# Fuller Seminary (Pasadena)



## AndyS

Someone I know is attending Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, CA. He is considering pursuing his M.Div. there.

I am _not_ terribly familiar with Fuller, but seems like what little I have heard regarding it has not been good.

Anyone here study there or have any informed opinion of it (good or bad)?

Thanks in advance!

- Andy


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy

Ask McFadden. He graduated from there back in the day. As he so kindly puts it, he has heterodox views older than I am!


----------



## greenbaggins

Goldingay is an open theist. Hagner isn't terrible. Fuller himself is heterodox on the law/gospel distinction. Basically my impression (largely gleaned from Dennis) there is that they allow almost any viewpoint. I would not recommend it at all, even though the scholarship is fairly competent.


----------



## he beholds

I have a friend who is a girl who is adamantly pro-choice going there. I know that tells you nothing.


----------



## AndyS

greenbaggins said:


> Goldingay is an open theist. Hagner isn't terrible. Fuller himself is heterodox on the law/gospel distinction. Basically my impression (largely gleaned from Dennis) there is that they allow almost any viewpoint. I would not recommend it at all, even though the scholarship is fairly competent.



Thanks. Kinda wondering if he can expect to hear a lot of Emergent stuff there. (Seems to be something he is running into _somewhere_.)


----------



## DMcFadden

greenbaggins said:


> Goldingay is an open theist. Hagner isn't terrible. Fuller himself is heterodox on the law/gospel distinction. Basically my impression (largely gleaned from Dennis) there is that they allow almost any viewpoint. I would not recommend it at all, even though the scholarship is fairly competent.



Dan Fuller has been retired to Atherton Baptist Homes (where I work) for several years. He is deeply pietistic, humble, and prayerful, yet unwittingly responsible for being the first major evangelical in print (1968) to lead the way away from inerrancy.

I attended "back in the day" when it was considerably more conservative. What I was taught in the mid 70s was . . . 

* The Pentateuch is "Mosaic" only in that it is a mosaic of bits and pieces cobbled together in the 7th (?) century B.C.
* Of course evolution is true. What are you, an ignorant fundamentalist?
* Genesis 1-11 is myth and saga and should not be taken to represent much in the space-time history of mankind other than: God and God alone made it all, not the gods of the Babylonians.
* Jonah is of the genre "parable."
* Daniel was written hundreds of years after the historical Daniel and describes the period of the Maccabees circa 150 B.C.
* The Gospels are highly stylized redactional compositions that carry the _ipissima vox_, but not the _ipissima verba_ of Jesus.
* Paul did not write Ephesians, God only knows who wrote the Johannine letters, and Revelation is a total mystery.
* Homosexuality was probably not God's idea. But, in a fallen world, the church should support covenantal homosexual unions as a lot better than one night stands in gay bath houses.
* The greatest evil in the professedly Christian world is "evangelical rationalism" (cf. Francis Schaeffer, Warfield, Hodge, Carl Henry, R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner).
* Abortion is tragic, but no more so than poverty. In many cases it is a compassionate alternative.
* What do you mean "debate" the ordination of women? Paul was wrong in 1 Tim 2, limited by his rabbinical training and "issues." We need to be in the forefront of empowering women to be all that they can be as made in the image of God.

In the mid 70s we read Eichrodt and von Rad for OT and Barth for Theology. One wag commented that Fuller adopted neo-orthodoxy at just about the same time as the mainline seminaries moved beyond it.

Today the best one paragraph descriptor I have found is this one:



> Fuller is welcoming both to the evangelical conservative and the theologically liberal. The faculty consists of a variety of Christian scholars with equally diverse backgrounds. Students and professors often hold diametrically opposing views and vehemently debate a wide range of religious and ethical issues, yet remain committed to their Christian camaraderie. Fuller's diverse student body and ecumenical persuasion are among its chief strengths. It is also frequently at the center of debate among religious and secular intellectuals on issues ranging from politics, religion, science and culture. Fuller instructors have been cited as seeking ways out of the conservative/liberal debate: "We need to be the voice of a third way that flows out of biblical values, instead of buying into the political ideology of either the right or the left." Currently, Fuller reports that faculty and students come from over 150 Christian denominations representing a wide variety of theological viewpoints.



A puff piece in the Los Angeles Times, "Jesus on a Genius Grant" (http://www.alanrifkin.com/beta_test/articles/jesus_with_a_genius_grant.htm) was intended to put Fuller in a good light. Here are some samples so that you can judge for yourself.

Referencing the school's resident philosophical theologian, it wrote:


> She was vaguely postmodern. Before coming to Fuller in 1989, she had studied at Berkeley's Graduate Theological Union, a school so broad-minded that she considered marketing a bumper sticker: I LOST MY FAITH AT GTU. Hard-core fundamentalists--those whose bible on science and history is the Bible--tended to despise her. New York University neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux, a self-described atheist who organized the New York conference, first warmed to Murphy at a Vatican Observatory meeting in Poland. She had been known to argue that God and Darwin were compatible--just the sort of utterance that makes biblical watchdogs groan: What next? As if to answer, she later told Reason magazine that cloning was inevitable, and that Christians should start thinking about how to use it.



Several of the leading emergent voices are Fuller trained (e.g., Tony Jones). Notice his quote at the end of this section:



> For a while now, Murphy and her peers at Fuller Theological Seminary have been advancing a Christian philosophy that reconciles science and Bible, body and soul; opposes both war and abortion; goes to Hollywood parties and even hosts them; and leapfrogs the two- party political divide. All while refusing to renounce its conservative-evangelical tag.
> 
> Significantly, this philosophy has begun attracting a vocal vanguard of younger Christians who call themselves "Post- Evangelicals." Many of them Fuller graduates, many of them Murphy- trained, they have tasted the peyote of postmodern ambiguity and been steadily coming on. Now they want their intellectual heroes to seize the moment and stick flowers in the gunstocks of the evangelical Christian establishment. ("The Chuck Colsons of the world," says San Francisco neuropsychologist Kate Rankin, a former Murphy disciple, "will not be postmodernists in about 15 to 20 years, but the Christian world will.")
> 
> Biblical inerrancy to this crowd is not so much right or wrong as a divine waste of time. "It's not where we're going to land the plane," says Tony Jones, a Fuller alumnus who is a leader of The Emergent Coalition, an international post-evangelistic group, and a doctoral candidate at Princeton. "My money is on a post-evangelical future. And Fuller is uniquely poised to be the one seminary that ushers in this epistomological shift."



If you want a good take on Fuller from a friendly voice from the evangelical left, hear the points Roger Olson makes:



> In 1995, historian Roger Olson wrote about a "new mood, if not movement" in theology called "Post-Conservatism." Almost no one at Fuller publicly embraces the term (Nancey Murphy likes "postmodern evangelical"--it's early yet), but Olson linked Fuller faculty to its tenets. Foremost among these is a spirit of intellectual humility. Post-conservatives see doctrines based on the Bible, whether liberal or fundamentalist, as merely human--fallible interpretations through which divine light can leak from time to time. But there are other identifying traits, too, which at least one Christian magazine has charted, scorecard-style. You're post- con if: You still believe that the Bible is morally authoritative, that Jesus atoned for your sins, that He rose again and that He orders you to spread the good news--simultaneously emphasizing some of Jesus' most daring and progressive views on peacemaking, socioeconomic justice, forgiveness and engaging the culture.
> 
> This development brings heightened stakes. With 80 full-time faculty and 4,300 graduate-level students studying to be pastors, missionaries and psychologists, Fuller has the numbers. Under the guidance of president David Hubbard, between 1963 and 1993, the school went from 300 students to 3,500, thriving to the consternation of theology's old-liners. But those forces have been fighting to be history's authors, too, as well as waiting for this new Goliath to self-destruct. When Hubbard retired, the search for a successor became a quest for someone to "stabilize the enterprise and answer the critics," according to John Huffman, board vice president of Christianity Today.


----------



## DMcFadden

What can you say about a school run by the man who joined Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in the 1960s, loves revivalism, but was repelled by strains of sexism and dogma that he saw in much of evangelicalism? In 1972 Dr. Mouw helped form "Evangelicals for McGovern." The Times writer admits that his disclosure was offered "with a gleam-- but this peters out to a fidgety de-emphasis" when he asked the_ L.A. Times _writer: "I hope you report the nuances--I don't want to be portrayed as some kind of left-wing anti- American."

Here is how Robert Morey sizes up my _alma mater_.



> "Avoid schools like Fuller seminary, which have foundered on the shoals of liberalism," Dr. Robert Morey advises a caller on KFSG-AM (Faith Defenders, his ministry is named). So reliant upon biblical absolutes that his deference resembles arrogance, or vice versa, Morey complicates matters with a despairing chuckle that can repel or draw listeners according to their hearts. Like many critics, he is fixated with Nancey Murphy, and interviewed by phone he nearly takes you by the hand to move your pen. "Fuller Seminary. Is a Post. Christian. Graduate. School of Religion. Just the fact that they employ Nancey Murphy is sufficient to make this charge." By reducing man's soul to a mortal and bodily entity, Murphy is guilty of heresy, he says. "We all kiss babies and love dogs. I take none of it personally. But if I were questioning Dr. Murphy what she believes God is, I bet you dinner at Denny's it isn't the God of the Bible. Jesus said you cannot kill the soul. And if you don't believe Him on that, then how can you believe the Bible on His two natures?"



The article from the _L.A. Times_ makes an interesting observation: "Fuller graduates like to see themselves as mavericks, and when they infiltrate the culture, a certain air of self-invention goes with them."

[Sigh] So true . . . unfortunately.

[DISCLAIMER: If I believed ANY of the stuff in these pieces, I would not be on the PB. Obviously, I am what FTS would consider a graduate but not an exemplar of the school. It has been a long time since my wife (Fuller '77) and I have given anything to the institution, and then only to the School of World Missions . . . er . . . I mean "School of Intercultural Studies"]


----------



## DMcFadden

he beholds said:


> I have a friend who is a girl who is adamantly pro-choice going there. I know that tells you nothing.



All too typical. A friend of mine graduated from FTS in the last few years after doing a prior masters degree under Packer in Canada. The observation made with wide eyes: "Dennis, I'm not sure that some of my professors (at FTS) were even Christians!"

In his last book, Fuller icon, Dr. Jewett, ended up with an accommodating view of homosexuality as I had predicted that he would when reading his arguments regarding St. Paul being "wrong" on the issue of women in 1 Timothy.

Fuller is GREAT for people who prefer a non-dogmatic, post-evangelical, post-modern, post-revivalist, post-conservative, post-Christendom, post-classical, approach to seminary that offers opportunities to learn from all traditions, to weigh all options equally, and to reach your own conclusions, in the general tradition of Protestant Christianity without any intellectual accountability.


However, remember that Wayne Grudem did a year at Fulller, John Piper graduated from the place, and a bunch of solidly Reformed people did as well.


----------



## DMcFadden

Calvinist Cowboy said:


> Ask McFadden. He graduated from there back in the day. As he so kindly puts it, he has *hetero-orthodox *views older than I am!





Not that I HOLD, only that were TAUGHT to me "back in the day."


----------



## Archlute

Thanks for that, Dennis. I have sister in-law and her husband who recently graduated from there, both then quickly moving on to being ordained ministers in the PCUSA. I am not certain what her views were going in, I do not think that they were very evangelical, but am fairly certain that they are a mess now.

Regarding Nancy Murphy, and it is alluded to in that last citation, isn't she the one who writes that the soul is merely the composite of our sensory perceptions? This would mean that when the body dies, the "soul" can no longer exist, which at the very least creates serious problems for any historic (and biblically defensible) Christian view of resurrection, the afterlife, etc.


----------



## DMcFadden

Yes, Adam. She is the proponent of "non reductive physicalism."



> Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things.



I have interviewed and examined hundreds of FTS grads for ordination over the past 28 years. My observation is that many of them do not do well in the theological cafeteria. They typically go in with a pious faith and a lot of enthusiasm for doing ministry. They often come out confused and bewildered, uncertain about just about everything. They know just enough about just enough to be just about victims of a paralysis of analysis.

Grads from the 50s, 60s, and some in the 70s were exceptionally well educated and sharp. My experience with more recent grads is that they know a lot about culture, post-modernism, and the fads of the emergent generation. They are just unprepared in Bible, theology, preaching, Old Testament, New Testament, administration, evangelism, discipleship, leadership and the like. Other than that, they are well trained for ministry. Brian McLaren is their theological hero. Tony Jones is their idea of a creative practitioner. Jim Wallis informs their views about Christ and culture.

Adam, I ache every time mention is made of someone like your sister-in-law/husband. FTS was established to be the conservative alternative to the liberalism at Princeton. Look at it now. Over the years, PCUSA has been the biggest denomination represented (not sure about now with all of the Korean students).


----------



## DMcFadden

Adam, what part of the country is your sister-in-law planning to serve after ordination? Some parts of the PCUSA are tolerably evangelical, none of them terribly conservative, however.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Marsden's _Reforming Fundamentalism_ is a compelling work that will fill in much of the history.


----------



## forgivenmuch

AndyS said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goldingay is an open theist. Hagner isn't terrible. Fuller himself is heterodox on the law/gospel distinction. Basically my impression (largely gleaned from Dennis) there is that they allow almost any viewpoint. I would not recommend it at all, even though the scholarship is fairly competent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. Kinda wondering if he can expect to hear a lot of Emergent stuff there. (Seems to be something he is running into _somewhere_.)
Click to expand...


Rob Bell went there. Not sure if that is indicative of the whole institution, but it has to mean something.


----------



## KMK

My uncle went there and when I entered the ministry the only advice he could give me was to immediately read Reformed Dogmatics. (Needless to say I haven't yet had the time) (I am going to let people like Lane do that for me)


----------



## DMcFadden

RSC,

Marsden is a VERY compelling, albeit sympathetic, history of the institution. As much as I appreciate him as an historian, my recollection was that he missed some of the inherent weaknesses and ironies that would have made for an even more interesting and telling account.

Lane, while I agree with you on the law/gospel problems in Dan Fuller's thinking, you really need to know the man in order to appreciate some of the reasons for his odd quests. His original doctoral work at Northern (prior to his second doctorate at Basel) was on the hermeneutics of dispensationalism. He always insisted on being a "Berean" who went to the text, _ad fontes_, rather than to the "schoolmen" of any stripe. I can remember back in the '74 or '75 when Dan came to Westmont to discuss the central tenets of his law/gospel ideas. He met with the religious studies faculty and those of us majoring in religious studies. Back then, our big guns in NT were Bob Gundry and Moses Silva. Silva (Westminster Phil trained) tried to be gracious but was beside himself (as I remember) with Dan's view which attempted to cobble together a via media between dispensationalism and covenant thinking. Watching him come at Dan from a traditional Reformed angle was fascinating!

While I would not attribute causality to the connections between Dan's '68 _JETS_ paper regarding his "modest" correction to Warfield on inspiration and the changing of Fuller's doctrinal statement away from inerrancy, it was one of the first times a significant evangelical voice dared to back away from full inerrancy in print. The Enns controversy at Westminster last year was but an echo of the earthquakes that have shaken evangelicalism since schools such as Fuller began to abandon inerrancy in the 60s and 70s. 

And, for good or ill, my dear and pious friend and resident in my retirement community, Dan Fulller, will always be at least an unfortunate footnote in the history of evangelicalism's collapse so quickly after its founding in the 20th century. Historians like Marsden and those yet to come, will point to Dan's "Warfield" article as making acceptable what should never have been accepted by evangelicals. The irony is that he would be horrified to think that his efforts to defend the full authority of the Word of God have been used to justify the nonsense now being promulgated at FTS in everything from open theism to non-reductive physicalism to the willy nilly promotion of all things emergent.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kiffin

DMcFadden said:


> Over the years, PCUSA has been the biggest denomination represented (not sure about now with all of the Korean students).



I'm sure those Korean students are in the PCUSA


----------



## DMcFadden

The irony for me as a FTS grad is that it took so long for me to embrace Reformed views more fully after seminary *because* all of my MOST liberal profs at FTS were either Presbyterian or Reformed. In my mind, "Reformed" = inerrancy denying, Bible relativizing, egalitarian, pro-gay unions/ordinations, theologically compromising, etc.

Now, thanks to the "If you need a Sporran, you'd better hurry" thread, I simply associate fully Reformed people with men wearing dresses and making an awful racket on ear-piercing bagpipes while eating something called "haggis." 

Cf. http://www.puritanboard.com/f37/honoring-my-father-40653/#post501247


----------



## AndyS

R. Scott Clark said:


> Marsden's _Reforming Fundamentalism_ is a compelling work that will fill in much of the history.



Thanks Dr. Clark!

And I have told my friend about the "seminary for a day" @ WSCA in October.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

After spending a year at Princeton Seminary, a year at Louisville Presbyterian, and dropping out of school for military service, marriage, family and secular employment for eight years, I enrolled at Fuller in 1982, and spent four years finishing up the minimum required courses for an MDiv, after transfer of the maximum credit from prior study. Fuller attracts lots of men (and women) in their thirties or forties, second career, with families, who can only study part-time. Such was I, and grateful to find a school with some intelligent evangelicals, who actually believed something, and had a heart for evangelism, missions and the pastorate. Whatever their faults, both Dan Fuller and Paul Jewett fell into this category. Fuller Seminary was not a bad place for a theologically confused, searching individual like myself, who had some sense of an unrealized call to ministry, but too many responsibilities to move across country to attend seminary full-time.

At Fuller, I became a Calvinist taking Paul Jewett’s Systematic Theology class, and left Dan Fuller’s Unity of the Bible class literally trembling at the realization of God’s mercy and grace. Fuller was a fit for me at the time, and gave me some basic tools for learning Reformed and biblical theology in the twenty three years since I graduated from there. Since, I’ve become a full subscriptionist, regulative principle, Psalm singing, establishment principle, AV reading, Old School Southern Presbyterian with a Scottish twist, even married in a kilt and liking Scotch as much as Bourbon. 

I’m grateful for my early 80's Neo-Evangelical experience at Fuller in the early 80's, as well as my Liberal experience at Princeton and Louisville Presbyterian. But, I would not recommend any of these to a young man considering seminary today.

I do get a few questions when some learn my MDiv is from Fuller.


----------



## Leglaen

I'm currently a student at Fuller, getting my M.Div., and I do agree with much of what's been said about the state of Fuller currently. If anything, the difficulty of such an environment has been understated, but it is not all terrible. If anything, I'm always surprised by the few Reformed folk I meet here.

In any event, if anyone has specific questions about the current Fuller, I'd be glad to answer as best I can.


----------



## DMcFadden

Understated?!?


----------



## sastark

Leglaen said:


> I'm currently a student at Fuller, getting my M.Div., and I do agree with much of what's been said about the state of Fuller currently. If anything, the difficulty of such an environment has been understated, but it is not all terrible. If anything, I'm always surprised by the few Reformed folk I meet here.
> 
> In any event, if anyone has specific questions about the current Fuller, I'd be glad to answer as best I can.



I have a question. Are you planning to seek ordination in the PCA? If so, why are you at Fuller?


----------



## Leglaen

*DMcFadden*, it seemed as if in your posting of sources you made an extra effort to give a more balanced view of Fuller (naturally, as you said, you don't agree with much of what was taught, or of what the articles said)...nevertheless, I perhaps have a more knee-jerk reaction to Fuller's theology, being in the front lines here. 

But you are definitely spot-on in your appraisal of recent Fuller grads, at least the vast majority of them, and I definitely appreciate the information and understanding you have from your years here! My point was only that with the likes of Daniel Fuller (along with Don Hagner and Seyoon Kim) leaving or teaching less and less, there is a paucity of evangelical teaching (whether neo- or not), less Reformed faculty than I have fingers, and so on. 

*sastark*, you've asked the question...I suppose I should form a standard answer, since I have a lifetime ahead of me answering this question.

Yes, I am considering ordination, and I plan to come under care of the Pacific Pres. in September..

Anyhoo, here are some reasons, without delving too much into my biography.

1. When I was discerning, thinking, asking, and praying about which seminary to attend, I was just being opened to the doctrines of grace, so I wanted a larger evangelical place to attend. 

Because I had been involved with Intervarsity in university, Fuller was suggested by friends, and because I was rooted in the cultural moralism which is Christianity in the South to some degree, the advice which I received from my Baptist minister, from my IV friends, from my family, and from sundry others was geared more towards what I felt and towards financial matters than anything else. 

Additionally, I had begun to be mentored by the minister of the RUF chapter at my university, and after I had visited Fuller, he said that it seemed to be good that I would go there. 

(This was between 2 years to a year ago, to clarify. I've only been at Fuller for 9 months now.)

2. Partly because I am stubborn, and because I've always learned/studied on my own apart from assigned work, I assumed that I would be able to continue delving into Reformed theology at Fuller and in fact be impelled into it by the need to understand what I was being taught and the underlying presuppositions of the faculty here, and at the same time to articulate the necessity, sufficiency, and beauty of the gospel and of Christ from a Reformed perspective. 

3. I did actually tour Covenant Seminary a month or so ago, attempting to discern whether or not I should transfer there, but I ultimately decided not to do that, primarily because I am unsure if I wish to enter into full-time pastoral ministry or attempt more academic work (or both). Fuller, from what I have seen, offers more of an academic perspective, though of course I fit in much better in St. Louis than in Pasadena theologically-wise. If I was positive that I would become a pastor for the rest of my life, I would transfer in a heart-beat. 

4. I have seen such incredible fruit and progress in my time here at Fuller that I must only trust in the sovereignty of God as to why I'm here. Looking at everything from an objective perspective the whole situation seems extremely strange, but from where I'm sitting and typing it appears quite providential. (But still very strange.) 

5. Penultimately, the ugly head of finances rears its head. At this stage in the game, I would strongly consider transferring to Westminster Cali down in Escondido if it wasn't for finances and logistics. (I still may commute and take a class there sometime in the next 2 years.)

6. Finally, I have become involved with a wonderful PCA church here in Pasadena, and I am being mentored/advised through the ordination process courtesy of my pastor and a quite helpful booklet from Covenant's course on Licensure and Ordination. 


But, to be honest, ordination is one of my biggest concerns at this time, and I am looking into a few options to help in preparing for that, even though it is at least 2 years away.

Thanks for reading all of this! I certainly did not plan on writing all of this, and I hope that I have given some understanding. Naturally, I'm glad to answer more questions along this line of inquiry...  (I'm just glad to have found this place. It's quite refreshing.)


----------



## sastark

John,

Thanks for the well thought out answer. I've gotten strange looks from reformed folks on occasion when I tell them I'm doing grad work at Biola, so I also have my standard answer for why I'm here and not somewhere else. In my case, I am not planning on going into the ministry at all, but hope to teach at the university level, eventually.

As my father (a Presbyterian minister) has told me over and over again during my time at Biola, just keep in the Word!



Leglaen said:


> *DMcFadden*, it seemed as if in your posting of sources you made an extra effort to give a more balanced view of Fuller (naturally, as you said, you don't agree with much of what was taught, or of what the articles said)...nevertheless, I perhaps have a more knee-jerk reaction to Fuller's theology, being in the front lines here.
> 
> But you are definitely spot-on in your appraisal of recent Fuller grads, at least the vast majority of them, and I definitely appreciate the information and understanding you have from your years here! My point was only that with the likes of Daniel Fuller (along with Don Hagner and Seyoon Kim) leaving or teaching less and less, there is a paucity of evangelical teaching (whether neo- or not), less Reformed faculty than I have fingers, and so on.
> 
> *sastark*, you've asked the question...I suppose I should form a standard answer, since I have a lifetime ahead of me answering this question.
> 
> Yes, I am considering ordination, and I plan to come under care of the Pacific Pres. in September..
> 
> Anyhoo, here are some reasons, without delving too much into my biography.
> 
> 1. When I was discerning, thinking, asking, and praying about which seminary to attend, I was just being opened to the doctrines of grace, so I wanted a larger evangelical place to attend.
> 
> Because I had been involved with Intervarsity in university, Fuller was suggested by friends, and because I was rooted in the cultural moralism which is Christianity in the South to some degree, the advice which I received from my Baptist minister, from my IV friends, from my family, and from sundry others was geared more towards what I felt and towards financial matters than anything else.
> 
> Additionally, I had begun to be mentored by the minister of the RUF chapter at my university, and after I had visited Fuller, he said that it seemed to be good that I would go there.
> 
> (This was between 2 years to a year ago, to clarify. I've only been at Fuller for 9 months now.)
> 
> 2. Partly because I am stubborn, and because I've always learned/studied on my own apart from assigned work, I assumed that I would be able to continue delving into Reformed theology at Fuller and in fact be impelled into it by the need to understand what I was being taught and the underlying presuppositions of the faculty here, and at the same time to articulate the necessity, sufficiency, and beauty of the gospel and of Christ from a Reformed perspective.
> 
> 3. I did actually tour Covenant Seminary a month or so ago, attempting to discern whether or not I should transfer there, but I ultimately decided not to do that, primarily because I am unsure if I wish to enter into full-time pastoral ministry or attempt more academic work (or both). Fuller, from what I have seen, offers more of an academic perspective, though of course I fit in much better in St. Louis than in Pasadena theologically-wise. If I was positive that I would become a pastor for the rest of my life, I would transfer in a heart-beat.
> 
> 4. I have seen such incredible fruit and progress in my time here at Fuller that I must only trust in the sovereignty of God as to why I'm here. Looking at everything from an objective perspective the whole situation seems extremely strange, but from where I'm sitting and typing it appears quite providential. (But still very strange.)
> 
> 5. Penultimately, the ugly head of finances rears its head. At this stage in the game, I would strongly consider transferring to Westminster Cali down in Escondido if it wasn't for finances and logistics. (I still may commute and take a class there sometime in the next 2 years.)
> 
> 6. Finally, I have become involved with a wonderful PCA church here in Pasadena, and I am being mentored/advised through the ordination process courtesy of my pastor and a quite helpful booklet from Covenant's course on Licensure and Ordination.
> 
> 
> But, to be honest, ordination is one of my biggest concerns at this time, and I am looking into a few options to help in preparing for that, even though it is at least 2 years away.
> 
> Thanks for reading all of this! I certainly did not plan on writing all of this, and I hope that I have given some understanding. Naturally, I'm glad to answer more questions along this line of inquiry...  (I'm just glad to have found this place. It's quite refreshing.)


----------



## DMcFadden

John,

Thanks for noticing my "attempt" at balance. Frankly, 32 years after graduation, my disappointment and (yes) anger at the education there still depresses and riles me. I have to work at being balanced in my assessments because of the rather definite frustrations that have helped form my outlook. 

Yes, one can graduate and hold to orthodoxy. However, the entire corporate culture is oriented toward compromise, concession, and accommodation. The Wikipedia (not always the most accurate source, but spot on in this case) article is quite accurate in saying that Fuller boasts of being a "third way" between the liberal and the conservative. 

My only somewhat tongue-in-cheek caricature is that given a question of "yes" or "no," (even about an obvious one like "what is 2 + 2?") Fuller grads prefer to begin "on the one hand . . . but on the other hand." It may be good training for a diplomat, but it is LOUSY preparation for ministry. People do not come to church to learn their pastor's doubts and equivocations. They come to hear a word from the Lord. By the time one graduates from the FTS of today, they will not only know how to hem and haw, they will be constitutionally incapable of coming down on anything definitively.

It is almost as if FTS has taken the epistemology of postmodern uncertainty and married it to broad evangelical piety. "I KNOW Jesus because he lives within my heart, but beyond that, everything is pretty much of a grey blur with good points in almost every ideology" is a fairly accurate broad stroke on the typical mindset outcomes.

When you consider how well FTS does at promoting egalitarian, non-inerrantist, edgy broad evangelicalism, I would be hard pressed to suggest that it would be a good venue for anyone who held to a confessional position. College/univesity may be for education in the sense of exploration; seminary ought to be at least somewhat about training as well. The training one gets at FTS will likely render him (or "her" since FTS is soooo committed to that as well) incapable of discharging the duties of pastoral ministry without unlearning almost *everything*.

Yes, I am fond of many of the Godly people who taught me and I honor the legacy of their teaching. However, in its present form, it is VERY difficult to have such warm and sanguine sentiments.


----------



## Edward

Last Sunday, I was chatting with an unordained staff member at our church that has a degree from there. It seems to be a source of embarrassment and regret for him. It is probably somewhat career limiting.


----------



## DonP

Leglaen said:


> *DMcFadden*, it seemed as if in your posting of sources you made an extra effort to give a more balanced view of Fuller (naturally, as you said, you don't agree with much of what was taught, or of what the articles said)...nevertheless, I perhaps have a more knee-jerk reaction to Fuller's theology, being in the front lines here.
> 
> But you are definitely spot-on in your appraisal of recent Fuller grads, at least the vast majority of them, and I definitely appreciate the information and understanding you have from your years here! My point was only that with the likes of Daniel Fuller (along with Don Hagner and Seyoon Kim) leaving or teaching less and less, there is a paucity of evangelical teaching (whether neo- or not), less Reformed faculty than I have fingers, and so on.
> 
> *sastark*, you've asked the question...I suppose I should form a standard answer, since I have a lifetime ahead of me answering this question.
> 
> Yes, I am considering ordination, and I plan to come under care of the Pacific Pres. in September..
> 
> Anyhoo, here are some reasons, without delving too much into my biography.
> 
> 1. When I was discerning, thinking, asking, and praying about which seminary to attend, I was just being opened to the doctrines of grace, so I wanted a larger evangelical place to attend.
> 
> Because I had been involved with Intervarsity in university, Fuller was suggested by friends, and because I was rooted in the cultural moralism which is Christianity in the South to some degree, the advice which I received from my Baptist minister, from my IV friends, from my family, and from sundry others was geared more towards what I felt and towards financial matters than anything else.
> 
> Additionally, I had begun to be mentored by the minister of the RUF chapter at my university, and after I had visited Fuller, he said that it seemed to be good that I would go there.
> 
> (This was between 2 years to a year ago, to clarify. I've only been at Fuller for 9 months now.)
> 
> 2. Partly because I am stubborn, and because I've always learned/studied on my own apart from assigned work, I assumed that I would be able to continue delving into Reformed theology at Fuller and in fact be impelled into it by the need to understand what I was being taught and the underlying presuppositions of the faculty here, and at the same time to articulate the necessity, sufficiency, and beauty of the gospel and of Christ from a Reformed perspective.
> 
> 3. I did actually tour Covenant Seminary a month or so ago, attempting to discern whether or not I should transfer there, but I ultimately decided not to do that, primarily because I am unsure if I wish to enter into full-time pastoral ministry or attempt more academic work (or both). Fuller, from what I have seen, offers more of an academic perspective, though of course I fit in much better in St. Louis than in Pasadena theologically-wise. If I was positive that I would become a pastor for the rest of my life, I would transfer in a heart-beat.
> 
> 4. I have seen such incredible fruit and progress in my time here at Fuller that I must only trust in the sovereignty of God as to why I'm here. Looking at everything from an objective perspective the whole situation seems extremely strange, but from where I'm sitting and typing it appears quite providential. (But still very strange.)
> 
> 5. Penultimately, the ugly head of finances rears its head. At this stage in the game, I would strongly consider transferring to Westminster Cali down in Escondido if it wasn't for finances and logistics. (I still may commute and take a class there sometime in the next 2 years.)
> 
> 6. Finally, I have become involved with a wonderful PCA church here in Pasadena, and I am being mentored/advised through the ordination process courtesy of my pastor and a quite helpful booklet from Covenant's course on Licensure and Ordination.
> 
> 
> But, to be honest, ordination is one of my biggest concerns at this time, and I am looking into a few options to help in preparing for that, even though it is at least 2 years away.
> 
> Thanks for reading all of this! I certainly did not plan on writing all of this, and I hope that I have given some understanding. Naturally, I'm glad to answer more questions along this line of inquiry...  (I'm just glad to have found this place. It's quite refreshing.)



In spite of all of this, I suggest you strongly consider transferring somewhere that teaches what you would require from a church you attended. 

And also to the original posters question you might want to ask your friend to consider these thoughts. 

When we consider a spiritual education should money be a major consideration? I am sure if necessary you could even raise support as others have to go to a better seminary. And even if you felt the need to go to Princeton or somewhere else for Doctorates after, wouldn't it still be preferable to get a grounded education and sit under preaching from men at GPTS or Heritage or MARS rather than professors who many believers question whether they are even Christians? 

The only reason people used to give to go to Fuller was, Oh I am not going into the ministry I am going into missions and they have a good missions program. I know some profs don't believe the Bible is the word of God but I will mainly be in the missions classes not theology.

Well I guess maybe one can say that unless they agree with J Gresham Machen's attitude toward missions.

If one's attitude is they just want an easy degree and think they know it all or can learn it all on their own apart from sound and wise teachers then why even bother to go to seminary?
Look at the mess created in reformed circles by Kline's innovations and others. Men think I won't be led astray. Yet we see the slippery slope sliding some off even smart men like Lee Iron's who was removed from the OPC for his logical conclusions of the Redemptive Historical and Klinian confusion he got at WW. 

If you are to teach or write for the Christian community, I would think more than even a minister your would want to be taught by solid men who can teach and be examples of sound theology, exegetics, hermeneutics and lifestyle. 

My question would be, If you wouldn't sit under a man/woman as your pastor how could you sit under him as a teacher of spiritual things?


No need to justify your decision any further for me, this is just something for you to consider for your future. 
Perhaps how you might view God's providence is that by His grace now you are becoming reformed and therefore now you should change your mind on where you study and consider strongly the effect this may have on your future. Not the stigma in the eyes of others, but the actual deficiency you will have and the great things you missed out on, that cause others to question those who went there. 

Were you to seek to be a pastor at a church I attended even for a short time I would question the soundness of your decision making ability and would want to know the circumstances that led to it and still would prefer a man schooled in a reformed seminary if possible. 

Now that by his providence you see the deficiency, why not step out in faith and trust Him with finances and go to a school in harmony with the providencial knowledge God has given you and the responsibility that goes with it. 
I am sure if you made it known in the reformed community that you would prefer to go to a solidly reformed seminary but finances are a limiting factor you would find donors gladly willing to see you in a good seminary. 
GPTS has very low costs and scholarships available. They have houses that have been donated for their students use that they rent out at very low rates, families who take in students, etc. So even if it would not be your first choice, if finances are a real issue, it would be far preferable and better for those you will serve in the future, regardless in what way you serve. 

Just a perspective to consider. Consider well this important decision for your future and that of those you serve. The choice is yours. But for me, in thinking of those I would serve later in some capacity, I would value them enough to get the best education I could for their sakes, and not let cost or living convenience be a factor. 
I am sorry the RUF minister was not stronger in his response and advice to you. That saddens me. But where you go to seminary does make a huge difference on the rest of your life from my observations.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there *will be false teachers among you*, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And *many will follow their destructive ways*, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.
NKJV

1 Tim 6:3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, 4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, 5 useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. *From such withdraw yourself*. NKJV

Jude 3 I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, *who long ago were marked out for this condemnation*,
NKJV

2 John 9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10* If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds. 
NKJV*


----------



## DMcFadden

> Last Sunday, I was chatting with an unordained staff member at our church that has a degree from there. It seems to be a source of embarrassment and regret for him. It is probably somewhat career limiting.



It depends on your aspirations and context.

If you are an evangelical who feels "called" to be salt and light among the mainlines, Fulller is one of the few schools that will allow you entrance to the mainline denoms while still getting an almost orthodox theological education. For generations of PCUSA students, Fuller was one of the only places where they could get an "acceptable" education that actually left them believing in something.

However, if you want to move in more conservative circles, yes, FTS is probably "career limiting." Those who pull it off are like Glenn in post #20 above. They move to the right and declare themselves definitively. Grudem spent a year there and has never been called a liberal.

Piper is also a grad. And, in a way, he epitomizes the problems and potential of FTS. That maverick ethos that Wikipedia refers to is true of Piper in spades. As an inerrantist, he is certainly no typical graduate of Fuller! Add to that his traditional views of women in ministry (so uncommon among modern evangelicals and virtually unheard of among the mainlines) and his adherence to the doctrines of grace and you have a very strange FTS grad! When you consider that he hails from the General Conference Baptists and is still charismatic leaning and you can see what a contrarian the man is. And, for those of us who disagree with Dan Fulller's positions on law and gospel and inerrancy, you have to wonder at Piper's frequent public ecomiums and near hagiography whenever mentioning Dan.


----------



## bookslover

A very interesting thread. FTS was founded in 1947. In that context, the original founding faculty of the school (Carl Henry, E. J. Carnell et al) wanted to create a school that (more or less) openly rejected the anti-intellectualism of the early-20th-century fundamentalist movement while, at the same time, demonstrate to the ascendant theological liberals at the time that a conservative theological position was both biblically and intellectually coherent. (As for the theological coherence of conservatism, F. F. Bruce's commentary on the Greek text of Acts (published in 1951) served as the opening shot over the liberals' bow, in that respect.)

Unfortunately, the 62 years since Fuller's founding have shown that FTS has been unable to walk that line, of rejecting both fundamentalism and liberalism in order to promote a rigorously conservative evangelical alternative. It has, over time, fallen on to the liberal side of that line. (And the struggle to maintain the line, especially during the first two decades of the school's existence, was an emotionally and psychologically draining one for the faculty and staff - it was a struggle that cost E. J. Carnell his health, if not his life.)

Fuller Theological Seminary is a good example of O'Sullivan's Law: _Any organization or institution that is not explicitly founded to be conservative will, over time, drift into liberalism._


----------



## jogri17

DMcFadden said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a friend who is a girl who is adamantly pro-choice going there. I know that tells you nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All too typical. A friend of mine graduated from FTS in the last few years after doing a prior masters degree under Packer in Canada. The observation made with wide eyes: "Dennis, I'm not sure that some of my professors (at FTS) were even Christians!"
> 
> In his last book, Fuller icon, Dr. Jewett, ended up with an accommodating view of homosexuality as I had predicted that he would when reading his arguments regarding St. Paul being "wrong" on the issue of women in 1 Timothy.
> 
> Fuller is GREAT for people who prefer a non-dogmatic, post-evangelical, post-modern, post-revivalist, post-conservative, post-Christendom, post-classical, approach to seminary that offers opportunities to learn from all traditions, to weigh all options equally, and to reach your own conclusions, in the general tradition of Protestant Christianity without any intellectual accountability.
> 
> 
> However, remember that Wayne Grudem did a year at Fulller, John Piper graduated from the place, and a bunch of solidly Reformed people did as well.
Click to expand...

Piper only went to study under Dan Fuller and because he did his undergrad at Wheaton and in those days the two were very close. Grudem also left after a year because of how liberal it was and as a student was more orthodox than many of his profs.


----------



## DMcFadden

> Piper only went to study under Dan Fuller and because he did his undergrad at Wheaton and in those days the two were very close. Grudem also left after a year because of how liberal it was and as a student was more orthodox than many of his profs.



I was a student at FTS just a few years after Piper. Yes, he was more conservative than some of his profs. Some of my most "progressive" profs all claimed to be Reformed or were educated in Reformed schools (e.g., Jewett, Daane, Rogers, Smedes).

In a sense, the current expression of the school is almost an extension of the personality and temperament of "Calvinist" (and former Calvin College prof for nearly two decades) Richard Mouw. Mouw's approach to EVERYthing is one of dialogue. Jews, Muslims, Mormons, terrorists, Hollywood film makers, whatever. Given two polarities to an issue, Mouw will almost always engage in dialogue in attempts to come to common ground. The school is constantly hosting meetings on campus with Jewish scholars, Muslim scholars, way out fringe types of all kinds, etc.

Incidentally, a dear friend of mine is a regional judicatory executive in a mainline denomination. He is located in the northwest. Today he was in my office recounting how weak he finds the graduates of the Seattle extension campus of Fuller (admittedly a small sampling). Some of this may trace to the selection of adjuncts. Still, it is their brand and you can surely hold them accountable for what their employees teach. My friend recounted a recent tale of a female graduate who appeared before their ordination committee and could not articulate a biblical position on homosexuality, the doctrine of Scripture, or the atonement. I do not mean a confessionally compliant position or even a broad evangelical position. He claimed that she was unwilling (or unable) to come close to using the Bible at all to make her points. Knowing that I was a FTS alum, he asked me if the Pasadena campus was as bad as the extensions. Hmmmmm. What do you think I said?


----------



## DMcFadden

> Piper only went to study under Dan Fuller and because he did his undergrad at Wheaton and in those days the two were very close. Grudem also left after a year because of how liberal it was and as a student was more orthodox than many of his profs.



I went to Fuller following Westmont because "in those days the two were very close." In fairness to Piper, the official change in the doctrinal position was happening during his tenure, and a couple of years before my arrival. What was my excuse?


----------



## DonP

I was recently reading an article about one of the Early presidents of Fuller Seminary and he was a pretty solidly Reformed man. 
He may have been influenced a bit by liberals and Higher Critical thinkers while at an Ivy League University. 

He tried to create some unity and faulted Machen for Leaving the Pres church instead of staying and working for change so he may have done the same for the Liberals. 

He had very excellent and strong criticisms of Fundamentalism but the arminian dispensational Evangelicals don't like it because it is too close to home for many of them 

He was also strongly outspoken against Dispensational eschatology, and the pre mil rapture. 

So his asking for unity to win the liberals and maybe BT thinkers, along with his intolerance if fundamentalism and his Reformed Soteriology and strong views of predestination caused him to not fit in any camp. 
Rather than continuing to teach as he should have he accepted the administrative presidency and was not popular. 
His books were assaulted by the fundamentalists and Amrinians and not supported enough by the Reformed churches. And so he was short lived at Fuller, too bad he would have been better than anyone they have had teach there. 

May have helped many student come to know the doctrines of grace and had some solid theology. 

A very interesting man after reading some of his works and biographies. A serious scholar who is easy to understand, and wanted unity and held a hope to educate them and to use what is valuable from them while rejecting their errors. 

Had he chosen to not be so outspoken against the errors of modern religion he may have made a good crossover and brought reformed theology to the masses. 
but he must have been idealistic thinking if he spoke truth the people would get it. 
Or he just refused to compromise. 

You can get a feel for his thinking in His short work 
The Case for Orthodox Theology, by Edward John Carnell
You can read it here 
http://www.archive.org/details/casefortheorthod012053mbp

When a seminary rejects a man with this thinking you know it is downhill.


----------

