In case you didn’t know, you are on dead on brother, Amen. Damage control at its worst.

If they were transparent from the beginning they wouldnt have made Dr. Tipton look shady. But that’s what they created. WTS is earning every bit of this. They are the shady ones. They can set the record straight if their hands are so clean. I know Dr. Tipton would welcome it.

“ I find it really upsetting that WTS has made public accusations that Dr. Tipton violated their code of conduct without being forthright about specifically how he allegedly violated that code.“

Yep, I think this is the part that is lacking. Everything else, is what it is….

Josh,

1. Maybe you might tell us how your praise of Dr. Tipton salvaged your sweeping generalizations or unsubstantiated conclusion about the thread.

2. Accordingly, it wasn’t for convenience sake that I ignored it. Rather, it was simply irrelevant to your criticism of the thread.

3. Moreover, I never tried to “make it appear that all banter is silly.” Your posts are becoming increasingly curious.

But by all means, take the last word and feel free to mock me by spelling my name as you wish.

But conveniently left out the quote also praising Dr. Tipton for his wonderful work so as to make it appear that all banter is silly.
The cultural Marxism of the broader victimization culture is wrecking havoc on what should be a salient dialogue.

Cherry picking? I quoted then interacted with each allegation from both posts.

Ok. Yeah it’s getting silly now. Congratulations.

Can’t you read instead of merely cherry picking?

“Wish you all the best Dr. Tipton and am looking forward to your labors at RF– its been a great blessing!”

Obviously not all is silly banter Ronny.

Weren’t there more than at least a dozen witnesses among the board that let him go?
No one is besmirching his name.

Settle down you two…..

Every bit of it? All fifty-some comments? The praise of Dr. Tipton too?

Literally speaking, it’s neither “banter” nor “silly.” Nothing here is playful, witty nor trivial. (sweeping generalization)

“No one knows the issues outside of Tipton and Westminster (save the few details currently available).”

No one here is omniscient. So, no one here “knows” whether anyone else knows what Dr. Tipton and “Westminster” know. (pure speculation)

“Which leads to all the radically speculative babble here being silly”

That’s a rather ironic conclusion given the rather speculative and sweeping nature of the assertions upon which the conclusion rests.

The communications dept at WTS could’ve made this discussion and others like it more profitable if a)they didn’t call into question Tipton’s character, or b)gave reasons for calling his character into question. If there’s babble here, it’s because Glenside has “confused their language.”
WTS is still asking for money, it’s still asking us to send our future ministers there. It’s silly to trust them with those two things given what we’ve been told by them. If it is still worthy of those things, it needs to give greater clarity on this. Rarely is there a time to for a Christian institution to defend itself. Now is the time for WTS to defend itself and it’s decisions. For Pete’s sake, WTS hasn’t even asked us to pray that Tipton repents of his unbecoming conduct!

I thought we agreed not to mention that again, Norman.

No one knows the issues outside of Tipton and Westminster (save the few details currently available). Which leads to all the radically speculative babble here being silly.

What exactly is silly about discussing the issues surrounding the dismissal of a chaired professor at one of the Reformed Church’s flagship institutions? Not entirely a rhetorical question. I am genuinely curious. Is it the discussion itself that is silly, or the way it’s being done here? or maybe the way it was done at WTS? Do you mean the discussion here is “bad” or “unhelpful”? Ok. If you actually mean “silly,” well, that’s not ok, nor should it illicit an out loud laugh.

Wish you all the best Dr. Tipton and am looking forward to your labors at RF– its been a great blessing!

Agreed.

I agree completely. Whenever an issue like this arises there must be clear communication. Publishing a statement in which they say he was ousted for “violations of the standards of conduct” can only ever have the effect of triggering suspicions of gross personal misconduct. Either accuse the man directly and in the light, or dismiss the matter altogether. Their behaviour, as far as I can tell from my remote position, falls far short of the principle outlined in 1 Tim. 5:19, “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.”

Until I see evidence I will stand behind Dr. Tipton and regard the incident as the besmirching of a righteous man’s name.

I plan on attending WTS in a years time. Iv heard wonderful things about Tiptons classes and Iv been looking forward to getting to know him. What exactly happened that he would be let go from WTS?

And wouldn’t we expect that Machen, while in the heat of the battle, somehow sinned against Princeton? In a very *qualified* sense I ask, so what?

(I’m not suggesting we take sin lightly or that Dr. Tipton sinned in any discernible way but even if he did, I think the contextual strain of having to defend orthodoxy, to teachers of Israel no less(!), is relevant.)

Amen. Good chose of words. I agree with you

The irony abounds in this situation with Dr. Tipton.

I agree.

With that said, Dr. Tipton has defended his conduct and his commitment to orthodoxy, and he has a host of witnesses who can attest to that. Since there are contradictions in the statements provided, the Church does have a voice and a responsibility to speak to the matters and hold the seminary accountable to her. But I would like to encourage that it be done in a decent and Godly manner.

So, brothers, let us keep in mind that there is a need for a balance between the truth and the need for clarity, Christian duty with humility and charity, especially in matters that we are not immediately involved in. We see this exemplified in the way Dr. Tipton has handled this situation and he is the one who was in the thick of it. Let us use this time show our support to our brother who is going through a good and yet difficult transition. And all of this being strengthened and enabled by God’s Spirit to do his will and set forth Christ in life, word and deed.

I’m pretty sure the legacy just ended with the untimely calming of the “perfect storm.” At the very least, it was Dr. Tipton who filleted the meat of those theologians in order that his students didn’t have to choke on some their bones. (Yes, even the great ones give us bones.)

“I don’t know the details but I trust that the whole board and the administration of Westminster, being ordained elders in good standing, made an informed decision with wisdom and unanimity.”

Without the details I’m not sure how one can be assured of anything of the sort. But if recent history has told us anything, dot dot dot.

I hope that whatever transpired between November 1 (Dr. Tipton won’t be returning in the spring) and December 2 (Dr. Tipton’s tenure ends November 21) won’t somehow become retroactive justification for the decision behind the November 1 announcement.

It is true Westminster’s legacy is bigger than any one professor. However, bear in mind that all those who disciplined Machen in the Presbytery of New Brunswick of the PCUSA were also ordained ministers and elders in good standing. Also, the men who made up the Judicial Commission of the PCUSA General Assembly that did not sustain Machen’s appeal were also ordained ministers and elders in good standing. Good standing does not equal infallibility (and last time I checked, the men who are on the board are there because they have the financial means to contribute to Westminster).

It doesn’t even necessarily equal fidelity (the PCUSA was swarming with signers of the Auburn Affirmation who were in good standing). The wording of the communications from the administration seem inconsistent with themselves, and from the facts as told by Dr. Tipton.

Also, what about Dr. Oliphint’s views on Doctrine of God? Last time I checked, he still holds to the views espoused in that book. How does that comport with the fact that the Seminary bought the rights to the book and then burned it? Why would they do that if there were not something questionable in that book?

Does Westminster care more about its’ own name and reputation or doctrinal fidelity to Christ?

No, what has happened here is a backroom lynching. Anyone who stands by Westminster at this time is complicit in what they have done to Dr. Tipton.

Those who care about the glory of the Triune God and His church should be outraged.

Something’s stinks.

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

It may be worth mentioning that according to this timeline, Dr. Tipton’s supervisor when complaints began was then-Academic Dean, Dr. Oliphint. Hmmmmm….

I wonder who it was that raised the first complaints regarding Dr. Tipton’s purported administrative inefficiencies. Surely, it wasn’t the Academic Dean Dr. Oliphint was it? I mean, that would be a strange coincidence wouldn’t it? Hmm.

Praying for him, and I look forward to benefitting from his work in this capacity.

“Dr. Tipton is considering other opportunities for ministry.” This statement appears misleading at best.

However, I also want to keep in mind that the legacy of Westminster is larger than any one professor. It is that legacy that formed and crafted Dr. Tipton into who he is, not the other way around. I don’t know the details but I trust that the whole board and the administration of Westminster, being ordained elders in good standing, made an informed decision with wisdom and unanimity. Knowing the friendship and respect that some of those men had with and for Dr. Tipton, I’m sure it was a very painful decision that they did not make lightly.

As far as I can see, you have honored the King and defended his truth in the face of opposition. You have not wavered in your resolve and you have encouraged others to do so as well. I am thankful for my time at WTS sitting under your teaching as you brought us what you have learned (from Vos-Gaffin-Kline & the Bible) as you humbly and boldly proclaimed Christ in the classroom. It wasn’t all academics, but it was applicable to every area of life as you poured out your pastoral heart. Your tenure has had a large and lasting impact on us all and I will take what I’ve learned from you and use it and share it for the rest of my ministry, if the Lord wills.

Praise God for his providential care and thank you brother!

They were a series of e-mails sent to the campus community:
Nov 1:
“Dear campus community,

I am announcing that Dr. Lane Tipton will not be teaching in the Spring semester. Dr. Tipton is considering other opportunities for ministry. More information will be forthcoming at the appropriate time. Please pray for the Seminary, Dr. Tipton, and his family during this time of transition.”
Dec 2:
“On behalf of a unanimous Board of Trustees and Senior Administration of Westminster Seminary, it is with sadness that I must report to you that Dr. Lane Tipton’s tenure as a Professor at the Seminary has been ended as of November 21, 2019, after fifteen years of teaching. To avoid misunderstandings, it is necessary to state that Dr. Tipton’s separation from employment is not due to theological or ecclesiastical positions he has taken, but to violations of the standards of conduct required of all professors at Westminster Theological Seminary.

Please join us in praying for Dr. Tipton, his family, and the Seminary community. We are grateful for your prayers.”
Dec 3:
“Dear students,

As a follow up to our communication today regarding Dr. Lane Tipton, we offer these answers to some FAQs.

1. Was Dr. Tipton’s actions in signing as a witness to the charges against Dr. K. Scott Oliphint a violation of the standards of conduct required of all professors at Westminster Theological Seminary?

Dr. Tipton’s employment was not ended because he was listed as a potential witness in the charges. Actions from faculty in the ecclesiastical context are fully upheld by Westminster Theological Seminary provided that they are done decently and in good order.

2. Is the standard of conduct required of all professors at Westminster Theological Seminary available to the public?

The employee handbook, faculty manual, and the standards of conduct required of all professors at Westminster include the standards according to which the scriptures call us to live, including those summarized by the Westminster shorter and larger catechisms. Dr. Tipton’s violation of the standards of conduct was not due to any illegal actions or anything of a financial or sexual nature.

3. What role did other full-time faculty play in the process with Dr. Tipton?

This was a matter conducted by the Board of Trustees and Senior Administration and not by the voting faculty members.

Thank you for your prayerful concern.”

All from Dr. Lillback

Does anyone have a link to see the seminary’s announcement regarding Tipton? I’ve tried to find anything online on my own but nothing comes up besides a link to this page.

Blessings to you and FR.

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Although these are dark days for Westminster, and perhaps especially so for people like Ray and I who will never get a chance to take your classes, your response to much smoke and confusion has been with so much grace and aplomb it has greatly encouraged me, and I can only imagine many others. Like Adam York, Westminsters loss is Refirmed Forum’s gain, but praise God that the church gains.

For anyone reading this, please pray for Westminster Theological Seminary, its professors, its students, and faculty. Pray also for the OPC court proceedings. May we do what is pleasing in God’s sight!

James,

Keep up the great work on the cape. Still want to see a church plant on MV. 🙂

Why wouldn’t a Christian seminary want one of their sharpest minds and top theologian to testify on matters of doctrine? Am I to believe that Dr. Tipton was well equipped to train men for pastoral ministry yet not equipped to answer questions on the stand? Again, implausible. Finally, did Dr. Tipton’s Theology Proper recently take a turn for the worse? Doubtful.

It’s pretty easy to give Dr. Tipton the benefit of the doubt and that’s without considering the other decisions (and delayed decisions) of Westminster Theological Seminary.

Soli Deo Gloria!