Your confusion in channeling Carl may stem from my reasons for cautioning him about going to WTS. Some of those had to do with personal and professional matters such as the advisability of leaving Britain’s fourth oldest university to go to a sideline seminary in the U.S. that was at the time experiencing fiscal difficulties. Turns out Aberdeen may have also had financial troubles of its own.

Another reason concerned Carl’s own ambivalence about confessional Presbyterians at WTS. He indicated to me that he was more comfortable with a broadly evangelical position.

But I find it peculiar that you have not responded to the substance of my post. That was the different ways of relating to evangelicalism at WTS, one side open to Keller and McKnight, the other open to Mohler and Piper. Neither of those ways of relating to evangelicalism follow the path cleared by Machen and Van Til.

I may have my own inconsistencies. But is this really a reason for disregarding my point about WTS? Who among us is worthy to cast the first stone of consistency?

In my own experience, I have seemed to to have run across what I consider more “smiling” sectarianism than “brooding” catholicity, all turning on denominational loyalties…which just seems odd. I can’t tell for sure, but it also seems to also be a mere matter of bad blood between two Dutch Reformed denominations (CRC and URC). Granted, I came into things rather late; sometimes that seems to be a blessing, but other times not so much. The parochialism in the CRC simply seems to want to cast the URC as just being plain, old fahsioned schismatic. I may be quite dense and quite new on the block, but something tells me it’s not that simple.

What you say about stories is helpful. And I agree that they seem to serve sectarianism more than catholicity. A I said, my hunch more and more is that the stories in the CRC really seem to be ways to fortify a cultural project than a cultic one. (I think the more specific phenomenon of Christian Education here helps–if only they took their confessional tradition as seriously they do this one.) But when assimilation is in place, the efforts to maintain cultural cohesion seem quite left-of-center. This seems easy to see, being one who comes to the table quite deliberately and with absolutely nothing in rearing that lends itself to insider-ship (unbelief and not Dutch). Heaven knows they bend over backwards to make black sheep like me feel at home. But something about it seems awfully wrong, mis-guided. I suppose this is why I think the cultic/cultural antithesis seems so vital.

The most difficult area here in my estimation is history. All Reformed denominations have a unique history. Stories are powerful for maintaining a denominational identity. But are these stories truly catholic or do they breed isolation? I think the latter even though I’m also about trying to find a way to make them catholic. Church unions inevitably destroy historical consciousness. Does anyone in the PCA know the story of the RPCES?

It’s a confusing world some times.

What did you have in mind? A coup?

For the record, the changes I commented on at WTS I did not deduce were (in your words) “evil.” I do think being open to evangelicals in certain ways is not Reformed. But I’ve never countenanced that as wickedness.

And for what it’s worth, I’m well aware that WTS trains Reformed pastors. Some of my fondest memories stem from the students I knew and are now in the ministry. The problem WTS is now facing is that it also trains pastors like those signing the petition at http://www.saveourseminary.com who because they’ve been to WTS think they too are Reformed pastors. I’d have thought a confessional Presbyterian might understand that.

For all its alleged faults, WTS PA also is training seminarians to be Reformed Pastors, so I’m not sure what your point is.