Inerrancy
The Audience of I&I

Westminster Confession of Faith 1 Speaks to the Authority of Scripture. It Is Not, in and of Itself, a Full-Blown Doctrine of Scripture

It and all the future installments of this essay will be linked from the I&I page on this site, or click the title below to go directly to part:

The Authority of Scripture is a Function of Its Divine Origin, not Its Cultural Expression, Although the Bible that the Spirit Has Given the Church is a Thoroughly Encultured Product

More coming soon.

At any rate, in response to the faculty’s request, I produced a 38-page paper that was distributed to the board at their request and to the faculty. It also appears to have been fairly widely circulated (which, as I state on page one of that report, is perfectly fine by me). The report in full even appears on at least one website that I know of.

My original intention was simply to leave the matter where it was, in the hands of the faculty and board, so as not to draw undo attention to seminary matters (even though I felt that this paper would have proved helpful to numerous readers). As it stands now, the attention drawn to this issue is quite pervasive, comes from various sources, and without any aid from me.

In light of these developments, reproducing certain portions of that paper makes a degree of sense.

First, since the paper already has a wide distribution, including electronically, it makes sense that it appear in some fashion on the web page of its author. Second, in the interest of academic discourse, I feel it is very much worthwhile to lay out some of my thinking here for interested readers. Third, what I consider to be misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of my theology continue to be disseminated, both from those outside of the seminary (I will admit I read some of the discussions on blogs, most often with some dismay) but also by those closer to home. Those interested in this matter may benefit from hearing my own thoughts presented in what I hope are reasonably sized chunks. And just to be clear, I by no means intend to suggest that disagreement with my positions constitutes “misunderstandings and mischaracterizations.” I do feel, however, that some criticisms of my position are based on assumptions of the nature and purpose of Reformed Theology, confessional commitment, the nature of Scripture, etc., that I do not hold, nor are they held by most people with whom I interact daily. That is what I wish to clarify here.

What will follow (over the next several days), therefore, is a series of distillations from the 38-page paper that I feel are most pertinent to the ongoing theological discussion. This will likely take several posts. I will also make some adjustments of the original to allow the separate portions to stand as individual posts.

First portion will appear tomorrow.

I have a lot of back-logged ideas for posts here, but I just got back from a week long trip to Seoul. Now, my intention remains to keep this website as a place for biblical theological reflections in our contemporary world, and a post like this might appear to be somewhat off topic. In my view, however, it is not.

First, I should say that this was not my first trip to Korea. I had the privilege of visiting twice before, in 1998 and 1999. Both were a week long and both times I was accompanied by my friend, and former professor/colleague, Tremper Longman III (plus I needed someone to hold open the doors for me). It’s been nine years since my last trip, so when I got the invitation in February, I was very eager to accept.

My main host was Torch Trinity Graduate School of Theology (TTGST) and the invitation came through the chair of the Biblical Research department, Dr. Yoon-Hee Kim. (Dr. Kim’s father is the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, and has a rather harrowing story about survival in Japanese occupied Korea.). TTGST is the only theological school in Korea where English is the language of instruction (although accommodations are certainly made for Korean speakers in certain situations). TTGST is an interdenominational school with students from all over the Far East and elsewhere with a wonderful faculty educated in a variety of schools, many of them western. They are celebrating their 10th anniversary and I am honored to have been asked to speak.

I stayed on their campus for the entire week while, in addition to speaking at TTGST, I made excursions to lecture at: International Theological Seminary, Seoul Presbyterian Seminary, and the Korean Bible Society (all in Seoul). I was also one of three keynote speakers at the 51st annual meeting of the Korean Evangelical Theological Society (KETS). I also gave a second paper at KETS in their Old Testament section.

Accompanying me for much of the week was Professor Bernard Combrink, NT professor from the University of Stellenbosch. He has quite the Reformed pedigree, with a wonderful Afrikaans accent to boot. He gave papers on salvation in Mark as well as Socio-Rhetorical Criticism and Reformed Theology. (The man knows his Ridderbos, by the way.)

My lectures were on Ecclesiastes and the Gospel, Exodus and Historiography, Theological Exegesis, and (stop me if you’ve heard this one) the NT’s Use of the OT. All told I lectured six times, spoke in chapel at TTGST, and preached at a church on Sunday before returning home. I was also treated to a wonderful day of sightseeing and shopping by members of the WTS Korean Alumni Association, topped off with a dinner at Outback Steakhouse. (Don’t laugh: Australia is closer to Korea than it is to Philadelphia. Plus I had mistakenly eaten eel the day before and I figured I needed a worry-free dinner.)

How does all this link up with BT and the contemporary world? Mainly, in terms of the latter. If I may state the obvious, the world is far bigger than suburban Philadelphia. Call me a slow learner, having taught at WTS for 14 years with a significant international population, but there was something about this trip that drove the point home much more so than in the past. Even in my previous two trips this did not hit home, but perhaps I am a different man than I was 10 years ago (let’s hope).

This trip I felt like the foreigner, not coming to grace the Koreans with my presence, but permitted, so to speak, to be a part of something very wonderful that will—and you may want to sit down for this—continue regardless of whether I or anyone else from the west comes to speak. Korean theological education is a multinational, sophisticated, and Christ-honoring movement. I keenly felt that I had no right to address their gatherings apart from their gracious invitation. Moreover, my words were spoken into a context where the same types of hermeneutical and theological questions many of us in the west are involved in have already been addressed and wrestled with significantly. The interaction was nothing less than stimulating and eye opening for me.

Simply put, I was struck by how the questions that engage me as I try to be a responsible biblical interpreter in a changing world are the same ones others face around the world. It stands to reason that we can learn from each other, because we face many of the same questions, even if we address them from and for different contexts. We in the west do not hold an automatic edge in the task of theological education. It was a good reminder to me of how big God is and that he is at work in places and ways I cannot understand.

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.

One thing worth mentioning is that it is very artificial for me to separate the two, because so many of our interactions involved some type of academic issue, whether teaching, grading, writing, scheduling classes, why I wasn’t doing what I was told, etc.

Back in the mid-80’s Al was already hard at work in an office specially set up for him. I was new to WTS, taking Hebrew, and was friends with a PhD student, John Marcott, who was helping Al in some project. I remember it having to do with something like “tagging” the Hebrew text, computers, a lot of big, noisy machines, and stacks of books and papers.

I am probably the last person at the seminary qualified to explain what Al did, exactly. Several colleagues have tried to explain it to me, but it is like explaining PCA politics to a newly converted homeless person. I do remember John taking a stab at it, and, apparently reacting to my blank stare, just saying, “Al is a smart cookie.” But I already knew that.

It wasn’t until I joined the faculty that someone (I can’t remember who) boiled it down for me in a way that even I could understand: “Whenever you open up your computer and see Hebrew, Al did that.” Of course, some of you under-enthusiastic Hebrew students may not be very happy with that, but remember this includes not just the text but the parsing aids, dictionaries, etc. See, Al was watching out for you. (I would have said, in Soup Nazi fashion, “No parsing aid for you.”)

I don’t think that means Al did absolutely everything, but it does mean that he got it started and a lot of people who sell Bible software with the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, in one way or another, owe it all to Al, who, in the early 80’s, realized that (1) he has an engineering degree, (2) he reads Hebrew, (3) computers are likely going to get more popular rather than less popular. To this day I don’t quite understand why Al did not become a billionaire, with several houses, robot servants, and part ownership in the Boston Celtics. (Actually, I know something about that story, but it is complex and beside the point here.)

All kidding aside, Al had a truly international reputation as a result of his work in Hebrew and computing. In fact, Al’s reputation was stronger in Europe than it was here. One need only hang around with Al at the national SBL conference (a yearly conference for biblical scholars, also known as the “Sea of Tweed” conference). A lot of people would be there looking for Al, coveting his time to query him on matters related to Hebrew computing. He ran special sessions at SBL where he would teach the teachers.

Al never received his PhD, but that was because he was too busy changing the face of the study of the Hebrew Bible.

Now—and this is where the professional and personal merge—it is simply startling to me to know how much time Al could put into other matters and still be able to pull off what he did academically. He was a committed and patient teacher; he was well-read in numerous fields of study, including Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomistic Historian and Isaiah (which included an intimate control of the Hebrew text); he supervised more than his share of doctoral and ThM dissertations, and Al’s level of supervision was above and beyond the call of duty; he spent loads and loads of time with students and colleagues; he was the department head from the time Tremper Longman left Westminster until he took up is duties as VP for Academic Affairs—the latter adding a considerable burden to his already full plate. And amid all this, he battled cancer for just over a year.

In all these things, I know that Al occasionally struggled with the lack of recognition he received in his own back yard, but that concern was raised only rarely and privately. His demeanor was consistently humble, self-effacing, directed towards servanthood rather than power, as lesser people in his position might have sought after.

Al had enough to do, but I still wish he could have written more. But, alas, you can’t do everything. But you know, the Lord does not call us to do everything, just to do what we do in his name faithfully and for his honor. In that respect, Al’s list of accomplishments could fill my thumb drive.

May we honor and remember Al Groves, he of blessed memory, for his long and faithful service to the risen Lord.