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?

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.

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.

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.