This debate raged in the old Journey Magazine for about four years. At the time, many accused us of sensationalism and Christian insensitivity. It appears that the root problems continue with Mr. Enns, and Hart manages to characterize WTS’s complex problems fairly accurately.

Considering the then theological culture (the “rotten wood” of B.B Warfield’s comment), the Old WTS was almost a miracle. It was definitely a dramatic movement of God’s Spirit against the Zeitgeist. May I be so bold as to argue that the “miracle” has not been sustained — to our day. Populism, evangelicalism, celebrity-ism and syncretism are not ineffecutal enemies of the church — but deadly enemies. Yet, with all their skill and worldly charm, there is (thankfully) no prophecy which countenances their ultimate victory! That is reserved for our Great King and High Priest — Jesus Christ and his Orthodoxy.

Even moreso, we could go back a century and hear what Kuyper said to the Presbyterian Historical Society:

“See here, then, my answer. In case you have to deal with a gentleman or a lady, who pleads enthusiastically for splendid music, brilliant singing and richly decorated churches, but to whom the confession for which our martyrs died, is immaterial; not caring a bit for the most fundamental points of our confession; and almost refusing to give an answer, if a reason is asked of the hope that is in them,�then know that the symbolical blood-poisoning has commenced, and try to save them with meekness and fear. But if, on the contrary, the man who warmly and even with cogency vindicated the rights of a more dignified liturgical worship, becomes threefold more earnest and eloquent, as often as the foundations of the divine Truth are assailed, then do not be afraid, such a one has no drop of symbolism in his lifeblood. In him speaks the true Calvinist. And, rather than mistrust him, you might better correct your own lack of obedience to the law of the Sublime and the Beautiful, which God has ordained.”

That warning a century ago should be applied in our contemporary situation, viz, on the one hand those who would want to make the gospel “relevant” are in danger of losing the confessional nature of truth while on the other hand the hyper-traditionalists deny the experiential knowledge of God.

I am. If it makes you feel any better, our own time with the CRC is extremely limited, and for something of a similar reason that beguiles you (”the CRC is doing virtually nothing to ensure that solid reformed doctrine is passed on to the next generation”). She and I are more at odds than not, lamentably: http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/letter-to-the-committee-on-the-proposed-revision-to-the-fos/

But I will still take Church over para-church any day, to say nothing of the latter that “follows” an un-Reformed document. “Follows” is one of those under-confessionalist terms.