Comments on: A Word to Students in the Midst of Controversy

By: Can We Talk? « Heidelblog

Can We Talk? « Heidelblog — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:25:17 +0000

[...] ‘07 I have been able to see every day which posts generate the most unique hits. So far the post on how students should behave during a controversy has generated the most hits of anything I’ve written on the new site. On the old site I know [...]

By: R. Scott Clark

R. Scott Clark — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 06:09:08 +0000

I wasn’t able to reply to Sam on his blog so I’ll reply here. I’m all in favor of vigorous debate. Mine is not a pietist call to silence debate. Mine was call for restraint on the part of students who, not having attended the board meetings and faculty discussions, aren’t sufficiently informed to point fingers at the board majority.

By: Should we all get along? | Blog Long Island

Should we all get along? | Blog Long Island — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 04:15:23 +0000

[...] the dialogue in the name of Christian grace and charity. (See fellow WTS alumnus Brandon, or R. Scott Clark). On one hand a call for Christians to grow in grace, knowledge and love for each other [...]

By: Sam Sutter

Sam Sutter — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:45:57 +0000

Scott - thank you for the reply. I didn’t read it until now. 1) I would maintain while church discipline does take place for deviant doctrine, theology is not secretive. Typically the problematic issues are confronted from a public pulpit even if names are withheld.
2) Obviously I don’t know everything - that’s the very point of my frustration. But, as an alumnus, I identify largely with the Biblical studies department, and if what we were taught is errant, I’d like to know.
3) I apologize for sounding flippant. I only rarely address an academic audience. - I think there’s room for attempts at witty polemic even in serious context. - My comment was an obvious illusion to the Roman Church - pointing toward Reformation categories where the elite churchman do theology and leave the laity in the dark. It, like yours is an imperfect analogy - but the opposing analogy to the church discipline analogy - but I’d say equally, or better fitting.

By: RGL Avant

RGL Avant — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 06:35:53 +0000

My understanding is that Pete is still teaching. If his views were that out of line & esp. if the board believes that he rejects inerrancy then I would expect a full hearing where this is examined fully & he would be interviewed & allowed to defend himself. Then if it’s found that he is that out of accord & that he is essentially rejecting inerrancy then I would expect the board to take him out of the classroom asap.

By: RGL Avant

RGL Avant — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 06:22:37 +0000

first you are assuming that the book calls into question the seminary’s committment to inerrancy. If it was that obvious then the faculty would have settled the issue last year. The seminary also would not have given him tenure after the book was published.
Will they give him a hearing? I’m sure some form of a hearing will take place but it looks as if the deck is already being stacked against him.

I have high expectations from a Reformed Seminary not just in being faithful but in how it deals with people. I would expect that WTS would bend over backwards to make sure it gives a complete hearing to Pete. If the board dealt w/him fairly I could accept their judgemnt even if I didn’t agree w/the final judgemnt.

By: R. Scott Clark

R. Scott Clark — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 06:07:14 +0000

So the board had no access to Enns before this most recent meeting?

Is the board not able to act on the basis of Enns’ published work? Isn’t the board entitled to make a judgment to suspend a faculty member if that faculty member’s public actions (class lectures and publications) place the mission of the institution in jeopardy?

I’m pretty confident that they cannot dismiss him without a hearing. He may not get the hearing in the order the minority wanted but he will get a hearing.

Do you think the board majority might wish that he had talked to them before publishing a book that called into question the seminary’s commitment to a doctrine by which it has been defined since 1929?

By: RGL Avant

RGL Avant — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 05:49:50 +0000

I know for a fact that he was not at the board meeting. I know that the minority who voted against the suspension asked that he be given a right to defend himself before they suspend & they refused.
Yes he’s suspended & not fired, But suspended without due process.

Of course a seminary is not a church. But a seminary that claims to be confessional should bend over backward to have some form of due process.

Would you suspend someone from the sacrements w/out speaking to them 1st?

By: R. Scott Clark

R. Scott Clark — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 05:41:38 +0000

Yes, a majority of the faculty sided with a minority of the board and a majority of the board sided with the faculty minority and the president. The polity at WTS isn’t entirely presbyterial. WTS isn’t a “faculty-run” school and hasn’t been since the late 50s when Ed Clowney became the first president. When the faculty voted on what color to paint the kitchen (and met most saturdays while some faculty read the NY Times!). WTS is a board-run school. It is the board’s prerogative and duty to preserve the character of the school even if the faculty won’t.

Second, Enns has been suspended, not fired. The latter remains to be determined by a committee.

You assume that you know more than I do. Without access to the documents and minutes I couldn’t make such judgments. Having been involved in a seminary for 11 years now I’m less confident than you seem to be about what is known in public.

Enns hasn’t had any opportunity to defend himself? Do you know this for fact or supposition?

By: RGL Avant

RGL Avant — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 05:32:03 +0000

As I said before I appreciate your concern over seminary students flying off the handle & not taking everything into consideration. Generally its wise especially since many will be pastors & will have to deal w/congregations.
But there is also the opposite lesson. Students need to learn how to deal wisely & fairly with the congregants they minister to. Can you imagine a pastor & session making decisions about someone without hearing from that person.
If Pete’s book & teaching were a concern for the board then it deserved a full & complete hearing one in which all parties deserved a hearing.