Meet and Greet: Third Personal Encounter with Theological Liberals

Meet and Greet: Third Personal Encounter with Theological Liberals

Again, we are developing a series of posts on “Meet and Greet:  Personal Encounters with Theological Liberals.”  Again, we are aware of the technical and historical definition of 19^th-20^th century “theological liberalism.”   For my children reading this, “theological liberalism” is a long story.  The Veitchs emerged from  “theological liberalism”  in Canada. Let’s “Meet and Greet” another liberal.  We reflect on the consequences of it:  theological indifference, relativism, incompetence and ineffectiveness.  Here’s a practical consequence of a theological liberal (half-wit), “Hey, I don’t care much about Biblical doctrine and theology, so why should you or the congregation or the children?  We've advanced beyond the quest for doctrinal depth.”  The series was prompted by several posts (see at end).  So let’s meet another one.

Background.  I had an occasion to fly, compliments of the military, from Naples, Italy, to London, UK, for further air transfer to Rota, Spain.  There were several Chaplains slated to attend an annual “Chaplaincy Training,” a five day affair.  En route, I travelled and sat with one Chaplain, a graduate of Princeton Seminary and PCUSA Chaplain.  I did this for both flights.  We chatted.

I was a graduate of Westminster Seminary (Confessional Presbyterian) and he was trained and ordained through the “theologically liberal” Princeton (non-Confessional Presbyterian).  What happened?

Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia

Before further comment, years before this air flight and conversation. I had taken some Th.M. courses at WTS with the Rev. Dr. Philip Edcumbe Hughes, a scholar, gentleman and Church of England man.  In Dr. Hughes’s NT course, we had a Princeton student, a student on exchange for a few semesters.   I specifically recall him grousing and observing that Princeton students had half the workload of the Westminster students.  It struck me as odd at the time;  old Princeton had a reputation for scholarship;  what was the new Princeton like (post-1930s)?  Dad often—at the dinner table—spoke very highly about those “old Princetonians,” that “careful and scholarly breed.”  But, as a youth, what did I know?

Fast forward from WTS to the air flight and conversation with a PTS graduate.

Princeton Seminary

Occasioning incident.  Here I was, travelling with a PTS graduate.  I asked him several questions.  The answers surprised me.  Based upon that conversation, if what he was saying was true, I was not impressed with the PTS program.  This sloppy fellow lived up to what I’d later conclude more widely:  doctrinal indifference and incompetence.

Here’s the upshot of the conversation “in the air.”

I asked him what language requirements existed, e.g. Greek and Hebrew.  Those were always demanding.  The PTS man said, “I took a few of them, although it was not required.”   Huh? That was a bit stunning.  “Just a few courses in the old languages” I mused.  Of course, I grew up with a Dad who studied the Greek, Hebrew and Latin texts weekly through 4 decades of ministry.  I’d started Greek lessons at age 18 and took 2-years in undergraduate studies.  What was this, I pondered.  I asked him about systematic theology.  He said, “I may have had a year and a half of systematic theology.”  He really was not sure about his answer either.  “What?”  I thought, it can’t be true.  Dad handed me Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology and Charles Hodge’s 3-volume Systematic Theology upon graduation from high school and entrance to university.  Dad said, “No matter what you major in, read 10 pages from the systematicians and 10 chapters of the OT and 10 chapters of the NT per day.”  Indeed, I did that too, long before attending seminary.  What was this PTS-man and PCUSA Chaplain saying?  A year and a half of systematics?  Say it ain’t so!  I asked him about church history.  “Oh yes, I had a few of those also.”  The dismissive and casual answers were distinctive.  I asked, “That’s it?  What else did you take?”  He said, “Courses on counseling, sociology, psychology and practical theology.”  I was a bit shocked.  These tallies or demands did not compare to Westminster Seminary or The Reformed Episcopal Seminary that I had attended.  PTS sounded like a cake walk.

Here’s the 2010-2011 catalogue for Princeton.  You can draw your own conclusions. 78 graduate hours for the M.Div. (Not 90?  Like WTS and RES?)  12 hours in Bible.  That’s it?  4 courses on the Bible?  12 hours in History, 4 courses covering early, medieval, early modern and modern history?  That’s it?  12 hours in Theology, that is, 4 courses in systematics?  Say it ain’t so.  14 hours in Practical Theology?  Huh?  And the rest in electives. This is very, very poor.  See:   https://our.ptsem.edu/UploadedFiles/catalogue10-11REVatblue.pdf .  The results were evident in my friend, his conversation, and casual indifference to his own specialty.

Post incident reflections.

(1)  I had read the old 19^th-20^th Princetonian theologians per my Dad (long before seminary it must be said), as well as the history of Princeton and Westminster, an old scholarly tradition of top drawer thinkers.  How had Princeton fallen?

(2)  I did not attend Princeton and this was really the first conversation with a modern Princetonian.  Again, I heard the grousing of a Princetonian in Dr. Hughes’s course at WTS.  It would take years of connecting dots here and there.

(3)  The stunning impression was this:  the casual, indifferent, and ignorant review of  theological education.  (I suspect the Ph.D. program would be different, but am discussing the M.Div. program). 

(4)  Beyond his casual answers, on a personal level, he was overweight, a bit sloppy, and drank heavily during the week of Chaplaincy training.

(5)  Was this man interested or qualified for ministry?

(6)  The fruit of theological liberalism was theological indifference, clear Confessional and catechetical ignorance, Biblical incompetence, language-incompetence, historical incompetence, and doctrinal incompetence.  It would appear that PTS lost some of the energy and scholarship of the old days.  WTS had not lost that.

Objections.

(1)  Objection. Are you imputing theological ignorance and/or indifference to Princetonian alums?  Isn’t that an overstated claim?  Rebuttal.  We affirm in part and deny in part.  We do not impute that to all PTS M.Divvers.  For example, the Rev. Dr. James Montgomery Boice, our Pastor for a few years, was a PTS alum.  (Jim could have done better, by the way.) However, we emphatically impute exactly that—ignorance and indifference—to this graduate and several other Presbyterians.  Indeed, we do that here.  However, granting your objection on a wider arc, we say this.  Having met other PTS alums, the question, curiosity and questions stand.  PCUSA Chaplains, in my experience, graduates of  liberal schools, were not substantively-oriented or theologically-driven people.  That infects and affects listeners and followers.

(2)  To revise and extend on the rebuttal, we expect that the Th.M. and Ph.D. programs have well trained Professors.  But again, we are not impressed with the M.Div. program.  Nor have we been impressed with those we met. 

Conclusions.

(1)  Confessionally incompetent. 

(2)  Absence of doctrinal rigour and, hence, an absence of a compelling vision and faith-system, resulting in communication of that horrific disease to others.

(3)  At the time, more questions were raised in my mind.  Self to self:  “You’ve read about theological liberalism for years.  Is this what they are really like?”

(4)  We continue our “Meet and Greet” tour.  This was one liberal Presbyterian amongst others with whom I had dealings.   There will be more.

 (5)  Connect the dots across the mainline denominations.  There will be other connections.

(6)  I’ll have another post about another Presbyterian Dumb Ass, Tom, a Senior Chaplain.  A Dumb Ass?  Indeed.

Related Blogs on this subject.

Detwiler, SGM, Mahaney, TEC, Sandusky/Penn State & Leadership Corruptions

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/07/detwiler-sgm-mahaney-tec-sanduskypenn.html

A Personal Encounter with a Theological Liberal

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/07/personal-encounter-with-theological.html

A Second Personal Encounter with Theological Liberals

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/07/second-personal-encounter-with.html

Dr. Timothy George: 3 Lesson from Mainline Crisis and Decline

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/07/dr-timothy-george-3-lesson-from.html

The following tags are applied. Mainline Decline, Mainline Protestants, Theological Liberalism, Liberal Chaplains, Theological Education, Uneducated Ministers, Dumb Asses.

A Second Personal Encounter with Theological Liberals

Prof Machen, Princeton Seminary
Great, scholarly Presbyterian
divine and antagonist to
19th-20th century
"theological liberalism."
That old "Princetonian line"
of "careful scholars" my Dad
told me.  Indeed.

A Second Personal Encounter with Theological Liberals

After last week’s stories (Penn State, SGM-debacles, and the 77^th Episcopal General Convention), we’ve been prompted to reflect on a collection of encounters with theological liberals.  That is, this is an attempt to collect and digest many personal encounters across the years with “theological liberals.”

A few notes about definitions.

Definitionally, the term “theological liberal” has some precision.  It may refer to the theological movement of the 19^th and 20^th centuries in the West.  It often included Graf-Welhausian Documentarians on Pentateuchal authorship (19^th century), Synoptic chaos on Gospel authorship (Bultmannianism, inter alia), and denials of various cardinal loci in systematic theology (e.g. Auburn Affirmation inter alia).  Or, C. H. Dodd’s accurate depiction of Pauline theology only to discover that one paragraph at the end of one book, to wit, “But of course, we can no longer believe these things.”  Much more can be said.  Much more should be said.  We are aware of the historic definition, but we proceed more in a narrative direction.

However, the current purpose is to collect, digest and “muse” on personal encounters with theological liberals and their offspring.  For the present purpose, we widen the definition of “liberal” to include absence of theological depth and rigor, to wit, doctrine doesn’t matter.  Under this sense, one might include Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, or shallow evangelical Hillbillies. 

Enough on definitions, although more could be said. But now, for another story of liberals.

Background:  People.   Two individuals, one church service, and one Navy Inspector General (IG) report are under review.

The players were Dave and Bob (true first names).  Both were Navy Chaplains serving U.S. Marines at a Protestant Chapel aboard Okinawa. 

Dave was a back-country North Carolinian with a M.Div. from a Southern Baptist Seminary.  Dave studied under the quasi-liberal SBC influences of the 1970s, before the SBC cleaned up their seminaries.  Dave had a deep accent.  Dave was simple, gregarious, and friendly.  Dave was entirely “un-theological.”  A friendly sort, he was not the brightest bulb in the room.  Dave was a LT at the time. I  knew Dave personally.

Bob had a M.Div. from some Episcopal Seminary.  Bob was from the liberal Episcopal Church (TEC).  Bob was the senior Chaplain, a Navy Captain.  I did not know Bob.

Background: The Incident.   Dave, the SBCer, was the Chaplain running the scheduled main Protestant service.  Bob, the senior, was just reporting aboard Okinawa.  Bob was not scheduled (yet) to run any services;  he had just reported into Okinawa the week of the divine service.  Old Bob hardly knew Dave yet and had never even attended ANY divine service yet.

USMC Chapel, Okinawa

Dave, the Southern Baptist, started the scheduled morning worship service.  It was a run-of-the-mill Protestant service using the hymns from the Armed Forces Hymnal.  Dave began the service.  The first hymn was being sung. The place was crowded.  The organist accompanied the singing. 

Well, well, well, well…what do we have here?

Well, well, well…Bob, the senior, appeared at the Chapel rear, the narthex area.  He was “vested upwards,” as it were, like some kind of lacey “High Episcopalian.” He had a “censer” smoking up the area.  He had enlisted religious program specialists with him.  He also had a new set of bulletins in hand.  What Bob was doing was entirely premeditated.  Old Bob, the stupid Episcopalian, was going to fix the service.

Again, the service had begun.  Dave was upfront leading the congregation.  Bob was aft of the congregants.  Get this!  Bob, the whatever-liberal-donkey, processed up the aisle, swinging the censer with smoke to the left and to the right.  He motioned the organist to stop.  The hymn was abrupted ended.  The congregation was confused and shocked.  “What’s going on?”  Big Liberal Bob announced to the crowded congregation, “Chaplain X (Dave), please stand down.  Have a seat. This censing is symbolic of cleansing and this to `cleanse this sanctuary.’  Petty Officers, please hand out the new bulletins.  We will now begin to have an `appropriate Christian service.’”  I did not witness this event.  In a court, based on this, my testimony would be hearsay and inadmissible.  However…let this be said.

However, I did read Dave’s affidavit about the event in an official IG complaint, signed by Dave upon pain of penalty of perjury.  I read the official Navy IG report which found in David’s favour.  As such, my testimony to reading Dave’s affidavit and the IG report would be admissible. Ergo, this story.

Bob, the stupid liberal Episcopalian, violated federal law.  I appended the 3-point statute from the United States Code (see below).  Here is one part that Wizard Bob violated:  10 U.S.C. § 6031: US Code - Section 6031:  “An officer in the Chaplain Corps may conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which he is a member.”  In other words, Dave as a SBC Chaplain, was legally authorized to conduct the service according to his own forms of worship.  The liberal Episcopalian had no legal basis for his action, whatsoever. The IG recommended administrative resolution (which has several meanings to those familiar with them, but that’s for another day).

Bob, the arrogant, stupid and liberal Episcopalian , was a terminal Captain.  He was an unlikely candidate for ADM.  Ergo, he thought he could abuse the junior without consequence.  Perhaps he received a written rebuke for the record. He didn’t care.  They could not fire him and he could withstand any pushback. Bob had venom towards Dave.

I actually did not, do not, and will never like Dave’s shallow SBC theology.  However, Dave had a Constitutional right and legal protection to conduct the services as he saw fit. Of course, arrogant Bob thought otherwise.

The service was stopped.  The congregation was shocked.  Dave was horrified and confused.  He ignominiously departed the nave area.  He left the nave area and walked to where his wife and children were seated.  Dave and his family walked out of the Chapel.  He told me he cried later about it (literally).  Pretty weak, but it broke his heart and seared his memory for years after.  He knew his career was in jeopardy.

The next Sunday,  Dave began an alternate Protestant service at the same time but in the base’s movie theatre (with sticky floors from the spilt sodas from the night before).  Nearly the entire congregation left and followed Dave, leaving liberal “Bob the Bozo” with a handful.

Upshot.   While the IG found for Dave, there was a disrupted relationship that ensued.  Dave did not get promoted.  Dave believed (with no hard evidence) that Big Bob had engaged in what is ignobly called the Senior Chaplain’s “telephone ministry;”  this “telephone ministry” was a long-standing joke about Senior Chaplains calling each other around the word, sharing insider stories (they had Autovon phone lines that allowed this without cost).  Dave retired after twenty years and without a further promotion.

The Points.   Here are some points.

(1)  I’m beginning to reflect on many interactions with theological liberals through the years, including leadership failures and corruptions. The Penn State matter last week prompted this.

(2)  Beneath urbane and dignified veneers, theological liberals are hostile to many, including Reformed and Confessional Churchmen.  For example, read the "comments" by theological liberals on blogs and news sites following the Episcopal GC 2012.  Venom, hostility and more; a damnable devil can smile.

(3)  Dave, the SBC, while not a self-conscious liberal, was a shallow fellow theologically.  He was liberal in the sense that doctrine didn’t matter much.  Although that was not the issue per the above, this inserted point was an interpretation made by me through subsequent conversations.  Doctrine did not matter to my back-country friend.

(4)  Bob, the liberal TEC Chaplain, had venom and hostility to others unlike him.  Bob was not alone;  I saw it in other liberals.  This was just one of many instances.

(5)  Bob was willing to break federal law.  It should be added that he violated DOD and DON laws also, mirror reflections of 10 U.S.C. § 6031.  Bob, the braying Episcopal ass, like others, was ignorant.

 (6) Don’t be fooled.  Liberalism is as highly arrogant as it is full of stupid, blind, willful, depraved and impertinent unbelief.  The cumulative weight of many stories will demonstrate this.  As noted yesterday, I suppose Isaiah or Jeremiah might not be nice to theological liberals.  Both prophets are being reviewed.

P.S.  Here is the first reflection that precipitated the inquiry:

(1) Detwiler, SGM, Mahaney, TEC, Sandusky/Penn State & Leadership Corruptions

 http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/07/detwiler-sgm-mahaney-tec-sanduskypenn.html

(2) A Personal Encounter with a Theological Liberal

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/07/personal-encounter-with-theological.html

10 U.S.C. § 6031: US Code - Section 6031: Chaplains: divine services

(a) An officer in the Chaplain Corps may conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which he is a member.

(b) The commanders of vessels and naval activities to which chaplains are attached shall cause divine service to be performed on Sunday, whenever the weather and other circumstances allow it to be done; and it is earnestly recommended to all officers, seamen, and others in the naval service diligently to attend at every performance of the worship of Almighty God.

(c) All persons in the Navy and in the Marine Corps are enjoined to behave themselves in a reverent and becoming manner during divine service. 

The following tags are applied. Mainline Decline, Mainline Protestants, Theological Liberalism, Liberal Chaplains, Theological Education, Uneducated Ministers, Dumb Asses.

A Personal Encounter with a Theological Liberal

One Personal Engagement with a Theological Liberal

It’s not weighty, profound or singular, but it is “an” evening musing on “one” (of many) interactions with theological liberals.  Let me quickly give you a quick sense of it.

Background. Years ago, while studying at the Navy War College, Newport, RI, an opportunity to attend area churches was present.  (Through years of service and worldwide travels, this happened often.) One Sunday, three to four of us attended the historic First Congregational Church, Newport, RI (now with a different name).  The church had a 300-year history.  It had been the church where the famed Rev. Samuel Hopkins had been a pastor.  Although not the best reference, a few quick notes are offered at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Congregational_Church_(Newport,_Rhode_Island).  Also, as an aside, Newport had some distinctive names (e.g. Jacqueline Kennedy's halcyon homestead) and mansions on the coastline, as well as some distinctive relationships to the American Rebellion (or War for Independence), the Un-Civil War, as well Edwardseanism’s “New Haven Theology,” a development of Edward’s thought.  On this Sunday, we attended the morning service at this historic church in a famed Rhode Island city.

The Service. The service was demure, dignified, sedate, non-liturgical (in the Anglican sense of the old Book of Common Prayer), and was well attended.  I suppose that many attendees were well-heeled and well-educated.  The exterior is per the picture.  The interior, as memory serves, was dark with mahogany pews and other church furnishings.  It was rather dark in the interior.  The sermon was—well—rather unremarkable, irrelevant, un-theological, and un-impressive.  As a Westminster Confessionalist who had read rather widely, I took the Reverend for a theological liberal, rightly or wrongly.  Following the service, the Reverend invited us to attend their post-service get-together at the yacht club.  We went. It was a dignified affair in an outside setting near the piers at tables with umbrellas with light refreshments and a few glasses of wine.  "Charming, Ridgely." (Go ahead and laugh, but my classmate and shipmate's last name was "Ridgely," a fellow Westminster man and Confessionalist (PCA) who was reared as an Episcopalian, a delightful friend.)

After the Service.  During the course of a charming and dignified affair at the yacht club, the Reverend and I chatted.  Rather sedately and as an aside, I said, “Well, theological liberals and Confessional Churchmen have a different vision and version of the Divine Being.”  Holy moly! The Reverend was highly offended. He proceeded to chastise me in gentlemanly tones, but, unmistakably, with high dudgeon.  Although this was stated by me as a matter of fact rather than an averment of contention or rebuke, he took offense.  I quietly took my chastisement without further ado or rebuttal.  (By the way, the rebuttal was unremarkable, untheological, and, frankly, a bit churlish.)  So, the conversation was steered to less stormy waters for the sake of the poor Reverend's blood pressure.  The Reverend apparently was not used to heavy seas. Rather, we were there to enjoy and learn about and from these people…and we did too.  So what?

The Points.  Here are the points.

(1)  I’m beginning to reflect on varied interactions with theological liberals through the years.  This was just one interaction and I’ve had many.  

(2)  I’m beginning to reflect on leadership failures and corruptions.  The Penn State matter last week prompted the musings.

(3)  Beneath the well-polished, urbane, and dignified veneer, theological liberals are hostile to Reformed and Confessional Churchmen.  Read the "comments," for example, by many theological liberals on blogs and news sites following the Episcopal GC 2012.  Venom, hostility and more. 

(4)  Don’t be fooled, that’s how liberalism developed and advanced their views.  They weren’t nice about things.  I suppose Isaiah or Jeremiah might not be nice to theological liberals.  Now that's a point worth evaluating.