Brother, McMahon I think you hit the nail on the head. The entire situation at Knox & Coral Ridge is quite disturbing. I personally know that Dr. Kennedy would have handled things differently. Does it not seem odd that only a few days after the beloved pastor is buried that Dr. Gage is put on suspension by the board?
Knox Seminary Fiasco continues
- Thread starter NaphtaliPress
- Start date
- Status
The ex, not ex, then ex again board members are not returning, correct? No charges have been filed against Gage, have they? What now? Is it over?
No the board members that resigned are not returning. They were allowed to return under certain stipulations but they would not agree to those conditions. I understand the board members who resigned are appealing to the the Presbytery of Southern Florida. Those board members were replaced by some ruling and teaching elders and one man who is a licentate and student at Knox. Gage has been cleared of charges, but I do not know what will happen from here. This could have been a simple thing but it has become so magnified that I am not sure how the seminary will recover.
It may not recover. If not, I"m sure there is plenty of blame to spread around. However, if a case has been filed, that may clarify some things.
By recover do you mean that it will suffer doctrinal problems in the future, or ecclesiastical problems, or both?
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
This is the first I have heard of these events. It is very sad. I know that part of an ordinary member's church covenant in joining a PCA church, he is obligated to study the peace of the church. It sounds to me like the board does not take that approach. It is sorrowful that organizational divorce is such a ready option for so many people today, including leaders. All churches and organizations have problems, including sinful problems. It is ordinarily better to just stay there instead of abandoning the organization. That is part of what it means to study the peace the church, or to have a similar attitude toward an organization. To leave board positions over typology is absurd.
turmeric
Megerator
What is a theologian to do when he is responsible for the wellbeing of students' souls and he really feels that something heretical is being taught? I'm not opining about whether it actually was heretical, I would actually like to know that at some point. What I'm asking is; what someone like Sproul or Phillips is supposed to do if he finds that something he is sure is heresy is being taught-and then when he deals with it, what he's done is overturned?
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
I have already commented on the organizational dynamics which seem to be operative here (i.e., mainly the death of a strong leader/founder and the uncertainty it injects into all relationships of authority and power in the organization).
Additional to that, and in partial answer to Scott, trustees are the custodians of the mission, vision, and values of an organization. If the trustees, in conformity to their fiduciary and spiritual oversight responsibilities, made a determination regarding a professor, only to be overturned by the church, it must have left them feeling impotent. At that point, it becomes an integrity issue. How can you remain on a board when you feel that you are prevented from exercising your responsibilities?
Now, my comments do NOT take into account whether the board should have acted so quickly or if their jdugment was just. I merely think that if they believed their action to be correct, the church's action left them with little choice.
As a non-presbyterian, this seems like a VERY strange arrangement. Do you all have other institutions that have this kind of dual authority (local church and independent board)???
Additional to that, and in partial answer to Scott, trustees are the custodians of the mission, vision, and values of an organization. If the trustees, in conformity to their fiduciary and spiritual oversight responsibilities, made a determination regarding a professor, only to be overturned by the church, it must have left them feeling impotent. At that point, it becomes an integrity issue. How can you remain on a board when you feel that you are prevented from exercising your responsibilities?
Now, my comments do NOT take into account whether the board should have acted so quickly or if their jdugment was just. I merely think that if they believed their action to be correct, the church's action left them with little choice.
As a non-presbyterian, this seems like a VERY strange arrangement. Do you all have other institutions that have this kind of dual authority (local church and independent board)???
Last edited:
I think Knox is unique being a ministry of a local Presbyterian church rather than an independent organization or under the oversight of a Presbytery or General Assembly.
Scott, you have made a brilliant observation. Let us put aside the issue of Warren Gage's typology (which has never been questioned in Reformed Circles until now) and look at how the matter was handled. Board members do not simply resign in the manner that the individuals on the Knox board did. In a normal process of accusing someone of guilt it takes time to decide and look into the matter. If you look at the resignation letters of some of the board member, one in particular, the attitude and language is infamitory and accusatory. That alone, should cause one to question the manner in which it was handled. I will not state who I think is right or wrong, but how some of the board members responded to the session overturning their ruling, raises red flags. Many have felt that this entire matter was poorly handled, and this really is the issue.
Tumeric, you raise a legimate question. I think the present issue with Knox Seminary centers around the process of how the board should have handled the overturning of their decision. The problem is not an easy one to solve. The board of Knox Seminary and the board of Westminster Accademy, two ministries of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, have always been regarded (unless it has changed) as a commission of the session. Knox has never been confronted with a situation like this, so it is not that easy to know how to proceed. Knox is not like most seminaries that are independent of a session or congregation, so technically Warren Gage as an assistant minister of CRPC is under the session. I am not sure how it will be settled, but we must remember that Christ is king over His church.
As was raised here or somewhere, I cannot see how the Knox board could be a commission of the session if it had a woman (non session member I'm sure; this isn't the PCUSA) on the board. Maybe Fred can elaborate on this point again?
Naphtali, I have raised the same question about having a woman on a commission. Having been at Coral Ridge I know first hand that the Knox board is a commission, but I do agree with Fred that a commission should be made up of ruling or teaching elders from the session. This perhpaps is where this situation gets really messy, because of how the seminary is organized.
In response to calgal, yes Knox Seminary is a ministry of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and was established by Dr. Kennedy in 1989. It has a board but is under the authority of the session. There is no provision in the BCO for establishishing an independent seminary like Knox any more than there is for establishing a national seminary, such as Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis (the only PCA seminary). The BCO does not legislate everything we do, but is simply a guide to maintain order and harmony in the church. Having graduated from Knox I appreciate the seminary and the vision the Lord gave Dr. Kennedy. There is no ruling against establishing a seminary like Knox. There are a number of seminaries that are similar to Knox. Dr. Kennedy certainly did not forsee this problem coming, but this is an issue that is particulary related to Coral Ridge church itself that most people do not know about. I personally think that the way Knox is set up has its strengths but also it weaknessess. But when you look at issues in national semiaries like what occured at Westminster East with Norman Sheperd, they have their problems as well. Remember no system is infallible. Depraved creatures are certainly prone to error.
weinhold
Puritan Board Freshman
Upon further review, I thought I should amend the previous post shown above. I think it was an inadvertent misinterpretation of Donne's sonnet. As a correction, I need merely to point to the second line, where God's method is "knocke, breathe, shine, and seeke to mend." The speaker's desire for ravishment is contrary to fact.
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
It is important to remember that we are talking about typology. We are not talking about something addressed in the apostle's creed, sola fide, or something similarly core. Reformed seminaries accept numerous exceptions to the Westminster Confession by students and professors. At Westminster Seminary, one of the most common exceptions is to the nature of God Himself (many object to the statement that he has "no passions"). There are numerous exceptions to infant baptism (many baptists attend reformed seminaries), the Fourth Commandment (typically regarding recreation on the Sabbath), and other things.
It is very hard to imagine typology being a big deal at all, especially since it does not define doctrine so much as use the Old Testament to reinforce the clear doctrines revealed in the New Testament. I have read a fair amount from Gage and he is very good and orthodox. If someone gives him a text from the OT, he is far better able to describe how it illustrates gospel truths that most anyone I have seen.
In terms of the broader question about what to do when problems arise, I think just leaving is typically a terrible idea. It is the same impulse that spurs people to divorce when things go badly. It is the same thing that gives people such a lack of commitment to churches and other organizations. Endure the bad and work for the good.
Scott,
Typology not a big deal? Ask Origin.
This issue of the "sense" of Scripture was at the heart of the Reformation. It was this issue that brought about change on the solas. Calvin's Institutes are replete with this.
Typology not a big deal? Ask Origin.
This issue of the "sense" of Scripture was at the heart of the Reformation. It was this issue that brought about change on the solas. Calvin's Institutes are replete with this.
Scott in response to your last entry, yes men can take exceptions to the WCOF and I agree Dr. Gage's typology is not contrary to the confession, but Gage was not holding an exception to the confession. The original problem that led to the board's decision was not his typology but some statements he made in class, some taken out of context. You would have to fire every seminary professor for mistating a point. Gage did apologize in the beginning for some things that he stated incorrectly, but it was not something contrary to Christian faith or doctrine.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Unfortunately, churches over the past 20 years have been getting into the education business and setting up separate school boards is par for the course. Most Sessions are not called to be school administrators but the spiritual leaders of the church. Therefore, they set up a separate board to handle all the day to day issues, any fund raising and hiring and firing teachers. The idea of a church having a separate school board is a recipe for disaster (I speak from experience!). If a Session does not want to get into running a church sponsored school, then they should reconsider starting a school to begin with.
One thing to remember about CRPC and Knox, Dr. Kennedy was not only the Sr Pastor and Session Member but was also the Chancellor of Knox. When he died that left a big hole not only at CRPC but at Knox.
Fredrick, I agree that Origen had very serious theological problems and held to an allogorical interpretation of Scripture, but read Gage's material, especially his John/Revelation project, which is still on the Knox website and was also taught by the Dean of Students, who initially brought charges to the board. There is nothing in his material contrary to the confession and if you read some of the Scottish Puritans of the 1800's, especially Robert Murray M'Cheyne, you will find them using much typology. The issue in much of this fiasco is that noone teaches typology in Reformed circles today and Gage has tried to bring this back into Reformed circles. I still do not understand how Warren Gage could have been suspended when he has taught his typology from the first day he arrived at Knox.
So Stephen, are you saying that R.C. Sproul, Rick Phillips, Greg Miseyko, Rick Penney & Cortez Cooper misinterpreted or didn't get what they were examining correct? They didn't understand that the student's reports were taken out of context? Are you saying these men acted rashly and irresponsible in their decisions as Elders and board members? Is this what you are saying about these Elders? I just want to make sure you know that that is what I hear you saying. And that seems to be very serious. You are making some serious accuastions against these men of God. And I want you to realize this. Are you willing to stand up under the scrutiny of this?
(1Ti 5:19) Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
I know you are an Elder and close to the situation but it seems you are levelling some charges here.
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
It is not reasonable to compare Gage to Origen. Origen's emphasis was allegory, not typology, and allegory is what he is mostly criticized for. Gage's writings are allegory and the doctrines he teaches are consistent with the WCF. Also, it is not a substantial issue of the reformation. It was a minor issue in terms of the relative volume of material written on it, the list of grievances against the Roman Church, the prominence in confessional documents and the like. Of course the reformers had a way of saying every issue was monumental (perhaps one reason that one of their legacies is unprecedented division), so you can find inflamatory language on many issues that most of us would consider not central or core, including the issues I mentioned earlier (Sabbath recreation, infant baptism, and the like).
Last edited:
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
This is so true. So many people like to say that the entire Bible talks about Jesus, but are completely unable to actually draw Jesus from most of the Old Testament. Typology should be that bridge in many cases. It is not accidental that so many stories, ceremonies, and the like follow the pattern of the gospel story and the life of Christ. Most people just miss it (sadly).
Last edited:
Kevin
Puritan Board Doctor
So Stephen, are you saying that R.C. Sproul, Rick Phillips, Greg Miseyko, Rick Penney & Cortez Cooper misinterpreted or didn't get what they were examining correct? They didn't understand that the student's reports were taken out of context? Are you saying these men acted rashly and irresponsible in their decisions as Elders and board members? Is this what you are saying about these Elders? I just want to make sure you know that that is what I hear you saying. And that seems to be very serious. You are making some serious accuastions against these men of God. And I want you to realize this. Are you willing to stand up under the scrutiny of this?
(1Ti 5:19) Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
I know you are an Elder and close to the situation but it seems you are levelling some charges here.
I think we should be open to the possibility that that is exactly the case.
As much as we all owe these men, we should not close our eyes to the possibility that even they may have been influenced/distracted by something other than the issue here.
Brother what you have said is the best description of the problem I have herd. It is truly a shame how often it is that when a good leader steps down that sooo many problems seem to ensue.
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
In terms of the number of meanings of a text, isn't the only part of the Confession that explicitly addresses the issue one parenthetical in par 1(IX)?
Is there anything else in the shorter or longer catechisms that even mention the issue? And the above parenthetical does not eliminate typology, as many reformers agreed with typology.
Is there anything else in the shorter or longer catechisms that even mention the issue? And the above parenthetical does not eliminate typology, as many reformers agreed with typology.
Let's Get it Right At Least.....
First, it is fallacy to say that since the old KTS board was trying to correct Dr. Gage on his hermeneutic then therefore they reject all typology (i.e. believe in Marsh's Dictum or something like it). This is patently false. All of the individuals who were on the board believe in typology (does that even need to be stated???). The issue was what guides and constrains typology.
Second, the KTS board took issue with Dr. Gage’s hermeneutic in that Dr. Gage believes that Christ is on every page in every phrase, word, etc. in the OT. It is one thing to say that the entire OT points toward Christ (Dr. Gregory Beale is great in this area), and quite another to say that every word, phrase, paragraph, etc. is actually teaching something about Christ. Dr. Gage himself admits that his hermeneutic is new and that it is not in-line with a traditionally Reformed approached to hermeneutics - yet he still claims that it is in-line with the Westminster Standards. I ask anyone who thinks Dr. Gage's hermeneutic is in-line with the way the Reformers and others approached typology, please produce the Reformer, theologian etc. and the exact reference where they interpret Scripture like Dr. Gage.
When Dr. Gage approaches a passage with the presupposition that Christ is in EVERYTHING in the OT, he forces meaning into a text that is not only not readily evident (i.e. not by good or necessary inference and/or not clarified by a clearer passages elsewhere), but even stretches the bounds of legitimate reasoning. Essentially, Dr. Gage seems to have NO CONSTRAINTS to his typological interpretation(s) of the OT. Two cases in point:
1. Dr. Gage taught that Absalom is a type of Christ because he was a son of David, got stuck in a tree, and had his side pierced. Is this honestly pointing to Christ in the NT? Or, can it be used for illustrative purposes? There is a huge difference between dogmatically asserting types and building theology from such understandings and simply utilizing the reference as an illustration of a NT reality. However, I think even Dr. Gage’s Absalom understanding is stretch. What honor, beauty, and further clarification does it bring to the work of Christ? WHAT’S THE PURPOSE of such a conjecture?
2. Dr. Gage teaches that when the Levities crossed the Jordan with Joshua, that since the water of the Jordan parted when the priests carrying the Ark, which represents God’s presence, stepped into the Jordan that this is a type of Christ’s crucifixion. Dr. Gage states that the Jordan represented death to the Israelites and so the Ark passing through the Jordan (i.e. death) foreshadowed Christ’s (the God-man’s) death. Thus, when the Gospel’s testify that Christ replied to John the Baptist that He is to be baptized in order to fulfill all righteousness that this was THE fulfillment of the Ark crossing the Jordan. Jesus HAD to be baptized because the Ark crossed the Jordan. That’s just a stretch - Dr. Gage utilizes a hermeneutic based primarily upon and understanding of meta-narratives in ancient books (i.e. Plato’s Republic, Dante’s works, etc.) which are to have a broader meta-narrative on every page and in every element of the work. This approach, which is a huge break from any Reformation hermeneutic and which you can only find when you start to look at Bernard of Clairvaux and his school of though in Roman Catholicism, causes obscure passages of Scripture to become foundations of doctrine and NT understanding that are NOT warranted.
–> So, the board’s motive in addressing and desiring to correct Dr. Gage was not the implementation of Marsh’s Dictum, but it was to restrain Dr. Gage’s unrestrained hermeneutic.
Third, one thing that separated the Scottish Reformation from Roman Catholic (not Reformed Dutch) Scholasticism was the mandate that we MUST NOT CONJECTURE about theology or Scripture. With a very few exceptions, the tradition of the WCF has been to take Scripture at face value and then apply logic and proper reason. There are not secondary “spiritual” or “mystic” meanings behind the text. Unfortunately, that is exactly what St. Bernard’s and Dr. Gage’s hermeneutic lead to. Personally, as a student who has had more than 12 semester hours of studying underneath Dr. Gage, my concern has never been so much with Dr. Gage’s theology (hermeneutic yes, theology no), but with the students he is teaching who do not have the brilliant and sharp mind that Dr. Gage does. As such, if they take Dr. Gage’s hermeneutic and run with it, guaranteed they will come up with not only “mystical” meanings, but heresy.
First, it is fallacy to say that since the old KTS board was trying to correct Dr. Gage on his hermeneutic then therefore they reject all typology (i.e. believe in Marsh's Dictum or something like it). This is patently false. All of the individuals who were on the board believe in typology (does that even need to be stated???). The issue was what guides and constrains typology.
Second, the KTS board took issue with Dr. Gage’s hermeneutic in that Dr. Gage believes that Christ is on every page in every phrase, word, etc. in the OT. It is one thing to say that the entire OT points toward Christ (Dr. Gregory Beale is great in this area), and quite another to say that every word, phrase, paragraph, etc. is actually teaching something about Christ. Dr. Gage himself admits that his hermeneutic is new and that it is not in-line with a traditionally Reformed approached to hermeneutics - yet he still claims that it is in-line with the Westminster Standards. I ask anyone who thinks Dr. Gage's hermeneutic is in-line with the way the Reformers and others approached typology, please produce the Reformer, theologian etc. and the exact reference where they interpret Scripture like Dr. Gage.
When Dr. Gage approaches a passage with the presupposition that Christ is in EVERYTHING in the OT, he forces meaning into a text that is not only not readily evident (i.e. not by good or necessary inference and/or not clarified by a clearer passages elsewhere), but even stretches the bounds of legitimate reasoning. Essentially, Dr. Gage seems to have NO CONSTRAINTS to his typological interpretation(s) of the OT. Two cases in point:
1. Dr. Gage taught that Absalom is a type of Christ because he was a son of David, got stuck in a tree, and had his side pierced. Is this honestly pointing to Christ in the NT? Or, can it be used for illustrative purposes? There is a huge difference between dogmatically asserting types and building theology from such understandings and simply utilizing the reference as an illustration of a NT reality. However, I think even Dr. Gage’s Absalom understanding is stretch. What honor, beauty, and further clarification does it bring to the work of Christ? WHAT’S THE PURPOSE of such a conjecture?
2. Dr. Gage teaches that when the Levities crossed the Jordan with Joshua, that since the water of the Jordan parted when the priests carrying the Ark, which represents God’s presence, stepped into the Jordan that this is a type of Christ’s crucifixion. Dr. Gage states that the Jordan represented death to the Israelites and so the Ark passing through the Jordan (i.e. death) foreshadowed Christ’s (the God-man’s) death. Thus, when the Gospel’s testify that Christ replied to John the Baptist that He is to be baptized in order to fulfill all righteousness that this was THE fulfillment of the Ark crossing the Jordan. Jesus HAD to be baptized because the Ark crossed the Jordan. That’s just a stretch - Dr. Gage utilizes a hermeneutic based primarily upon and understanding of meta-narratives in ancient books (i.e. Plato’s Republic, Dante’s works, etc.) which are to have a broader meta-narrative on every page and in every element of the work. This approach, which is a huge break from any Reformation hermeneutic and which you can only find when you start to look at Bernard of Clairvaux and his school of though in Roman Catholicism, causes obscure passages of Scripture to become foundations of doctrine and NT understanding that are NOT warranted.
–> So, the board’s motive in addressing and desiring to correct Dr. Gage was not the implementation of Marsh’s Dictum, but it was to restrain Dr. Gage’s unrestrained hermeneutic.
Third, one thing that separated the Scottish Reformation from Roman Catholic (not Reformed Dutch) Scholasticism was the mandate that we MUST NOT CONJECTURE about theology or Scripture. With a very few exceptions, the tradition of the WCF has been to take Scripture at face value and then apply logic and proper reason. There are not secondary “spiritual” or “mystic” meanings behind the text. Unfortunately, that is exactly what St. Bernard’s and Dr. Gage’s hermeneutic lead to. Personally, as a student who has had more than 12 semester hours of studying underneath Dr. Gage, my concern has never been so much with Dr. Gage’s theology (hermeneutic yes, theology no), but with the students he is teaching who do not have the brilliant and sharp mind that Dr. Gage does. As such, if they take Dr. Gage’s hermeneutic and run with it, guaranteed they will come up with not only “mystical” meanings, but heresy.
Well, Jason brings a little more light into the situation. I just wonder if it can be substantiated. It seems like charges have been made on both sides. It needs to be sorted out and taken care of.
Jason, thanks for giving us your insight as one of Dr. Gage's students. BTW, it sounds like Dr. Gage's hermeneutic is being questioned and not anything that would lend itself to a character flaw. If what Jason is saying is the truth, I understand why the original board would be alarmed. And I don't think these men are men who would jump off the boat in protest for an illogical reason. They are solid, faithful, educated, and wise men. And I will bet they are not prone to making rash decisions.
My question sill stands for TE Stephen.
It seems we have two or three witnesses in R.C. Sproul, Rick Phillips, Greg Miseyko, Rick Penney & Cortez Cooper, that there is a problem here.
love the new smiley....
Jason, thanks for giving us your insight as one of Dr. Gage's students. BTW, it sounds like Dr. Gage's hermeneutic is being questioned and not anything that would lend itself to a character flaw. If what Jason is saying is the truth, I understand why the original board would be alarmed. And I don't think these men are men who would jump off the boat in protest for an illogical reason. They are solid, faithful, educated, and wise men. And I will bet they are not prone to making rash decisions.
My question sill stands for TE Stephen.
So Stephen, are you saying that R.C. Sproul, Rick Phillips, Greg Miseyko, Rick Penney & Cortez Cooper misinterpreted or didn't get what they were examining correct? They didn't understand that the student's reports were taken out of context? Are you saying these men acted rashly and irresponsible in their decisions as Elders and board members? Is this what you are saying about these Elders? I just want to make sure you know that that is what I hear you saying. And that seems to be very serious. You are making some serious accusations against these men of God. And I want you to realize this. Are you willing to stand up under the scrutiny of this?
(1Ti 5:19) Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
I know you are an Elder and close to the situation but it seems you are levelling some charges here.
It seems we have two or three witnesses in R.C. Sproul, Rick Phillips, Greg Miseyko, Rick Penney & Cortez Cooper, that there is a problem here.
love the new smiley....
- Status
Similar threads
