Nijay noted that Wheaton is looking for a replacement for Gregory K. Beale’s teaching post. Apparently Beale is moving to Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. [See the online video interview with Beale and a couple of WTS guys here.] The move comes at a very critical time for WTS, since it is still working through the aftermath of having Peter Enns removed. By choosing to place Beale on their faculty, they are not only moving in a clear direction toward the right, but are solidifying their stance against Enns.
I am still trying to decide whether this was the best move for WTS and am very curious what others thought about it.
This could be good for the school because prospective students will know exactly the academic atmosphere of WTS and how it understands itself on the subject of the Bible’s nature. Students sympathetic of Enns or other like-minded scholars will apply elsewhere and won’t stir up controversy. WTS has every right to be as conservative or as faithful to their confession as they wish. Since the school was created as an alternative to liberal protestantism, why should we expect them to embrace anything but conservative, reformed scholarship?
On the other hand, by appointing an outspoken critic of Enns, WTS is closing the door on the diversity of interpretation and are becoming less interested in engaging difficult matters of biblical interpretation. Sometimes a little diversity is a good thing, is it not? Are they teaching their students that it’s best to be close-minded or have a monolithic understanding of biblical studies? I honestly don’t know. Beale is a good evangelical scholar and his commentary on Revelation is one of the best out there, but I do wonder if Beale was the best choice for them at this juncture. Any thoughts?
I’m not sure whether Beale was the best pick or not. However, I’m fear the growing reactionary stance of more conservative schools against views different from their own. In the Reformed tradition, bibliology and the New Perspective on Paul are two examples. With regard to the latter, I have it from reliable sources that some schools (I do not know which ones) have taken to asking prospective profs questions designed to reveal any sympathies to the NPP without explicitly asking the candidate for his or her opinion on the matter. I agree with you that to shut the door on dialogue, or to be as conservative as they want is their prerogative. But I would hope that, as graduate institutions, they are teaching their students critical thinking skills, not merely indoctrinating them.
The whole reformed treatment of NPP is both intriguing and disturbing.
I had been most impressed with Beale’s scholarship, but his criticism of Enns disturbed me and I struggled to make sense of it. I didn’t find anything that Enns wrote to be that shocking – and that comes from a student who did his undergrad at Moody Bible Institute.
“Are they teaching their students that it’s best to be close-minded or have a monolithic understanding of biblical studies?”
In a word, yes.
I must admit, however, that I’m an outsider to the conservative reformed perspective. I bailed from Southern Baptist life just as it was making serious inroads. What is the NPP?
NPP = New Perspective on Paul
Isn’t Wheaton pretty “conservative” as well? Or did they try to put some limitations on how Beale teaches eschatology there?
Brandon,
I believe Beale is Presbyterian, thus making WST a comfortable fit for him confessionaly. He has built a fantastic graduate program at Wheaton (M. A. in Exegesis), so for him to have left must have been for something more personal than the whole Enns controversy.
Cliff
Cliff, I have no doubt that this was an important move for Beale personally. In the interview he talks about his deep denominational and theological connections to WTS. My concern, is the current statement made by WTS by hiring him at this juncture.
Mike S,
Having attended Wheaton for the very program which Dr. Beale created, I can confirm your comment that it is a theologically conservative institution. E.g., their bible/theology department, I believe, won’t hire someone who doesn’t hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. However, this need not entail an over simplified and thus rejected position, which, I think, more liberal scholars tend to do (e.g., Bart Erhman). And their mentality is anything but closed off or disengaged. Wheaton regularly invites speakers like Stanley Haurwas or Margret Mitchell to speak at their conferences from outside the walls of Evangelicalism. As to your second question Mike, I can assure you that Dr. Beale’s eschatological teachings were not limited in any way. In fact, his course on Revelation requires the student to read the entirety of his thick commentary.
Back to the original post, Brandon,
I think the argument of the last paragraph is based on a non sequitur:
“…by appointing an outspoken critic of Enns, WTS is closing the door on the diversity of interpretation and are becoming less interested in engaging difficult matters of biblical interpretation.”
While it is WTS’s prerogative to define it’s theological borders, this does not imply that it’s faculty (or students) are disinterested in engaging in the tough questions of biblical interpretation–as you seem to infer. Rather, theological and cultural engagement is what responsible evangelical scholars like Dr. Beale have been doing for a while now. Just because the engagement comes from the confines of a confessional institution does not necessitate closed-mindedness; evangelicals are not fundamentalists.
and so ends my apologetic :)
Greg, I appreciate your comment–it’s a fair criticism. I obviously don’t have ties to WTS so my opinion doesn’t matter to anyone, but I think the timing of Beale’s move is a statement to the larger Christian community. It is a negative statement since it shows that WTS is only interested in viewing scripture through a single lens. Sure the professors will talk about the other positions, but how much diversity exists when the professors have to follow strict theological guidelines? Like I said, it’s WTS’s right to hire like-minded scholars, but that just means I’d never recommend the school to anyone. One of the greatest aspects of my own seminary experience was being forced to interact with professors who held different stances than me on theological issues. Sometimes I end up agreeing with them–other times I retained my original position. Nevertheless, I personally don’t see the point of a student attending a school where they already agree with all of their professors, even if opposing arguments are considered.
I agree that Evangelicals are not Fundamentalists–I read and respect a lot of Evangelical scholarship, even Beale. But I do think that the way WTS handled the Peter Enns situation sure looked like Fundamentalism. It would have been different if Enns were a liberal scholar, but he wasn’t.
Brandon: You said, “I personally don’t see the point of a student attending a school where they already agree with all of their professors, even if opposing arguments are considered.”
Isn’t the point to learn? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems as if you’re saying that if a student agrees with their teacher than the learning process is somehow hindered. I don’t see that as necessarily being the case. Also, as I see it, it’s almost an impossibility that a student is going to “agree with all of their professors,” at least in all matters. And even where they do agree, if “opposing arguments are considered” then where is the problem that you’re seeing? Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but are you saying that someone cannot accurately present a position that they themselves do not hold?
Nick,
The main point I’m trying to make is that diversity, especially at a seminary setting, is a good thing. Diversity tends to challenge the students more. I personally see WTS’s move in the direction away from diversity and I understand that negatively. Of course someone can learn from a teacher with whom they agree. And of course it’s good for students to study with teachers with whom they agree. And, yes, students should attend schools that they find to be a good “fit.” Now, of course professors can teach differing positions, but when the professors generally come from the same background and generally view issues through the same lens, I would think that the students’ experiences will tend to be more monolithic. A scholar like Enns brought some diversity to WTS, which made me a little pessimistic about WTS’s setting once they removed him.
Do you really think a theological position like Enns’s will get a fair treatment at WTS? Of course they will address it, but I doubt they will present it as well as Enns would. I’m not just talking about Enns here, but any position, really.
Now there are a number of reasons why people choose to go to seminary, and for some WTS is probably a good fit for various reasons. But for those who really want to critically engage the field of biblical studies, I personally would suggest a different school. Again I don’t have personal knowledge about the academic atmosphere of WTS, so my judgment may be off. I simply see its scholarship moving away from diversity, which is what I was highlighting in this post. You’re welcome to disagree with me, but that’s how I see it.
Brandon: It seems to me like it’s six in one hand and a half-dozen in the other. The problems that you’ll find at more conservative schools like WTS I think would be found at less conservative schools as well, just on the other end of the spectrum. Like you, I don’t know the academic atmosphere of WTS, but I wonder how significantly it has changed or will change since Enns’ leaving.
Right, Nick! I am picking on WTS a little here just because of the exigency of the situation, but the same goes for any other school with a strong ideological focus–no matter their emphasis.
WTS was in a tough spot. They had to either support their tradition (H. cat)or engage and offer an alternative such as the one Enns was offering. They chose to continue their tradition. Fine. Beale’s a conservative, but Biblical Theology is not WTS strong point. Now it is. In this regard, I don’t think things are so monolithic there.
So what is WTS? It’s a safe place for conservative students to be exposed to the critical issues but to have a supporting staff who adheres to the tradition.
I don’t go to WTS, but I do go to a moderate/conservative school. (Though conservative schools would call my school liberal.) And I have made one observation: Conservatives have conservative literature and liberal literature in their libraries for their students to engage with. This has not been my observation with the liberal institutions, that is, the conservative literature is sparse in comparison with their own thought.
Thanks Rob. By tradition are you talking about the reformed tradition, or the traditional strengths of WTS?
the reformed tradition preserved in the Heidelberg Catechism. Just to be clear, I wouldn’t go to WTS, but I grew up ten minutes from the school and know for a conservative school they are highly academic.
I watched the video of Beale’s interview with Trueman and Garner, and found Beale’s pledge of allegiance to Presbyterianism quite amusing: after all, he was ordained in, and indeed still belongs to, the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference. Of course, as the Westminster faculty pledge requires each voting faculty member to “solemnly, ex animo, profess to receive the fundamental principles of the Presbyterian form of church government, as agreeable to the inspired oracles” and not to “oppose any of the fundamental principles of that form of church government, while I continue a member of the Faculty in this Seminary,” I imagine Beale will have to change church affiliations.
Rob, biblical theology might be currently underrepresented at Westminster (especially since Gaffin’s retirement), but this does not mean that it hasn’t been its “strong point.” In fact, “Old Westminster” (and I use that like some use “Old Princeton”) was the standard bearer of Vos’ approach to biblical theology, and it’s to its biblical theologians that we owe the currency of the Vosian approach to this discipline among Evangelicals (and others!) today. Also, while the “Reformed tradition preserved in the Heidelberg Catechism” is affirmed at Westminster, I believe it’s fair to say that the institution itself is more closely aligned with the Reformed tradition preserved in the Westminster standards — and there are very real differences of point and emphasis. In fact, Clair Davis suggests in his memoir that these differences were at the root of the Norman Shepherd affair.
And speaking of Davis, I recently saw that he has come out of retirement and is now teaching at the newly-formed Redeemer Seminary in Dallas (formerly the Westminster Dallas extension). I note that Dan McCartney has moved from Westminster to Redeemer, as well. It seems to me that we’re witnessing the formation of the New Westminster.
Removing Enns and appointing Beale are two separate steps. The removal of Enns, I think was the right thing to do for a place like WTS. They were founded to occupy a conservative confessional place in the spectrum and they not only can but should defend that place. One can say that Enns was not a liberal, but I would argue that liberalism is an orientation not a position. The SBC “moderates” are case in point. Most of them were far more conservative than a true liberal, yet with time they were taking the denomination in an overall liberal direction before that development was arrested.
The appointment of Beale seems a bit of an unnecessary slap in the face to Enns. However, it affirms in the loudest possible way what the Seminary will be about confessionally. I have to believe however, that Beale’s appointment was as much about his portfolio as his role in this controversy. Beale is in the top flight of evangelical scholars along with people like Don Carson. Landing him gives WTS a breath of fresh air theologically as well as momentum in Biblical Theology.
For those who suggest that their program is weak in this regard, what (non-liberal) option do you put forward as stronger?