The Following Statement Comes from Dr
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 The following statement comes from Dr. John White, chairman of the Westminster Theological Seminary Board of Trustees, April 15, 2008: I wish to report to the Westminster Theological Seminary community that the Institutional Personnel Committee (IPC) has determined to meet in executive session in order to carry out its mandate given by the WTS board on March 26, 2008. The IPC, therefore, will report to the institution and broader community through its chairman, board member Rev. Dr. Charles McGowan. Please keep the IPC committee in your prayers as they carry out their mandate, and as they release any information and documentation on timing they determine. Furthermore, inasmuch as theological and procedural documentation has been before the board, the members of the IPC, and the faculty for several months, and in interest of theological clarity, educational growth and institutional transparency, I have requested that the Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Carl Trueman, ask the faculty to share several key documents with all interested parties: 1. The official theological documents produced out of theological discussions over the last two and a half years, which address the theology of Inspiration and Incarnation. 2. Any explanatory preface regarding changes that the committee have made to their statements, in light of the discussions which those documents have generated. 3. The Edgar-Kelly Motion and the associated Minority Report. I have also asked the President, Rev. Dr. Peter A. Lillback, to release his essay, entitled, “‘The Infallible Rule of Interpretation of Scripture’: The Hermeneutical Crisis and the Westminster Standards.” These documents are now available to interested parties at the Westminster Theological Seminary campuses in Philadelphia and Dallas, and will soon be released on the WTS website. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise – without prior written permission. © 2008, Westminster Theological Seminary 2 Table of Contents Statement from the Chairman of the Board…………………………………….. page 1 Table of Contents……………………………………………………………….. page 2 Preface to the Historical and Theological Field Committee……………………. page 3 Historical and Theological Field Committee Report…………………………… page 4 Preface to the Hermeneutics Field Committee’s Reply………………………… page 27 Hermeneutics Field Committee Reply to the HTFC…………………………… page 28 Edgar-Kelly Motion …………………………………………………………..... page 98 Minority Report………………………………………………………………… page 100 “The Infallible Rule of Interpretation of Scripture”: The Hermeneutical Crisis and the Westminster Standards…………….. page 103 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise – without prior written permission. © 2008, Westminster Theological Seminary 3 Preface to "Inspiration and Incarnation: A Response" written by the Historical and Theological Field Committee (HTFC) This document is being released to the public as it was originally written, with the following prefatory and explanatory remarks: 1. The publication of I&I in 2005 was deeply troubling. We were concerned with both the actual content of I&I and its implications for pastoral ministry. As the document indicates, it was originally constructed as an initial elaboration of five points of concern that were first raised by the HTFC in a meeting of the faculty on February 6, 2006. The intent of this document was that it would focus our initial concerns for purposes of faculty and board discussion. The document was meant to be preliminary, and it was agreed among the faculty that members of the Hermeneutics Field Committee (HFC) would provide a written response. This document was finalized in April 2006, to go to the seminary's Board of Trustees for its May 2006 meeting. For various reasons, that schedule had to be delayed. 2. As the HFC "Reply" makes clear (in "Section Five," on p. 62), this document misquotes I&I. We erroneously attributed the phrase "the living Christ" to I&I. We acknowledge that this was a misquotation, and we have apologized, in our discussions, for this error. 3. Toward the end of our faculty discussions, William Edgar, who had signed this document and shared its concerns, changed his views. In light of that change, and in line with it, Dr. Edgar co-authored the "Edgar/Kelly Proposal." - 1 - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise – without prior written permission. © 2008, Westminster Theological Seminary 4 Inspiration and Incarnation A Response The Historical and Theological Field Committee This document is formulated by the Historical and Theological Field Committee (HTFC) for the Faculty Theological Fellowship (FTF). It is, in the main, our response to the book, Inspiration and Incarnation (I&I).1 It is also, tangentially, a response to the “Proposed Statement on Scripture by the Biblical Studies Department” (PS). This document has been approved by and represents the views of the undersigned at the end of the document. In the February 6, 2006 FTF meeting, the HTFC raised five fundamental concerns regarding I&I as a whole. Those concerns, listed in what the HTFC considers to be their order of importance, are: 1) a doctrine of Scripture that diverges from the classic Reformation doctrine, in particular the tradition of Old Princeton 2 and Westminster and specifically, the Westminster Confes- sion of Faith (WCF), chapter 1; (2) a reductionistic Incarnational model; (3) a Post-Conservative Evangelical (PCE) approach to the discipline of theology; (4) a lack of clarity; (5) the appearance of speaking for the entire faculty. The present document is designed to supplement and illustrate the above basic concerns out- lined in the initial presentation, focusing on the foundational theological and hermeneutical problems that appear to us to bring I&I into conflict with WCF, chapter 1.3 Our primary focus, therefore, will be on (1)-(3) above, with some reference to (4) as well. This expression of our concerns is not to say that the book is without value. A concern “not to shirk the difficult questions” (R. D. Wilson), such as those addressed in it, is in the WTS tradi- tion. For instance, various interpretive strategies used by the NT authors have long raised ques- tions for readers and need to be addressed. Also, the book is helpful in alerting uninformed readers to some of the historical data that biblical scholars have to wrestle with in understand- ing the biblical documents in their original settings. Further, its Glossary at the end provides much useful information, particularly for others than the OT scholar. Its strengths, however, are overshadowed by the following concerns. 1 Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005). 2 I.e., where and when Old Princeton is consistent with WCF I. 3Because the "Proposed Statement on Scripture by the Biblical Studies Department” of 10/19/2005 (PS) approaches its subject matter primarily psychologically, there is little to which to respond directly. That is, our concerns are not with attitudes toward Scripture. It is good, therefore, that PS sees itself as "Pre-committed..., awed..., bound to be diligent..., convinced..., aware..., grateful..., and confident..." Just how these attitudes are expressed is of central concern. Because, as well, the concerns below are made with reference to the doctrine of Scripture, and not specifically to our attitudes toward Scripture, I&I will be our central concern, with tangen- tial reference, at points, to PS. 1 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise – without prior written permission. © 2008, Westminster Theological Seminary 5 The concerns of the HTFC can be stated under two broad categories, categories that are in keep- ing with the book’s title. These two broad categories include subdivisions as well, and are listed in order of importance. I. Inspiration: It appears to the HTFC that I&I compromises the doctrine of Scripture as presented in WCF I. The two particular points to be made in this regard focus on the divine authorship of Scripture, and on its unity. II. Incarnation: It seems to us that the Incar- national model advanced in I&I is confused at best, and serves to contribute to I. There are two concerns relative to this confusion. The first concern is illustrated in the notion of apostolic hermeneutics presented in I&I. The second concern is the apparent affinity with post-conserva- tive evangelicalism of I&I. If II is true, then the Incarnational model utilized in I&I contributes to the incompatibility of I&I with the doctrine of Scripture as presented in WCF I (specifically, at least, WCF 1 4/5). I. Inspiration: Divine Authorship and the Unity of Scripture The initial focus of the HTFC is on the doctrinal (and methodological) formulations offered in I&I. This concern is parallel to the announced purpose of I&I in the opening sentence of the first chapter: The purpose of this book is to bring an evangelical doctrine of Scripture into conversation with the