Nov
11
2009
Three Questions with John Hannah on Dallas Theological Seminary
John Hannah, Research Professor of Theological Studies and Distinguished Professor of Historical Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, has now written the first institutional history of Dallas Theological Seminary: An Uncommon Union: Dallas Theological Seminary and American Evangelicalism (Zondervan, 2009). He was kind enough to offer these candid answers to my questions.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of an “insider” writing an institutional history?
The difficulty faced in writing contemporary history is that prejudice cannot be filtered by the process of time. Therefore, there is a lack of perspective. Also, people are living so that some things that should and ought to be said cannot. Further, people seek to persuade you from their perspectives. These factors, and others, dull the objectivity of the task.
The advantage, of course, is that the availability of eyewitnesses with insightfulness that is often lost with the passage of time.
Why is the relationship between DTS and American evangelicalism an “uncommon union”?
What is “uncommon” about the union of DTS and Evangelicalism is that the seminary does not fit in any of the standard definitions. It is a school that carved out its own tradition by eclecticism.
We are fundamentalistic without embracing some tenants of Fundamentalism, such as secondary separationism; we are evangelical, but not mainstream in some ways. We, at least historically, are Augustinian in soteriology, Plymouth Brethren in eschatology and millennial perspective, and we are mildly Keswick in sanctification theory. Warfield called Chafer confused and I think that has some merit. The seminary is “confused” theologically if combining things not traditionally combined is the meaning of confusion. The seminary reflects its Bible Conference roots in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries of transdenominationalism and eclecticism.
Your book is organized around the five presidents of DTS. In what ways did each of them leave their mark on DTS as an institution?
I organized the book around the five presidents because of their unique contributions in the direction of the school.
Lewis S. Chafer (1924-1952) established the vision of the school around a passion for Bible teaching and evangelism. Theology served those ends.
John F. Walvoord (1952-1986) allowed the school to adopt the color of his emphases and specialty. That is, under Walvoord the school experienced a shift of emphasis to encompass eschatology. Under Walvoord, the school emerged as a significant institution but became known for its eschatology, for good or for ill.
Donald K. Campbell (1986-1994) had the difficult task of guiding a seminary after the tenure of a dominant administrator in the midst economic crisis, turmoil in the faculty, and a declining student body. His unique contribution was that he tried to bring the school into the mainstream of Evangelism, eschewing the appearance of rigidity, without changing the school’s original theological commitments for the faculty, though he did broaden theological tolerance in the student body.
Charles R. Swindoll (1994-2001) delivered the school from an economic downturn and greatly increased the student body. He reversed the numbers from the Campbell era. He was not successful in making the seminary more narrowly focused and less diversified.
Mark L. Bailey (2001-present) is the most astute administrator/ leader of the school since Walvoord. It is too early to know whether he is leading the school or maintaining it. He faces a world that is postmodern; the other presidents did not have some of his challenges.
10 Comments
Some favorite in-class quotes from the ever realistic, yet interminably hopeful Dr. Hannah:
* Our identity is often in what we oppose, not in what we affirm. That confuses God’s people.
* The first thing you owe to any person is understanding. After understanding, you owe them your compassion. Then, after understanding and compassion, you owe them criticism. Let your criticism be tempered by understanding and compassion.
* People today think Christianity is about “How to Be a Better Husband” and “Jesus Was a Great CEO.” That’s crap. He was the Son of God.
* The goal of life is to find a good master to be a slave to.
* Having your own beliefs means you don’t really fit anywhere. That’s the price of conviction … or stupidity – they usually go together.
* Anything I have, I’ll give to you – except my wife and my kids.
* History is like kissing your sister. It not all that pleasant, but you learn a few things.
* Did Christ see himself in me today?
Let’s not forget…”I’m going to go home now and kick the dog”.
Could somebody more familiar with DTS and its history elaborate on this statement regarding Swindoll and his presidency? “He was not successful in making the seminary more narrowly focused and less diversified.”
Is this referring to Progressive Dispensationalism or something else?
Bruce,
I was wondering the same thing. Progressive dispensationalism was introduced when Walvoord was the president though, not Swindoll. From what I know of Swindoll, I would think he would attempt to make it LESS narrowly focused and MORE diversified since he is so grace-centered and tolerant.
I recall speaking with a professor there who said Swindoll lightened the mood around campus to a very high degree. It used to be an ivory tower institution, had a suit & tie dress code, everybody was serious all the time, it was all about academics and very demanding. To my knowledge, Swindoll lightened the load, got a new dress code introduced (business casual), attracted a less rigid group, etc. The professor I was speaking about told me he recalls walking on campus and seeing Swindoll throwing football with a group of students and he accidentally broke a window.
I’m thankful for his former presence here. If it were not for him, I would have never given it the time of day. It is tough to introduce change to conservative institutions, but he was successful. As times change, so must our methods, programs, dress codes, policies, structures, etc. DTS was stuck in the 1930s before he came along and caught it up to date.
According to Hannah’s intro, Swindoll key objective was “seminary as a community, not expansion of programs, buildings, or the student population. In fact, he seems to have felt that the seminary’s size could prove detrimental. . . . He wanted a ‘leaner,’ more focused school. The evidence would suggest that in the latter regard, he did not succeed” (p. 25).
Thanks for the follow-up, Justin.
Interestingly, Swindoll has what seems to be an anti-dispensational quote in the preface to “Pretrib Rapture Diehards” which I found on Google. Mike
I am entering DTS in the Fall ‘10 in the ThM program. Are there certain professors that seem to personally embrace Reformed theology, at least in their soteriology? I expect nothing less than an incredible time of learning and growth during my stay at DTS regardless of who I take, but are there certain professors anyone most strongly recommends taking? Thank you.
Dr. Hannah quotes (or “Hannahisms” as we call them) are the best. Here’s a website full of ‘em: http://www.djchuang.com/hannah/.
I remember telling my wife last year after one of his classes that it seems like the most tender-hearted people I’ve known are those with the lowest view of humanity. Dr. Hannah fits that category. If there are two things he knows, it’s that people are great sinners but Christ is a great savior.
Would like to get some reactions to “Edward Irving is Unnerving” which recently sprang out of the mist on Google (and I also saw it on the Nov. 12th segment of Joe Ortiz’ “Our Daily Bread”).