In a recent interview with Mark Dever, Darryl Hart suggested that Westminster (CA) students tend to be more historically focused while Westminster (PA) students tend to gravitate toward biblical theology. Hart has asked students from each school which three authors they would prefer to have if stranded on an island. The typical Westminster (CA) would prefer Calvin, Berkhof and Kline whereas Westminster (PA) students would select Vos, Ridderbos and Gaffin.
While I’m not qualified to speak about the accuracy of his statements regarding Westminster (CA), I think he makes an interesting and generally accurate observation. Clearly, this kind of statement cannot be applied to the entire student body of either institution, but as far as general trends go, I believe he’s right. If that’s the case, then we necessarily arrive at an is/ought question. Should we necessarily place a heavier emphasis on biblical theology? Is some other stress preferential or should we place equal emphasis on systematic, historical and biblical theology?
Is that crickets I hear?
It looks like the commentators have opted out of this one. There is a parallel discussion over at Feeding on Christ. Personally, I tend to think that biblical theology is inherently a more important discipline than historical theology. Don’t misunderstand – historical theology is extremely important, but systematic, first, and then biblical theology explicate the truth of the gospel. Historical theology teaches us how systematic and biblical theology have developed over time and what has come about as a result. Thoughts?
Well, I think a balance among ST, BT, and HT is important. I’m not sure WTS ever did HT that well, and my own opinion is that a lack of HT has led to a number of difficulties (e.g. Shepherd). It’s not as if HT is more important than others. But it does help students and pastors know what was at stake in previous eras, and how a tradition is passed on.
In my own rankings, I put ST is at the top of the pile, BT second, and HT third in importance. I’ve caught a lot of flack for saying this, but I think BT has replaced ST as the queen of the theological sciences at WTS. Your own acknowledgment that Vos, Ridderbos, and Gaffin would be the three favorite WTS authors confirms as much.
DGH,
I agree with your rankings. Historical theology is critical for guarding against the errors of the past, but ST and BT are more directly tied to the message of Scripture – by definition.
Certainly, we can’t take the Vos, Ridderbos, Gaffin selection as normative for the student body, but there would be many who would choose those three authors. The BT emphasis might also be the result of its relative novelty to individual students. The fact that many had not been taught reformed BT prior to attending WTS might help explain the emphasis among many of the students.
Personally, I’d have to go with Calvin, Van Til and [probably] Vos. But then again, I’m just a philosophically minded, speculative theologian. Maybe I should read Edwards instead of Calvin!?
Best to read Luther before Edwards. I always take two aspirin before reading Edwards.
I don't see the parallel between the book lists and the BT-HT categories. When did people start thinking of Kline as the champion for the HT department?
I noticed that as well. Darryl's point was that WSC tends to have more of a balance, not that HT is all they emphasize. Berkhof could be viewed as an HT representative on the list.
From the perspective of a WSC grad, I think that it depends to a great extent on who is currently on the faculty. That probably goes without saying, and is not a very penetrating insight, but I lived through the transition from when both Meredith Kline and Jim Dennison were on campus to when they were not on campus. From my point of view, the interest in biblical theology began to cool at WSC in 2000/2001.
Plus, Kline was arguably THE preeminent biblical theologian of the day and his insights were never boring. Add to that Jim Dennison's passion for biblical theological preaching, and students who spent time with both men were very excited about BT/ST & PT. I didn't leave HT out of the list because we weren't interested in it, but, without naming names, the HT pedagogy was…lacking (at least for the core courses). One professor in particular sounded like he was simply parroting the White Horse Inn all the time. I like WHI, and think they're doing the Church a great service, but when you're in grad school, WHI has a more secondary ed feel to it. Hopefully that professor has improved over time (just so we're clear, I'm NOT talking about DGH!!!)
All that to say, the professors who are currently teaching have a great deal of influence on the interests of the students and the direction of the institution. With Kline and Dennison gone, the HT department seems dominant at WSC. Now that Gaffin has retired from WTS, it will be interesting to see how it evolves.
From the perspective of a WSC grad, I think that it depends to a great extent on who is currently on the faculty. That probably goes without saying, and is not a very penetrating insight, but I lived through the transition from when both Meredith Kline and Jim Dennison were on campus to when they were not on campus. From my point of view, the interest in biblical theology began to cool at WSC in 2000/2001.
Plus, Kline was arguably THE preeminent biblical theologian of the day and his insights were never boring. Add to that Jim Dennison's passion for biblical theological preaching, and students who spent time with both men were very excited about BT/ST & PT. I didn't leave HT out of the list because we weren't interested in it, but, without naming names, the HT pedagogy was…lacking (at least for the core courses). One professor in particular sounded like he was simply parroting the White Horse Inn all the time. I like WHI, and think they're doing the Church a great service, but when you're in grad school, WHI has a more secondary ed feel to it. Hopefully that professor has improved over time (just so we're clear, I'm NOT talking about DGH!!!)
All that to say, the professors who are currently teaching have a great deal of influence on the interests of the students and the direction of the institution. With Kline and Dennison gone, the HT department seems dominant at WSC. Now that Gaffin has retired from WTS, it will be interesting to see how it evolves.
A little late in time, but . . .
If stranded on an Island I would have to go with Vos, Calvin, and Muller. And I am a WTS-PH grad!
The reason I would leave Gaffin on the mainland is because his writings are narrowly focused on Paul, and on an island I would need something that would cover the scope of the Bible as you find in Vos's Biblical Theology. I would also need a good ST text, and nothing is better than Calvin still. And for HT perspective can one do better than Muller?
DGH is correct, traditionally WTS-PH has been weak in HT, but that has changed. If WSC has cooled toward its attitude BT then that is shame. BT has to take priority to ST because ST is formulated from BT. Of course, there is a mutual interaction between ST and BT such that ST does provide guide or check to our exegesis – making sure we do not fall in heretical positions (and here HT is important too). But remember, the Reformation was born out of the BT insights of Martin Luther as he exegeted the text of Scripture.
For what it's worth at this late date, as a WTS grad, I would take Calvin, Gaffin and Frame.
I am smitten by the way you covered this topic. It is not often I come across a website with absorbing articles like yours. I will make a note of your feed to keep up to date with your incoming updates.Just brilliant and do continue up the solid work.
If I were stranded on an Island, I would have preferred to have, the Bible, and Confessions, Berkhof, Ridderbos and Van Til. I believe exegetical systematics, biblical theology and reformed pressuppositional apologetics are a proper way to teach and learn theology in our times.
Here’s an updated link to the interview.