Open letter to WTS

[zsmcd]

Joel McDurmon of American Vision wrote an open letter to Westminster (Phil), addressing their upcoming conference "Faith in the Public Square." Your thoughts about the conference?

http://americanvision.org/13645/an-...e-your-conference-faith-in-the-public-square/

 

[Gforce9]

It seems to me that Dr. McDurmon is looking for fellow social justice warriors. He kinda stated his argument: "our world view will either be Theonomy or autonomy."

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Joel McDurmon of American Vision wrote an open letter to Westminster (Phil), addressing their upcoming conference "Faith in the Public Square." Your thoughts about the conference?

http://americanvision.org/13645/an-...e-your-conference-faith-in-the-public-square/

Well, since I have little knowledge on who is speaking and what the topics are (http://www.wts.edu/stayinformed/events.html) ... I cannot say much. However, I read the article. I personally do not like WTS or American Vision. Both have great weaknesses in their theological outlook.

On one end you have a hardcore Reconstructionist admonishing a hardcore hyper redemptive-historical/Republication/Klinean leaning school. I don't have the taste for either.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Theonomists gonna theonomize.

 

[MW]

Philadelphia has a cricket club.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I don't get why it is so important to have this ecumenicism with Romanists and I see the point made about Machen. But nobody likes a scold.

 

[Edward]

Philadelphia has a cricket club.

Dallas has crickets.

 

[zsmcd]

I don't get why it is so important to have this ecumenicism with Romanists and I see the point made about Machen. But nobody likes a scold.

Indeed, nobody does like a scold. Though it actually seems to me that the tone of this open letter was a lot more patient/calm/gentle than most of the blogs coming out of AV and for that reason I felt it was solid. Any other thoughts on the speakers?

 

[Philip]

Though it actually seems to me that the tone of this open letter was a lot more patient/calm/gentle than most of the blogs coming out of AV and for that reason I felt it was solid.

That must not be saying much. Basically, the tone was "it's bad because the speakers aren't Van Tillian theonomists." The natural law point is particularly revealing as it neglects to mention that the "Thomist" in question is probably the top expert in the country on constitutional law and the legal issues that will be facing our churches in the next twenty years.

Also, accusing a conference which features Carl Trueman of pandering to political conservatives leaves me a bit skeptical. I get that AV has no love for the guy, but that's probably the most bizarre thing you could accuse the man who wrote Republocrat of.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Was it not Van Til who taught us so clearly that “natural law” is a farce?

Oh dear.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I find it odd that Theonomists claim to want to transform the culture but then eschew any attempt by the church to engage culture. How precisely do they plan to usher in this great theocracy? Through the writing of open letters?

 

[zsmcd]

I find it odd that Theonomists claim to want to transform the culture but then eschew any attempt by the church to engage culture.

This may perhaps be true of his comments about DeYoung and Trueman - but WTS is headlining a Roman Catholic from Princeton . . . this is my greatest concern. Is this not a step in the direction towards Princeton?

How precisely do they plan to usher in this great theocracy? Through the writing of open letters?

This is quite misrepresentative. Just because a critique is offered of the seminary's conference on cultural engagement obviously doesn't mean that AV's idea of cultural engagement is simply by writing open letters... have you ever looked into their ministry? I know men involved with AV who visit local police, government officials, etc. to encourage them in faithfulness in their area of work.

 

[zsmcd]

Also Bill, as a part of the SBC, I would be interested in what your response would be if the ERLC invited a Roman Catholic to speak at Southern Seminary about engaging the culture with our faith.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Also Bill, as a part of the SBC, I would be interested in what your response would be if the ERLC invited a Roman Catholic to speak at Southern Seminary about engaging the culture with our faith.

Dr. Mcdurmon's vague mention of a "Roman Catholic" is very misleading. The "Roman Catholic" in question is Robert George, who is the premier conservative constitutional scholar in America today. WTS is not having Dr. George come and give a discourse on the immaculate conception of Mary. If this were the case, then outrage would be an appropriate response. Whether or not we agree with Dr. George's theology, and regardless of whether we think he will one day be roasting in hell, the truth is that he is one of the few voices standing up for the freedom of churches and institutions like WTS to preach and teach as they see fit, and it seems ironic for a theonomist to oppose such a thing considering that the loss of such freedom would hardly seem to bode well for the establishment of any sort of theocracy.

 

[zsmcd]

Also Bill, as a part of the SBC, I would be interested in what your response would be if the ERLC invited a Roman Catholic to speak at Southern Seminary about engaging the culture with our faith.

Dr. Mcdurmon's vague mention of a "Roman Catholic" is very misleading. The "Roman Catholic" in question is Robert George, who is the premier conservative constitutional scholar in America today. WTS is not having Dr. George come and give a discourse on the immaculate conception of Mary. If this were the case, then outrage would be an appropriate response. Whether or not we agree with Dr. George's theology, and regardless of whether we think he will one day be roasting in hell, the truth is that he is one of the few voices standing up for the freedom of churches and institutions like WTS to preach and teach as they see fit, and it seems ironic for a theonomist to oppose such a thing considering that the loss of such freedom would hardly seem to bode well for the establishment of any sort of theocracy.

There may be many things to be thankful for about Dr. George, but WTS is having him speak about faith in the public square. His faith involves the worship of Mary, images, bread and wine, and the anathematization of sola fide. Are there things that we can learn from such a brilliant scholar? Sure. I am sure I could have learned plenty of great things from Pelagius himself. But is a RC the appropriate person for a reformed seminary to invite to teach the reformed church about how to exercise the reformed faith in the public square? That's a different question. I still, respectfully of course, wonder how you would respond if Al Mohler invited a Roman Catholic, or even someone like James B. Jordan to come speak to seminary students about faithfully exercising their faith in the public square.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Also Bill, as a part of the SBC, I would be interested in what your response would be if the ERLC invited a Roman Catholic to speak at Southern Seminary about engaging the culture with our faith.

Dr. Mcdurmon's vague mention of a "Roman Catholic" is very misleading. The "Roman Catholic" in question is Robert George, who is the premier conservative constitutional scholar in America today. WTS is not having Dr. George come and give a discourse on the immaculate conception of Mary. If this were the case, then outrage would be an appropriate response. Whether or not we agree with Dr. George's theology, and regardless of whether we think he will one day be roasting in hell, the truth is that he is one of the few voices standing up for the freedom of churches and institutions like WTS to preach and teach as they see fit, and it seems ironic for a theonomist to oppose such a thing considering that the loss of such freedom would hardly seem to bode well for the establishment of any sort of theocracy.

There may be many things to be thankful for about Dr. George, but WTS is having him speak about faith in the public square. His faith involves the worship of Mary, images, bread and wine, and the anathematization of sola fide. Are there things that we can learn from such a brilliant scholar? Sure. I am sure I could have learned plenty of great things from Pelagius himself. But is a RC the appropriate person for a reformed seminary to invite to teach the reformed church about how to exercise the reformed faith in the public square? That's a different question. I still, respectfully of course, wonder how you would respond if Al Mohler invited a Roman Catholic, or even someone like James B. Jordan to come speak to seminary students about faithfully exercising their faith in the public square.

I certainly understand the concern here, and I am sympathetic to it. I just think perhaps this letter is an overreaction. The topic of faith in the public square pertains to how we are able to live out our faith publicly without fear of reprisal or harassment, and this is an important topic that frankly impacts all those who claim to be Christian, even heretics. As to the question of how I would feel if a Catholic or other person of questionable faith were asked to speak about faith in the public square at an SBC institution, if it were someone like Dr. George who was discussing our constitutional rights, I would have no problem with it. One the other hand, if someone like Andy Stanley were allowed to come and spew their heresy without restraint, I would have a major issue, which is why my church has lately been taking a hard look at our affiliation with the SBC.

 

[Edward]

There may be many things to be thankful for about Dr. George, but WTS is having him speak about faith in the public square. His faith involves the worship of Mary, images, bread and wine, and the anathematization of sola fide. Are there things that we can learn from such a brilliant scholar? Sure. I am sure I could have learned plenty of great things from Pelagius himself. But is a RC the appropriate person for a reformed seminary to invite to teach the reformed church about how to exercise the reformed faith in the public square? That's a different question. I still, respectfully of course, wonder how you would respond if Al Mohler invited a Roman Catholic, or even someone like James B. Jordan to come speak to seminary students about faithfully exercising their faith in the public square.

If you need surgery, would you want a Presbyterian surgeon, or the best surgeon available?
If you need a lawyer, would you want a Presbyterian lawyer, or the best lawyer available?
If you need a constitutional scholar, would you want a Presbyterian constitutional scholar, or the best constitutional scholar available.

 

[zsmcd]

I certainly understand the concern here, and I am sympathetic to it. I just think perhaps this letter is an overreaction. The topic of faith in the public square pertains to how we are able to live out our faith publicly without fear of reprisal or harassment, and this is an important topic that frankly impacts all those who claim to be Christian, even heretics. As to the question of how I would feel if a Catholic or other person of questionable faith were asked to speak about faith in the public square at an SBC institution, if it were someone like Dr. George who was discussing our constitutional rights, I would have no problem with it. One the other hand, if someone like Andy Stanley were allowed to come and spew their heresy without restraint, I would have a major issue, which is why my church has lately been taking a hard look at our affiliation with the SBC.

Bill, I appreciate your response and patience as I think through this. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the purpose of the whole conference, if it is to discuss "how we are able to live out our faith publicly without fear of reprisal or harassment" or simply a discussion of constitutional rights, than, like you, I may have no problem with it. And that would be my answer to Edward as well. Indeed, if I need a lawyer to help me with my car accident, I would want the best lawyer available, not to mention one who is ethical - by God's standard of course. But if I want a lawyer to teach me how to be a reformed Christian, working faithfully in the practice of law, than I want a reformed lawyer, who is successful at his job, ethical, and not lazy. Essentially someone who is being consistent with his professed faith. If this conference is simply about people of different faiths being allowed to express their faith in public, than perhaps McDurmon is going over the top. But if this is about how to live the Christian faith in the public square, than I am afraid that I agree with McDurmon. . . . for the most part.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

There may be many things to be thankful for about Dr. George, but WTS is having him speak about faith in the public square. His faith involves the worship of Mary, images, bread and wine, and the anathematization of sola fide. Are there things that we can learn from such a brilliant scholar? Sure. I am sure I could have learned plenty of great things from Pelagius himself. But is a RC the appropriate person for a reformed seminary to invite to teach the reformed church about how to exercise the reformed faith in the public square? That's a different question. I still, respectfully of course, wonder how you would respond if Al Mohler invited a Roman Catholic, or even someone like James B. Jordan to come speak to seminary students about faithfully exercising their faith in the public square.

If you need surgery, would you want a Presbyterian surgeon, or the best surgeon available?
If you need a lawyer, would you want a Presbyterian lawyer, or the best lawyer available?
If you need a constitutional scholar, would you want a Presbyterian constitutional scholar, or the best constitutional scholar available.

1) Yes, if he is speaking on the issue of faith and medicine.

2) Yes, if he is speaking on the issue of faith and Law

3) Yes, if he is speaking on the issue of faith and our relation to the constitution.

The issue is not about *what they do* in relation to *having them practice their expertise*. The issue is in relation to them speaking about *faith* and their relation to *what they do*.

 

[zsmcd]

McDurmon did post an update concerning a response from Dr. Poythress.

UPDATE: Several people have asked me if there has been any response from WTS. Dr. Poythress contacted me to say that he was, in fact, invited to speak at this conference, but had to decline due to a previously scheduled mission. This being the case, I extent my hearty apologies to the addressees for assuming otherwise on this particular point.

Dr. Poythress further expressed that while he was honored to be singled out in my discussion above, he informs me that “there are other faculty here who care about Van Til’s views and their social, cultural, and political implications.” I am obviously thrilled to hear this, and would love to hear more from them. The fact that such a pool of Van Tillian social thinkers exists does, however, further call into question the current lineup for this scheduled conference.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Well, since I have little knowledge on who is speaking and what the topics are (http://www.wts.edu/stayinformed/events.html) ... I cannot say much. However, I read the article. I personally do not like WTS or American Vision. Both have great weaknesses in their theological outlook.

On one end you have a hardcore Reconstructionist admonishing a hardcore hyper redemptive-historical/Republication/Klinean leaning school. I don't have the taste for either.

Are you speaking about WSC or WTS? I was under the impression that WSC was the hardcore Republication / Klinean school.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Well, since I have little knowledge on who is speaking and what the topics are (http://www.wts.edu/stayinformed/events.html) ... I cannot say much. However, I read the article. I personally do not like WTS or American Vision. Both have great weaknesses in their theological outlook.

On one end you have a hardcore Reconstructionist admonishing a hardcore hyper redemptive-historical/Republication/Klinean leaning school. I don't have the taste for either.

Are you speaking about WSC or WTS? I was under the impression that WSC was the hardcore Republication / Klinean school.

Indeed they are. WTS isn't as klinean as WSC, yet Kline does have influence over there as well. Also, it seems between Vos and Kline, there is not much of a difference in many respects. WTS is heavily influenced by Vos.

 

[TheOldCourse]

It's amusing to see WTS as being criticized for not being Van Tillian enough. I've often found it humorous how WTS professors can somehow manage to reference Van Til in any lecture or discussion no matter what the subject may be. Sometimes it seems like they treat any topic as six degrees of Kevin Bacon with CVT.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Even when I was much more pro-CVT than I am now, the almost cult-like following of the man (and, for that matter, Gordon Clark) was something that always disturbed me.