymous innuendo based attacks on the character of these men.
> Still not enough, let’s start broadcasting in blogdom.
And all this without either asking for clarification, or simply ignoring/denying the clarification offered.
Now maybe you will eschew some of these with regard to your own opinion. Yet to the exent you’ve added to such rash conversations - it is sin.
I urge you brother, not to ignore your concern for justice for Enns. I join you in that prayer. I urge you to assess whether or not you’ve engaged in:
> balanced discussions of process, informed by information accepted and acknowledged from both sides, or
> one-sided discussions whose net effect has been to prove that Enns has been treated unfairly, and in the end is directed to effecting the process in a manner rooted in rumor, gossip, and slander?
This is just not right.
P.S., with no disrespect to ReformedSinner, I urge you RG not respond with more elaboration, unless of course you know for a fact that the chairman’s explanation of why Enns was not present is an outright lie. Of course, even then, you would be obligated to answer a whole hosts of questions to determine what is the biblical merit of sharing such in the context of us mere by-standers. I am willing to say that the potential for sinfulness on our part makes such discussion here rash at best.
RGL Avant said,
April 13, 2008 at 2:51 pm
On the whole I think yr above points characterising those defending Enns is a mischaracterization. It sounds almost paranoid.
I’ve had my say on this site & another that I believe that the process was rushed & started off unfairly. Much of what has happened is public knowledge as the board & minoritry have issued public stements. I don’t believe that Matt 18 applies & that the process is a forbidden subject.
How ever since I have already spoken on this elsewhere ( I responed to the above comments elsewhere)& there are some here that do not want to discuss it. I will not respond to Ref sinner’s comment. Not b/e I believe it is wrong to do so but b/e some here believe debate on it is off base.
its.reed said,
April 13, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Ref. 49:
So be it.