Congratulations to Phil Ryken

Congratulations to Phil Ryken who this morning was named the new president of Wheaton College. Here’s the brief story by CT. As former “Wheatie” (I think I can say that, can’t I? I taught there from ’95-97) this seems like a very good move.

There has been a Reformed presence at Wheaton for a long time but, as far as I know, it’s always been a minority presence. That a member of the Alliance of Confessional Evangelicals (who writes at Ref21) and who has taught as an adjunct prof at Westminster Seminary California is to become president of Wheaton College, arguably the flagship institution in the evangelical world, is no small thing. Few institutions have as much influence on how evangelicals will think about the faith and on how they will articulate it. However great the differences between the broad evangelicals and confessional Reformed Christians it is a good thing for Wheaton to be healthy and strong.

Phil follows a strong president at Wheaton, Duane Litfin. I still remember a meeting between new faculty members and president Litfin in which he flatly and forcefully challenged us to be faithful to the statement of faith we had each signed. As I recall he said effectively, “be faithful or leave.” It was bracing and encouraging to see such a strong leadership. I’m sure Phil will carry on that tradition. I’ve known Phil since we lived in the flat above Phil and Lisa’s in Oxford. I haven’t forgotten that Phil scored the winning basket for Regents against St Anne’s over yours truly. I’m not bitter. I’ve always known Phil to be a fine scholar, a confessional Reformed theologian and pastor, and a straight shooter (no pun intended). It will be good to see him interacting with the BiTh Dept. Who knows, maybe he’ll do some teaching?

We should pray for wisdom and strength for Phil. Having served next to Bob Godfrey for a few years, in the administration at WSC, I have a sense of the pressures and challenges that presidents face and Wheaton is far more diverse, far larger, and more complicated than WSC. His challenges will be great but I’m sure Phil is up to the task and I know that he’s trusting the Lord to give him the graces he will need.

We should also pray for our brothers and sisters at Tenth Presbyterian who now face the unenviable task of trying to find a new pastor. God bless them as they conduct their search.

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


  1. I think some Tenth members are a little hurt/frustrated this came out over the internet before they heard it from the pulpit at Tenth.

    • It came to me by the web so I assumed that it had already been announced at Tenth.

      These situations are difficult. I’m sure the school wanted to handle it a certain way and I suppose, in that situation, it’s difficult to coordinate the announcement to satisfy both constituencies, church and school especially when the congregation meets once a week. It’s pretty difficult to keep the lid on an announcement like this once a decision has been made.

  2. I was excited to see this news. I’ve run into several people that have graduated from Wheaton in the last few years, and to hear them talk about it, it seems as if it has started drifting on some theological issues. It’s great that it now has a solid, confessional, Reformed president who is also an excellent pastor and writer. I’m sure Ryken will steer it back in a conservative direction.

  3. Phil and I were students at WTS and right before he left for Oxford he culled a few books from his library that I brought. He spoke here a couple of years back and we have exchanged emails from time to time primarliy on things related to WTS were Phil serves on the board. He was instrumental in getting Peter Enns off the faculty and I expect he will bring with him to Wheaton the same committment to classic Evangelical orthodoxy.

  4. Good Grief! The announcement on the CT website is festooned with responses that vary all across the spectrum from people being upset about the news being leaked to the press prematurely to those in high dudgeon about his supposed views of the role of women in the Church. Be that all as it may, living in Wheaton (but in no way assoicated with the college) I look upon it as great news and I look forward to the opportunity to hearing him speak sometime in a venue open to the public. [By the way, if I were him one of my first acts would be to remove that portrait of Charles Finney that hangs in the Billy Graham Center]

        • “Jerry Falwell calls him “one of my heroes and a hero to many evangelicals, including Billy Graham.” I recall wandering through the Billy Graham Center some years ago, observing the place of honor given to Charles Finney in the evangelical tradition, reinforced by the first class in theology I had at a Christian college, where Finney’s work was required reading……From the Vineyard movement and the Church Growth Movement to the political and social crusades, televangelism, and the Promise Keepers movement, as a former Wheaton College president rather glowingly cheered, ‘Finney, lives on!'”

          Thanks George.

  5. Get rid of Finney? I once was at SWestern B Seminary where B.H. Carroll’s portrait hangs, (he founded the seminary and a Calvinist), they simply painted out his cigar…Maybe Dr. Ryken as his first act can teach in a way that paints out Finney’s theology!

  6. Isn’t this the 2nd half of the trade that is bringing Dr. Greg Beale to WTS-PA? Delaware Valley has to give up Phil Ryken to get Greg Beale? Hope Wheaton knows they are getting a 1st Class Softball player in the deal.

  7. Great news. This is like hiring a Westminster grad as President of Asian Theological Seminary, a flagship seminary in the Philippine evangelical community.

  8. This is almost too good to be true! Just when I start getting down and depressed about the future of American evangelicalism, God reminds me that He’s still in control and all things are possible with Him!

    Maybe Ryken will be to Wheaton what Mohler was to Southern Baptist. And like Mohler he can prove the egalitarian, Arminian nay-sayers wrong by seeing enrollment increase on his watch! We’ll see.

  9. I’m surprised that the 2K crowd would get this excited that a Minister of the Word and Sacraments is leaving to head up a non-ecclesiastical institution.

    • It’s a fair question. It bears consideration. I don’t see a necessary conflict between a ministerial vocation and an educational vocation. We have a minister at WSC who is primarily an administrator. He has a call to serve here and he preaches regularly.

      The real question is the nature of the ministerial call. What are the boundaries of such a call? I teach in a sem. I have a call from a congregation to do that, so the question is whether that’s a legitimate call. Ministers have taught in schools for a long time. A college isn’t a seminary so there’s a difference but is that difference so great that it would require one to resign his ministerial office? I doubt that.

      There’s also the precedent of ministers a tent makers. Paul didn’t violate his ministerial call by supporting himself as a tent-maker. I realize Phil will not be doing that but I assume that he will continue to serve as a minister somewhere. He’s in the PCA. He has, I suppose, the option of leaving his credentials in his current presbytery or transferring them to another.

      Thanks for asking an interesting question.

      > >

      • “Perhaps the only folks for whom this isn’t good news is the congregation at Tenth in Philadelphia, … This could be some of the best news for American evangelicalism in the 21st century.” — Stephen Nichols (Reformation21 blog)

        Not good news for the Church, but good news for something called “American evangelicalism in the 21st century.”

        How is serving as executive at a college, even one that claims to be “Christian”, fulfilling the office of Minister of the Word and Sacraments? It is certainly not an ecclesiastical position, unless you would also argue it’s OK for me to send my tithes and offerings to Wheaton. If Dr. Ryken were to demit his office of Minister, then that would be more in keeping with a consistent view of the “Spirituality of the Church”. Otherwise, his upcoming position is really no different than serving in Congress or as a general in the Army or as president of Princeton University, or some other “secular” college.

        • It’s not at all clear to me that serving as a president of a Christian college is equivalent to serving in congress. The latter is clearly a political office. Serving as president of Christian College is not a civil office.

          I think your argument would be strong if you said that any cultural vocation apart from a strict definition of ministry of Word and sacrament would require the resignation of a minister.

          There are pastors who have made that argument. I can see the plausibility. I need to think about it for a bit.

          I’m hesitant because I’m aware of ministers who’ve affirmed the two kingdoms AND who have held similar positions. E.g. John Owen was Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University AND Dean of Christ Church in Oxon. Beza was rector of the academy in Geneva AND a minister and held (though not with perfect consistency) the 2K distinction.

          It would be clearer if a minister took a clearly civil/political role. In this case it’s a little less clear. Education is part of the minister’s vocation. Obviously pastors are not called to teach biology but can one oversee a school where both theology AND biology are taught and retain one’s ministerial office? I think so especially if one has a call to serve a congregation or a presbytery.

          • “I think your argument would be strong if you said that any cultural vocation apart from a strict definition of ministry of Word and sacrament would require the resignation of a minister.”

            I think that is my position. Perhaps with the exception of a denominational seminary (controlled and funded directly), I would say that a man is not exercising the office of Minister of the Word and Sacrament as his principle duties when he undertakes one of these other vocations. (We are not talking about “tent making” so that argument has absolutely no bearing in this case.)

            I realize that in the PCA there is accepted practice for men to take on the role of “assistant pastor” (or some such biblically indefensible title) in order for them to labor in what has come to be considered quasi-ecclesiastical positions. I would be surprised if Dr. Ryken took the uncharacteristic step of demitting the ministry to serve as a college president. Pleased, but surprised.

            This is not to denigrate or minimize the position that Dr. Ryken is taking. His duties are important ones. But they be done effectively without the need to maintain an aura of ecclesiastical respectability via ministerial credentials, just as for a congressman or general.

            • Typo in the last line, should read: “But they can be done effectively …”

              Dr. Clark, how is it that we can define something called a “Christian college” but we cannot define something called a “Christian nation”? On what basis is one legitimate but not the other?

              • Tom,

                It depends on what one means by “Christian nation.” If we’re speaking sociologically that term has been used by historians accurately, e.g., to describe the USA by c. 1840, by which time most citizens consciously identified themselves as Christian. It didn’t last long, however, since the wheels came off by about 1880! That’s another discussion.

                If one means by it “a political or civil entity intended to enforce the Christian faith in a given geographical area” I have no idea where one could justify it from the NT. The Old Covenant ended with Moses. There is no covenant between God and any other national entity after the cross, when time the Mosaic covenant expired.

                An educational institution (as has been discussed on the HB at great length previously) is devoted to the interpretation of the world. A civil entity should be devoted to the enforcement of the natural law. These are two different enterprises. So, the answer is in the nature of the two entities. There’s nothing distinctively Christian about arresting and prosecuting criminals.

                There’s nothing inherently Christian about studying biology either but there is a distinctively Christian interpretation of the world. So a Christian scholar does his work within a Christian theistic framework and interprets the world within that framework. A Christian magistrate also does his work as a Christian and interprets the world according to Scripture. A biologist does not hold the sword — unless the metal detector fails. The magistrate holds the sword. He does not do so, however, in the enforcement of the faith. He does so as God’s minister (Rom 13) but one need not be a Christian to hold that office. Nero certainly wasn’t. No Caesar was. Paul still called them “servants.” Thus there are Christians who do biology but I doubt that there is “Christian biology.” There are magistrates who are Christians but there is not “Christian magistracy.”

                We can speak of Christian education or a Christian college because the results of the research conducted by Christians must be interpreted according to the Christian faith. In other words, there is a distinction between biology and theology. A good biologist does his research according to nature. He tells the truth but necessarily at some point in their work, all scholars do theology and when Christian scholars do theology they do they should do it as Christians. The self-consciously antitheistic scientist is going to interpret the results of his research different because he starts with a different set of presuppositions. At that point, however, he’s doing theology and not biology. Part of what I’m resisting here is the move to turn everything that every scholar does into theology. There is a distinction between theology and biology (or history or physics or music or whatever).

                We don’t want the magistrate doing theology in his office as magistrate. Paul didn’t want Nero doing theology! He never asked any magistrate to do anything other than to submit to natural justice. We want him to enforce the moral, creational, natural, divinely revealed law that is available to everyone everywhere (Rom 1-2) by virtue of its having been revealed in nature and written on the conscience.

                > > > > > >

                • “There’s nothing distinctively Christian about arresting and prosecuting criminals.”
                  -By virtue of being an agent of wrath, does the magistrate then belong to the forborn broken covenant of works or just to the covenant of works period? Or was the magistrate some sort of fruit of the covenant of Grace that was particularly to the benefit of His Church but had implications to all men whether or not they heard the Gospel (do whatever they will with the creations existence post-fall)?

                  • Never mind, my questions are rabbit-trailing.

                    My distracted questions aside, Dr. Clark, is it that some “Christian” colleges that have a seminary appended to them see a distinction so much that the seminary has a seperate president from the school ?

            • Tom,

              I have a call from my consistory to fulfill my ministry here in the seminary. It’s intentionally not a denominational seminary (for reasons that have been explained before; it goes back to Machen’s doctrine of the spirituality of the church). That seems entirely legitimate. It certainly seems legitimate to the various consistories and presbyteries who’ve called the faculty to teach here. We are preparing pastors for ministry. We preach. We teach. Paul taught in the school of Tyrannus. To what denomination did he belong? Are denominations of the essence of the church? Not according to the URCNA principles of church government. I don’t think the Reformed churches have ever said that a particular denomination is of the essence of the church. We don’t even confess that connectionalism is of the essence of the church. So, that part of your argument is a non-starter.

              I have criticized, however, the loose way the adjective “Christian” is applied to everything Christians do. It is legitimate to speak of a Christian college. On this see the recent WSC faculty publication, EVANGELIUM where we addressed this. There is a distinctively Christian view of the world that can and should be expressed and explored in education. Teaching students to view the world through the lenses of divine revelation is a worthy and important endeavor. Ministers have done that for a very long time.

              As to PCA polity most Reformed folk have agreed with Calvin that we don’t have to justify every particular practice in the organization of the church in the way that you seem to expect. See his discussion of church constitutions in the Institutes, bk 4.

              > > > >

          • Don’t forget – James Henley Thornwell, the Presbyterian minister, took a teaching position, then the presidency of South Carolina College prior to moving over to Columbia Seminary.

            Another interesting item: Minister of the Word Herman Bavinck, while professor of theology (Free University) served in the Dutch “senate” (not sure of the official term). He continued his teaching duties while serving that term. Probably could do that only because of closeness of Amsterdam & Den Haag; Kampen would have been a bit of a commute back then).

  10. Tom
    Just exactly why do you think the 2K crowd would be less than thrilled about this? Unless of course you are inclined to espouse an approach that would mirror some sort of theonomic mentality.

  11. As a Philly native I am personally not happy that Dr. Ryken is leaving 10th. But I certainly do wish him the best.

  12. Tom,
    Dr. Godfrey made what I think is a very good point at the recent WSC conference, that a seminary (and by extension a Christian college) cannot be neatly placed into the common or secular kingdom. At least one aspect of what a Christian College does is to officially sanction the proclamation of the gospel (or at least to teach its students what the gospel is, since there won’t be any actual preaching and sacraments in the classroom). It’s hard to say, then, that the President of such an institution is no different from a congressman or a general. The United States is a polis that is not exclusively Christian, and so neither its government nor its military can bear the adjective “Christian.” (Of course America COULD be a “Christian Nation”, if we overturned the current govt. and instituted a theocracy.) The govt. and military fall quite neatly into the common or secular kingdom. The same is not true of a self-consciously Christian institution. We cannot require someone to be a professing believer before taking public office. Wheaton can and should require someone to be a professing believer before being allowed to teach or administrate. So there is definitely a difference.

    Perhaps I’m not clear on your criticism, though. Do you think that Ryken should NOT serve as a minister in a local church while serving as President (and if so, why?), or are you simply saying that it isn’t necessary that he does?

  13. Dr. Clark,

    I’m sorry I confused you with the use of the term “denomination”. I should simply have said “church affiliated,” and that would cover everything overseen from the Consistory/Session to Synod/GA level.

    Again, I understand the practical reasons why men wish to retain ministerial credentials to work in these positions. But the fact is that they are not exercising the calling of a Minister of Word and Sacrament in that position. They need to go off campus to do that.

    It just seemed to me to be an inconsistency in the “spiritually of the Church” view to permit its officers to operate in non-ecclesiastical positions as their primary job function. I can understand why college and seminary professors, teachers, presidents, etc. who have been ordained would be protective of their original credentials. But the fact is that you do not need to be ordained to teach or be president of a seminary or college.

    No one seems to question these matters anymore. Or perhaps, like so many things, those in a position to make the call have a vested interest in the status quo.

    “There is a distinctively Christian view of the world that can and should be expressed and explored in education.”

    I do detect an inconsistency when one makes this claim about education and not government or some other non-ecclesiastical sphere. Worldviews are just that, worldviews. And are just as impacting on a civil system as an educational one. One can legitimately be called “Christian” insofar as it conforms to a Christian worldview consistent with Bible teaching. To frame it in terms of the “magistrate doing theology” is too simplistic, IMO.

    • Well Tom I guess we’ll have to disagree. In the 16th and 17th centuries ministers exercised their calls in universities (!). The great theologians of our tradition were all ministers and many of them (e.g., Wollebius, Polanus, Voetius, Ames, Cocceius, Owen, Turretin et al) taught in theology faculties in universities.

      After Enlightenment the theology faculties were jettisoned from the universities and they went into exile. A lot of things changed with the death of Christendom. In the new world, without a state church, faculties remained under direct ecclesiastical control (e.g., Princeton) but with the reorganization of Princeton in 1929 Machen argued that, given the spirituality of the church and the vocation of the church to preach the gospel, administer sacraments, and discipline that seminaries should be independent of direct church control. Much of what goes on in the seminary is only indirectly ecclesiastical. Does the church as church have an interest in teaching Greek and Hebrew or even systematic theology? No, the church as church has an interest in seeing that these are done and in evaluating the results but not in the direct oversight of the teaching of languages, geography, or even church history.

      So, here we are in this sort of in-between place, in a university faculty in exile teaching both arts (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and theology for the church. One way the church as institution remains connected with the process is by delegating ministers to teach in such institutions. So we have a foot in two worlds simultaneously.

      The question is perhaps a little clearer in a Christian college but the difference is one of degrees. There is such a long history of ministers doing what you say cannot be done that it’s hard for me to credit your argument.

      I don’t think it’s merely about credentials. I think it’s about differing conceptions of what is entailed in the ministry. Can a minister serve the church indirectly or may it only be in direct ecclesiastical service? I think the latter view is too narrow.

      > > > > >

  14. Scott,

    I’m not particularly persuaded or otherwise sympathetic to Tom’s conclusions here.

    But if “we can speak of Christian education,” then why is “Christian biology” dubious? I would second the idea that “there are Christians who do biology but I doubt that there is ‘Christian biology.’” But why couldn’t the same be said for education generally: I understand Christians doing education, but I don’t understand Christian education”?

    And if at least part of what legitimates Christian education is that education is “an interpretation of reality,” I’m not so clear on why “Christian politics” cannot be justified. I mean, it seems like whatever else it may be, politics certainly could also be construed as not only an interpretation of reality but also an execution of it. Which may suggest that politics is at an even higher end of the temporal spectrum of good and necessity. Which may suggest that if there is any creational endeavor that needs a redemptive lens it’s politics before education.

    Again, I don’t in any way begrudge believers to do something like education. But I’m still trying to understand some of the logic involved, and why some redemptively interpreted creational tasks (education) get passes while others (hospitals and governments) don’t.

    • Hi Zrim,

      Well, obviously this is a difficult question. Some people have it that there’s only one way to talk about Christian schooling. Others would seem to have it that there’s no such thing. I think both are mistaken.

      The fundamental question here is whether there is a Christian interpretation of reality, a Christian Weltanschauung, a worldview. I think there is such a thing. I don’t think we should over react to the careless talk by some neo-Kuyperians about “Christian softball” or whatever so that we no longer can speak of a Christian worldview or a Christian theistic interpretation of reality. I’m committed to Van Til’s (and Kuyper’s) notion that there is no “brute fact.” Everything has been interpreted by God. What I don’t accept, however, is the deduction drawn by some neo-Ks that a Christian worldview entails a distinctly “Christian” politics or plumbing. The truth lies between the two positions.

      If there is a Christian worldview then we must have some way of describing the process of inculcating into people a Christian interpretation of the world. I call that process education. That process must happen somewhere. Over the course of history, because of the Enlightenment hostility to Christian theism there has arisen two sets of institutions: self-consciously Christian institutions and those that are, to greater and lesser degrees, hostile to Christian theism. I deny that the latter have come to their views by purely rational or empirical means. The Enlightenment rejection of Christian theism was fundamentally a religious move.

      So, both the Christian academy and the anti-theistic academy are engaged in a religious enterprise. That fact does not mean, however, that everything that emerges from the antitheistic school is false nor does it mean that everything concluded in the Christian school is correct. Both schools will be engaged in enterprises common to believers and non-believers but they will interpret their work differently. They will, in many instances, use common methods, but the difference is the matrix within which the process and the results are interpreted.

      Thus, I say that there is no such thing as “Christian biology” but there is a Christian interpretation of natural revelation.

      That’s a viable distinction isn’t it?

      > > > >

  15. If there is a Christian worldview then we must have some way of describing the process of inculcating into people a Christian interpretation of the world. I call that process education. That process must happen somewhere.

    Me too. But it seems to me that when we speak of “education” to deliver a uniquely Christian worldview we might make a distinction between curriculum and catechesis (which might be similar to the difference between philosophy and theology, respectively). And I suppose I would tend more to say that “that happens” in the joint efforts of both the home and church. It just isn’t so clear to me that the academy was ordained for catechesis.

    Thus, I say that there is no such thing as “Christian biology” but there is a Christian interpretation of natural revelation. That’s a viable distinction isn’t it?

    I think so, yes. I wonder, though, if those who say there is such a thing as “Christian biology” mean “there is a Christian interpretation of natural revelation.”

    But my larger point was to wonder why it would be questionable to affix “Christian” to everything from baking to art to politics, but not to education on the grounds that education is “an interpretation of reality” when the former also involve an interpretation of reality. I agree with your point about no neutrality, and I understand your point about theistic and anti-theistic history, etc. But it seems to me that this translates just as much into into theistic and anti-theistic ways of also doing medicine, art, statecraft, etc. If the anti/theistic argument is employed to stake out a place for Christian education, why not Christian medicine, art, statecraft, etc.? It just seems like education gets to play by another set of rules. My guess is that it has some connection to our sense of covenantal nurture, which is commendable of course. But, again, it seems clearer to me that the home and church together were ordained to carry out that charge via catechesis, not the academy via curriculum.

    • …when we speak of “education” to deliver a uniquely Christian worldview we might make a distinction between curriculum and catechesis (which might be similar to the difference between philosophy and theology, respectively). And I suppose I would tend more to say that “that happens” in the joint efforts of both the home and church. It just isn’t’t so clear to me that the academy was ordained for catechesis.

      I wouldn’t call it catechesis as it prejudices the question. There’s a distinction between theology as an academic discipline and catechesis. The latter is ecclesiastical. The former is not necessarily so. I think a school has to do theology but I don’t think it should try to do catechesis. That would be a confusion of spheres.

      I think so, yes. I wonder, though, if those who say there is such a thing as “Christian biology” mean “there is a Christian interpretation of natural revelation.”

      It would be skeptical to deny a Christian interpretation of natural revelation. The heavens declare the glory of God and creation reveals his law.

      …why it would be questionable to affix “Christian” to everything from baking to art to politics, but not to education on the grounds that education is “an interpretation of reality” when the former also involve an interpretation of reality.

      I agree that baking involves an interpretation of reality but that’s where the doctrine of general providence (or common grace) enters. In the general providence of God the baker does his work and doesn’t have to theorize about or explain reality. He just bakes. Now baking works because of God’s providence and the baker should recognize that but baking works even if he doesn’t recognize it. The Christian school is tasked with theorizing about why baking works. He’s charged with explaining how and why and that involves theology more directly and academically.

      The distinction between a theistic and anti-theistic interpretation of reality is more obvious in the academic sphere than it is in the practical. If a plumber wants to defy the laws of plumbing, well, good luck with that! Just let me know and I’ll hire someone else. An academic, however, may theorize in a way that defies God’s moral/natural laws without experiencing the consequences directly or immediately but the damage will be inflicted on his students. It’s the difference between the practical and theoretical.

      > >

  16. Dr. Clark,

    Thanks for your insight. Not to belabor the point but perhaps to bring it back to my original observation, allow me to ask a couple questions and get your reaction.

    Dr. Ryken is assuming the position of president of a “Christian” college with a particular statement of faith. I assume as president he is required to affirm that statement of faith. However, as an office bearer in a Reformed denomination he is required to subscribe the particular confessions of that denomination. In your mind, which “confession” takes precedence?

    Similarly, you serve at an independent seminary that happens to hold to the Westminster Confession and Three Forms of Unity as statements of faith that the faculty is required to affirm. You also belong to a federation that requires you to subscribe the Three Forms as an office bearer in that ecclesiastical organization. Should a question arise as to some particular teaching in your role as seminary professor, which group gets to determine your orthodoxy and, consequently, your fitness to continue in your role as seminary professor; the board of directors/faculty of the seminary interpreting and applying the Three Forms or your Consistory interpreting and applying the Three Forms? How does the possibility of the first group acting in this quasi-ecclesiastical fashion not impact upon the spirituality of the Church to determine matters of faith and practice?

    • Tom,

      I signed/affirmed the same statement in 1993. It doesn’t say anything that we don’t confess.

      Nothing about our subscription prevents us from affirming true confessions. Surely, however, an ecclesiastical confession is of more moment than Wheaton’s true, evangelical but short statement.

      For my part a greater problem would be their practice of administering communion in chapel. Even before I had an consciousness of the 2 kingdoms I knew that was problematic.

      As a minister and faculty member I’m accountable to both. Ecclesiastically I’m obligated to only the Three Forms, of course, but as prof I’m accountable to what I like to call the six forms of unity. I don’t see the tensions that some seem to find between the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms.

      I assume that any problem with my employer would likely bring ecclesiastical consequences and vice versa. I’m sure the faculty handbook says something about that but I’ve not looked at it for a long time. I try to stay out of that sort of trouble!

  17. For the record here, an excellent presentation by Dr. Ryken and elders re: the move from Tenth Pres to Wheaton College. An excellent example of skilled and competent “elders.”

  18. Have Dr. Boyce’s wishes been thwarted? Did he train up this man to take over @ Tenth? It wasn’t that long ago. I don’t know, I’m just asking…

Comments are closed.