Reflections on Al Groves III
I promised three reflections, one personal, another on Al as a biblical scholar, and now a third on Al as a Biblical Theologian.
I am finding that these three categories simply cannot be held apart for long. It was Al the person and biblical scholar that drove him to Biblical Theological reflections and on the nature of the OT in light of Christ. It was his Biblical Theological work that drove him to a deeper relationship with Christ, and therefore with others, as well as giving further impetus for his other academic work.
In this respect, Al was certainly a Westminster product. He combined a mature and open relationship with Christ; as a biblical scholar, he would go without hesitation wherever the text and his work lead; and he brought all of this to bear on the coherence of Scripture as it is summed up in the Messiah.
In other words, Al embodied what the biblical tradition at Westminster has represented among Christian institutions. Now, as I said about Al in a previous post I now say about Westminster: I do not engage in hagiographa (except about the Yankees). But this Biblical Theological (i.e., Redemptive-Historical) approach to the Old Testament, which I feel did not come to maturity until the work of Al’s teachers, Ray Dillard and Edmund Clowney, is an emphasis that makes Westminster unique among Reformed and evangelicals institutions anywhere. There. I said it. Let the criticisms come.
Still, I feel this is true. The particular way of engaging the OT as a redemptive-historical narrative that culminates in Christ’s death and resurrection, and, as importantly, that now demands to be reread in light that central hermeneutical event, is a hallmark of the Westminster hermeneutic. It is legacy that I and others are deeply proud of, and we are so happy to have been taught by and also to have worked with Al, whose teaching and scholarship overflowed with this rich and biblical emphasis.
Part of Al’s Biblical Theological depth was born out of his love for literature in general. As he was fond of saying “there are no free motifs” in the Bible. It is a book rich in intertextuality that is meant to be explored and articulated by the careful reader. Al’s gifts in literary analysis was also seen in his love for movies. His weekly movie discussion nights were quite the hot item. I went once or twice, but any group that can identify movies by who produced it, or what French genre it was representative of, is over my head and I quickly lose interest. If there isn’t at least one explosion every 15 minutes, even today, I think of it as an “Al film” and I turn it off. On a more poignant note, I had the privilege of being at Al’s bedside for most of the day when he died. His bed was in a room lined with shelves, each filled to the brim with movies, and each case was numbered. I distinctly remember seeing numbers well over a 1000, only to find out later “there are more.”
Al’s skills in literary and film analysis helped him see literary (and therefore theological) connections in biblical texts. To put it more strongly, Al looked for connections, themes, etc. He felt it was his job, as a Biblical Theologian to explore Scripture rather than accept mundane observations. He and I spoke on and off about the overlap between such an attitude toward biblical interpretation and Jewish Midrashim, a thought that had not escaped his alert gaze, nor one that caused him any chagrin.
I could continue at length, but perhaps it is fitting to stop here with one final observation. The legacy that Al represented was passed on well to many, many students, and to many of his colleagues over the years. He was a hybrid of a second and third generation Westminster student (i.e., taught by both some 1st generation and 2nd generation faculty). Al was privy to many of the nuances of the long Westminster legacy that few today can claim. And he did it with a grace that few can match. Our loss has been great, but we honor his memory and the Lord he served.
