Two Articles on Erksine in The Layman Online

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep, out of a 30 minute phone interview, that's the quote they include. But it is accurate. :)

He left out the part where I said I would not encourage students to go to the college, and have actively discouraged this. ;)
 
Just as a side note, I would commend the reporter from The Layman, as he interviewed many folks, both pro and con, in writing his story. You don't always get that sort of thing in the media nowadays, and he was trying to be fair in what in said. The only thing that worked against him is that he traveled down to Erskine to interview folks for the articles; he was able to talk to admin, but because it was the summer break, he did not get to speak with many students.
 
Here were my thoughts on the first of the two articles:

So many problems with the first article ("Non-ARP students driving
Erskine Seminary’s growth")

"'Until the (ARP) Church starts having some positive growth – the need for associate pastors and new church plants – it’s very tough,' Gaston said. 'All of our graduates right now aren’t placed because there aren’t positions in the ARP Church for them. A lot of our students we educated are going into other Presbyterian bodies.'"

So, the reason Erskine grads aren't going into the ARP is because the ARP isn't growing. But, then, the next line is:

"The Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Charleston Atlantic Presbytery is one of the places that Erskine Theological Seminary graduates are finding congregations."

And we all know the PCUSA is growing by leaps and bounds!

Perhaps the reason Erskine grads aren't going into the ARP isn't due to growth issues, but *theological* issues. This is confirmed by what Donnie Woods (PCUSA) says next:

"I think they are remarkably qualified and ready for ministry"

YIKES! When the PCUSA says you are remarkably qualified for the ministry, something is remarkably WRONG.

I'm also troubled by Rev. Johnston's (Board Member of Erskine) suggestion that separation of the seminary from the denomination is even a possibility. That's exactly what non-reformed folks want! It should not even be discussed. Reform the seminary. That's OUR school!
 
Agree with you Seth. Another thing I was asked that was left out: we have given to the seminary since I graduated, but have not in the last year (because of the problems).

I still think Erskine Seminary is a good school. There are of course problems that need to be fixed. Westminster has had those recently. RTS has had them in the past. Not everyone in the PCA is happy with Covenant. One difference, though, is those places usually have dealt with the problems decisively and fairly quickly, whereas the ARP way is to drag feet and "be nice."

With regard to the PCUSA -- different presbyteries in the PCUSA can be black and white as far as conservative/liberal issues go. I have no idea about the general nature of the presbytery mentioned in the article, but compared to the PCUSA institutions out of which many pastors in that presbytery might come (e.g., Columbia or Union), virtually any school that was remotely conservative would be a step up.

But you are correct; that's not where the praise for the ARP should be coming from. The Layman, though, is primarily connected to the PCUSA, so that's why the article emphasized that aspect, I would think. It might even be a subtle advertisement for Erskine: stop sending ministers to liberal seminaries in the SE when they can go to ETS instead. ;)
 
Marrow Man said:
The Layman, though, is primarily connected to the PCUSA, so that's why the article emphasized that aspect, I would think. It might even be a subtle advertisement for Erskine: stop sending ministers to liberal seminaries in the SE when they can go to ETS instead. ;)
Click to expand...

Especially since The Layman is considered to be the conservative voice in the PC(USA), highlighting confessing churches, supporting those who fight to keep their property and/or leave the denomination, etc. (Just in case anyone thought this was the official voice of the PC(USA)--it's definitely not).
 
On the scale of conservative to liberal, I'm sure Erskine is far to the right of any PCUSA sponsored seminary and in that regard, "conservatives" in the PCUSA ought to be thrilled with Erskine grads. But, is that why Erskine exists? To train "conservative" PCUSA pastors? Listen, if Erskine grads were going into the PCA or OPC at a higher rate than the ARP, then I'd be less concerned. But graduates going into the PCUSA is symptomatic of a whole host of problems:

1. Why is the student comfortable going into an apostate denomination?
2. Why are ARP funds being spent on training PCUSA pastors?
3. What are students being taught (and NOT being taught) that makes them think the PCUSA is a viable option for the Gospel ministry?

That the PCUSA is so comfortable with Erskine is very troubling. Perhaps Erskine's new motto (instead of "Forever Together") should be "Remember Princeton!"
 
Seth, I agree in that we need to ask (actually, it's been asked; we need to keep asking) why ARP students are the ones not going to Erskine? That's part of the problem. In all honesty, the PC(USA) students are being recruited to take the place of the Methodists who left (which is related to this and a good thing; the Methodist powers-that-be would no longer approve students going to ETS, presumably because they came out 1) conservative and 2) quasi-Reformed); someone has to "pay the bills," which the article hinted at.

Also, be careful not to paint all presbyteries in the PC(USA) with the same broad brush. Some are much better than others (and often it depends on where the pastors went to seminary). In SC, Foothills Presbytery used to be fairly conservative (I remember a church that still did not have female elders, for instance), but Greater Atlanta Presbytery is near worthless. And ETS is the main reason I'm in the ARP; after attending there, I decided to join an ARP church and seek ordination in the ARP. So, sometimes that method has its advantages. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top