Has Westminster Seminary Muddled a Truly Reformed Christology?

In a thought provoking article, Dr. Bruce McCormack of Princeton Theological Seminary examines the findings of the Historical and Theological Field Committee Report, which was issued by Westminster Theological Seminary in the wake of Peter Enns' dismissal; McCormack suggests that their findings were not consistent with Traditional, Reformed Christological constructs, and that there was an alterior motive shaping the nature of their conclusions. The article definitely calls the legitimacy of the Enns' expulsion into question. Check out a few of McCormack's intriguing comments below:

"The issue for the writers of the Historical and Theological Field Committee Report [hereafter HTFC] does not seem to lie in the use of a Christological analogy for assessing the relation of divine and human “causality” in the production of Holy Scripture; the writers are quite willing to argue for their own version of the analogy in question. The real issue is: which Christology counts as “orthodox” for Reformed Christians? The presumption throughout is that a simple and straightforward equation can be made between the Chalcedonian Formula and Reformed Christology. But can it? I will state my conclusion at the outset and then seek to explain how I arrived at it. My conclusion is that the Christology of the writers of HTFC is certainly “orthodox” in the ecumenical sense of the word, but – ironically, given the current situation at WTS - it is not Reformed.

For Reformed Christians, it is not simply Chalcedon which defines “orthodoxy” within the realm of Christological reflection; it is Chalcedon as interpreted by the Reformed Confessions. Or, in the case of denominations like the OPC and PCA, it is Chalcedon as interpreted by the Westminster standards. Westminster’s Christology stands, however, at the end of a long history of confessional reflection on the person of Jesus Christ and cannot be rightly understood without careful attention to that history...."

Later in the article, McCormack voices another rather incisive and polemical critique:

"It is clear what has led the writers of this report down this path. They want a Christology which will allow them to argue (by analogy) for an asymmetry in the relationship of divine authorship to human authorship of the Bible. But in their haste to reach this end, they have unwittingly abandoned the tradition they claim to defend."

For a closer look at the entire article, click Here