Office of the President

Biblical Theological Seminary

200 N. Main St.

Hatfield, PA  19440

December 29, 2006

To the President and Board,

Admittedly, I do not follow seminary news, nor receive newsletters, nor gather with any regularity with prior seminary graduates. But as it happens, I had an interview in Washington, D.C. at the AAR/SBL, and had an enlightening 45 minute discussion with a fellow graduate.

While I’d previously heard sometime last year that Biblical was going to be a “seeker/emergent” seminary, I thought, “Good, because language study and exegesis are the heart of the discovery process the post-modern world most needs; it is in working with the documents with a trained guide together with the processes of the human heart that the Holy Spirit can most move this younger generation, content to navel gaze beyond a healthy sense of self-knowledge, towards Himself.” But what I hadn’t processed was how far “Biblical”, as an entity, had chosen to walk away from its foundation. I hadn’t yet learned that in-depth language study, the courses and framework for which Biblical was once famous, had gone out of fashion. Marketing towards an “emergent” student mindset changed the direction of the school in its entirety. This was new news.

What I can’t understand is why Dr. McRae had to stand against all the inroads of popular culture for his descendants to throw it all away in an uncritical gesture towards post-modern fashions. For what passes as “post-modern”, surely even you understand, is a form of existentialism already experienced widely in the West in the prior century—though the younger, trendier faculty types driving the decisions perhaps do not see its relationship. At best, that level of post-modern despair (the likes of which is evident in “emo”, flooding the music scene for the last 5 years) can be the despair of a heart searching for truth; or not. As in most of what I’ve read of this “new twist of something old”, this despair is characterized by anti-intellectual, psychological groping towards content without rational structure. That emotional groping, passing as academic material, may superficially cover some emotional wound both in teacher and student alike, in a temporary way. But it cannot rout out despair—the despair of which scripture speaks and the despair popular in existential circles in the last century. Even you would agree this is far from what is actual life—zoe—the life of God “within”--the mind, as well as the emotions, the life that overcomes, the life that is the light of men. Apparently as John wrote with that “word”, he selected that concept with coherence and context; it is both rational and emotional, and both portions are needed to respond to post-modern despair.

. . .   

I am significantly concerned that future church leadership should be allowed the indulgence of putting their own emotional neediness before the responsibility of carrying forth the biblical documents clearly. When is leadership attractive and relevant when its underlying values ooze with contextual, personal whining about “cultural relevance”?  So much of this outpouring is immaturity. It is no wonder the Navigators are making ministry priorities of re-parenting the next generation—but here, in a theological seminary, you seem to be offering degrees in immature thinking to an immature world from an immature world-view. It does not bode well for the church in the future, especially given the rise and threat of Islam.  

I notice from your website that your courses contain the word “missional”, from which I deduce the term can be intentionally widely interpreted. But how wide were you thinking when you made that decision? When the “mission” becomes the goal, all biblical interpretation can be manipulated to fit that mission. When graduates lack the skills to adequately understand the great mission of God in His languages, without a Biblical basis for mission the outworking becomes a free-for-all. You intend, as a theological seminary, to turn out leadership with personal agendas? 

You know, some of the most significant things from the time I spent at Biblical, which I internalized as a Christian eager to serve God where ever He chose, were these:

• The opportunity to look outside myself --to history, to scientific apologetics, to facts, to the Greek language, to the texts of the New Testament, to systematic theology from Prof. Dunzweiler.
• The opportunity to learn from men (and Grace MacRae and Sherry Kull) what suffering for the gospel meant in “their day” and the expectation that for any in leadership, it meant engagement with the mind as well as the emotions, with the expectation that the process would lead to greater wholeness and witness, personally and within the body of Christ.
• The opportunity to find the realities described in scripture unfold within its covers and in the world itself—clearly, I was not to make up my own reality, rather the significance of the teaching of the apostles within the confines of history, revelation and redemption included my own story, and rather than reinterpret all of history and redemption to fit my story, my story needed to be fit within the true reality for it to be a true story.   

Interpretation matters.

Position matters.

Having spent time in Boston taking courses in the BTI, I can safely say you are on your own hermeneutical path, just like the feminists were who have widely influenced Feminist Liberation Theology. They, like you, have a missional mindset. 

I cannot, cannot imagine what Grace and Dr. MacRae would say to you. I am, of course, aware of the Brethren influence, so the leaning towards pietism is in sync with much of this navel-gazing emotionalism and anti-intellectual attitudes of the neo-neo-orthodoxy of this movement. In philosophical language, both phenomenological and epistemological discourse is up for grabs, and is personal. But it concerns me that those who will be responsible for leading congregations will be given carte blanche on their emotional welfare without the necessary correctives of rational engagement with something truly “outside” their experience, the Greek and Hebrew languages of the original documents.

Most sincerely,

Gwen Griffith 

117 S. Walnut St., Kennett Square, PA  19348

Class of 1990

cc: Dr. Stephen and Gloria Hague

Read or add comments about this item.

No. 1 :

Gwen, your letter raises excellent points. Sadly, history and the historical position of the seminary as well as its founders means little or nothing to the current powers that hold control. As the Chinese proverb quoted by Tiimothy Tow says, "The ungrateful person uses a bridge to cross a stream and then kicks it out so that no one coming behind can get across." Many sacrificed deeply to provide a solid place for training those "put in trust with the Gospel" but a new generation has arisen that is out to destroy that trust. Carl Martin

\n This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it '>

Submitted by pastorct • 2007-03-23 13:39:25

No. 2 :

Thank you Gwen for a concise and focused (and brilliant) summary of the key issues. Your clear thinking here is going to be very helpful in the days ahead. I am amazed how you put so many things together is such a readable way. I pray that the Lord will use your insightful letter to cause many to 'stand firm' in the faith.

\n This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it '>

Submitted by RD Harris • 2007-04-29 13:03:34

Please login or register to post comments.

J! Reactions Commenting Software
General Site License
Copyright © 2006 S. A. DeCaro