Mark Thompson, professor of theology at Moore Theological College in Sydney, has made interesting remarks concerning the threat of liberal theology even in the Global South. (See Theological Education: The Next Battlefield). The strategy of the liberals is to infiltrate the seminaries in Africa and Asia with the liberal revisionist views they hold. If American seminaries are any indication, this strategy seems to be working.
Already we see Asbury Seminary and Fuller Seminary going to the far left of neo-evangelicalism. And there are indications that Westminster Seminary in Pennsylvania and Reformed Thelogical Seminary (Orlando, Jackson, et. al. campuses) are moving in the direction of neo-nomianism via compromises with the Federal Visionists/NPP, theonomy, etc. Asbury and Fuller have so embraced higher criticism that such views are no longer critically examined but are taught as if this were the correct view. Asbury's Old Testament department is for all practical purposes neo-orthodox with Von Rad and Eichrodt's textbooks being the favored view. One professor there, Lawson Stone, openly advocates the view that Genesis 1-11 is myth and that the Old Testament is not a historical account but rather contains saga, legend and myth.
The New Testament department is not much better at Asbury since the synoptic problem is solved by appealing to late compilations by communities of faith rather than upholding apostolic authorship. Judging from what I have seen of Westminster and other seminaries, this is a nationwide trend among Evangelical seminaries. There was a time when conservative scholars actually sought to refute higher critical views. These days, however, what we see is a wholesale adoption of higher criticism with the idea that we can imbibe this stuff and put it to use to defend Evangelical practice. Unfortunately, what happens when one imbibes theological revisionism and relativism is that Evangelicalism becomes increasingly theologically revisionist itself and adopts liberal relativism as its modus operandi.
What is sorely needed today is a neo-fundamentalism as rigorous as the neo-fundamentalism of J. Gresham Machen and Carl F. H. Henry. Henry, despite the claims of neo-evangelicals, would be better described as a neo-fundamentalist in the line of Machen. I think Henry would be appalled at the current compromises we see developing in "Evangelical" seminaries today.
Sincerely in Christ,
Charlie
Posts
3 comments:
I attended the coronation of Martyn Minns when CANA began. Akinola presided over the ceremony. There was a Eucharist in which the '79 BCP Rite II was the base text and from which the confession of sins was removed.
Given that, why should anyone think that Africa will for very long remain a bastion of Reformed Anglicanism? Indeed, Ghana has already decided that women's ordination is possibility. So I'd say that depending on the Africans has already been shown to be worthless.
Well, the Anglo-Catholics have the exact same tactics that liberals have. They wish to exclude any true dissident voices so that they can keep reforming Evangelicals and reforming Anglicans quiet in the corner some place. I was recently banned from VirtueOnline for daring to call the denomination heretical and to say that Duncan is a heretic.
If justification is by faith alone, then judging by that standard most of Anglicanism is lost.
Charlie
Lawson Stone issued a protest on another post I made in this regard where he denies that he has compromised biblical inerrancy or that he teaches that Genesis 1-11 is "myth." But this is simply dissimulation and double talk. I fail to see how adopting the radical view of the documentary theory can be characterized in any other way except as a compromise of biblical inerrancy, particularly when the OT is portrayed as inspired "story" rather than primarily an historical account of the people of Israel, particularly in the Penteteuch. Of course there are different kinds of literature in the OT such as poetry (Psalms, Song of Solomon, etc.) wisdom literature (Job, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, etc.), historical narrative (the Penteteuch; 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings, 1&2 Chronicles, etc.). But to evade the question by hiding behind vague and general statements in public and making particular statements in classes or in professional settings not open to the public is a form of dissimulation or "covert" misdirection. In plain talk, it is a form of lying.
I have offered the opportunity for Lawson Stone to define what he means by term "biblical inerrancy" and how his view relates or differs from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Also, what is his view of the higher critical documentary theory and the use of myth, saga, and legend as explained by Von Rad and other neo-orthodox theologians. So far Stone has not responded.
This is evidence enough that he is not sincere about defending his views in the public arena. He would rather hide in the ivory tower it seems to me.
Sincerely in Christ,
Charlie
Post a Comment