A friend reminded me that you East Coasters will be heading off to bed soon... So I have decided to post now rather than later. Please feel free to share this Post widely and especially with current Westminster board, faculty, staff. First of all I continue to be amazed about the number of supportive emails, posts, private messages I am getting urging me to press on in my public protest of recent events at Westminster. In this post, I want to address an upcoming Westminster event. Members of the Westminster community received a curious invitation recently to attend a retirement celebration for Bruce Waltke. This invitation is something that has caused many to scratch their heads and ask why? After all, Bruce only taught at Westminster from 1985-1990. He left suddenly to return to teach at Regent. I remember being shocked, saddened, and a bit hurt when my wife called me at the squash courts to tell me this. I was shocked because I had no clue Bruce was thinking about leaving. I was hurt because, though we were and still are close friends, he did not tell me he was leaving directly, and I was saddened because I enjoyed those five years teaching with Bruce (and Ray Dillard and Al Groves) which included a ministry to churches across the country which we called Streams from Scripture. When I did ask Bruce why he was leaving he told me that it was because the constituency of the institution was attacking him for his “liberal views.” I am not suggesting that this is the only reason he left, but it is the reason he gave me at the time. The irony of course is that the Westminster of the past ten years has lurched dramatically toward a much narrower interpretation of the Confession and also of biblical interpretation than existed during his time at Westminster (more below). The other reason why we scratch our heads is that the seminary has recently forced the departure of two Old Testament professors, Chris Fantuzzo and Doug Green (see previous posts below). Doug has had a distinguished teaching career at Westminster for the past twenty years. He studied under Bruce, was appointed following the death of Raymond Dillard, and continued Ray’s wonderful legacy for about two decades. He was forced to depart over supposed but not demonstrated violations of the Westminster Confession. So why in the world would Westminster throw a retirement celebration for Bruce Waltke? Before I answer that question, let me say that I personally believe Bruce deserves celebration and he knows that I know this. I do not think that Bruce is making a political statement by attending the retirement dinner. He has friends on both sides of this debate. However, just by showing up people will likely take it as an endorsement of the seminary’s actions and viewpoints. I want people to realize that this is unlikely no matter how the Seminary decides to spin it. But why is Bruce getting this unprecedented honor at Westminster? There are many others from Westminster’s past who deserve acclamation. I would suggest two reasons. First, it is part of an attempt to distract us from what appears to be a strategy of narrowing the theology of the Seminary. It has gone from an affirmation that the Seminary believes that the WCF is the best expression of the system of doctrine found in the Bible to an affirmation of the WCF plus the 100 Affirmations and Denials, an ad hoc and clumsy tool that serves to narrow the understanding of the Confession. By honoring Bruce, they seem to be saying that this new position is affirmed by this deeply respected scholar. But the fact is, he doesnt. Bruce holds views that are anathema to the present administration. Note for instance that in his Old Testament Theology he asserts that a disciple of Isaiah could have written Isaiah 40-66 and that this issue should not be taken as a litmus test of orthodoxy. True, he says that Isaiah is a unity but Bruce clearly means a literary and not an authorial unity. Second, in his Old Testament theology he points out that evolution and the biblical witness are not at odds with each other. Again, it is my understanding that this is not a popular viewpoint at present-day Westminster (although I am happy to be corrected on this). And we could name other conclusions that seem at odds with the present stand at Westminster. I don’t think it is surprising that the organizers of the conference have decided that the faculty would ask Bruce questions and have him respond. He is not giving a paper and I doubt seriously that they will open it up to questions from the floor. This allows the faculty and administration to control the dialogue. Indeed, if I were there and able to ask a question. I would ask him about a Christotelic interpretation of Psalm 23. After all, this is the issue that is often cited as representative of how Doug violates the Confession. I would ask Bruce about a Christian reading of Psalm 23 knowing that he actually offers a Christotelic (though he would not use this language) reading of Psalm 23 in his book The Psalms as Christian Worship (see page 445 for his wonderful Christian reading of the Psalm). Certainly David did not have Jesus in his mind, not even in his “cognitive peripheral vision” (Beale’s phrase, an attempt to claim a connection with the human author’s intention when it appears extremely unlikely). This is not a messianic psalm in that sense. But there is another reason why Bruce is being invited to participate. Peter Lillback and Greg Beale deeply appreciate him. I do not want to deny that. Their respect and love for him is sincere. But this also tells us something about why Westminster is changing in the direction it is hermeneutically. Bruce, Peter and Greg and others (notice that this celebration is being co-sponsored by others from Dallas) are all part of a group that were associated with Dallas seminary forty or so years ago (Dave Garner also has a DTS background). Their spiritual leader was S. Lewis Johnson of Believers Chapel. This group departed from their DTS background by rejecting dispensationalism, but they maintained a more literalist understanding of interpretation which includes a commitment to meaning found in the conscious intention of the human author. Without question, this theology stands behind their rejection of Christotelic and affirmation of something that they call a Christomorphic reading of the New Testament use of the Old Testament. So what to do? I am certainly not calling for a boycott of the retirement celebration. For those inclined to attend, go, enjoy Bruce. Indeed, please email me afterward ([email protected]) and tell me what happened. I won’t be there. In fact, I didn’t get an invitation (surprise!), though I was his colleague and friend. But the purpose of this post is simply to say that if you do go, go with your eyes wide open. This is at least as much political theatre as it is an honorary event—and I feel much more so. Expect to see a lot of pictures of Lillback and Waltke together with appeals to support the seminary based on the reputation of Waltke. In my next post, I am thinking about sharing some of the perspectives that current and immediate past students have shared with me concerning the teaching practices and other aspects of the ethos of the seminary. In the light of that I will also give advice to those students who are there now but who found out that the Westminster that they are attending is not the Westminster that they thought it was.
Posted on: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 23:31:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015