Caveat: In what appears below I am not speaking in any official capacity on behalf of the seminary.

One of the more frequent false claims about Westminster Seminary California which I hear from prospective students and others is that “you don’t believe in application in preaching.” The short answer is: nonsense. 

 I enrolled at WSC in 1984. Our homiletics (preaching) professor was the Rev Dr Derke Bergmsa. He’s now retired and professor emeritus of practical theology, though he continues to teach preaching practica (courses in which students preach sermons and are evaluated by the professor and the students) each spring. Derke taught (and continues to teach) the “Volbedian reconstructive” method. The method, named for Calvin Seminary professor Samuel Volbeda, requires students to work through the biblical text carefully and rigorously, in the original languages, to apply all their exegetical skills, to find the proper preaching portion (the pericope) and to find in that pericope the central theme that unifies the passage. The outline of the sermon should reflect the aspects of that central theme in the text. Remarkably there are usually three points! As R. B. Kuiper, from whom Derke learned to preach at WTS/P, used to say, the goal of the method is to preach the “text, the whole text, and nothing but the text.” As Derke relates it, “R. B. used to say, “Men, there are three points to every sermon, the text, the text, the text.” The “warrant” (the ground, the basis) for the sermon must be God’s Word as found in the text.

Derke wasn’t the only homiletics prof when I was a student. Bob Godfrey also taught a homiletics course. He used a slightly different method, which also produced three-point outlines, which was designed to drive the student back to the text. Having done the same exegetical work required by Volbeda, Kuiper, and Bergsma, Godfrey’s method was to ask a logical question of the text and to answer it from the text. Of course, this method requires one to ask a proper question, but the churches don’t ordinarily license insane people to preach and thus it shouldn’t be too difficult to do. What did Jesus say? Why did he say it? What does it teach us about sin, salvation, and service? These are the sorts of questions Godfrey wanted us to ask of the text. Back then the Rev Dr Jay Adams directed our DMin program and taught preaching in that context. Anyone who doubts Jay’s commitment to application need only pick up any one of his 50+ books to find out. Start with Preaching with Purpose.

Derke carried such an enormous teaching load when he was here that he had to be succeeded by three faculty members, the Rev Dr Dennis Johnson, the Rev Dr Hywel Jones, and the Rev. Dr. Julius Kim. The late Rev Dr Ed Clowney also taught homiletics here as has the Rev Dr Joel Beeke and the Rev Dr Joey Pipa. I never had Ed as a teacher—I foolishly and stubbornly and arrogantly missed my opportunity as a student—but there may not have been a better sermon critic. I have not had our current homiletics professors as teachers but I have seen them preach and they all believe in and practice applying God’s Word appropriately to his people. If you doubt me then you have not heard them preach. You can do so for free by subscribing to the WSC chapel podcasts. We conduct our ministry in the open so it should be no secret how we preach and what we teach. Anyone who doesn’t know has not taken the time to find out by clicking on a web link or two. We even post sermons by some of our graduates on our website. Here’s a course description from a typical preaching course:

PT504 Practicum: Sermon Preparation and Delivery (1)
Instruction and practice in the method of sermon preparation (including prayer, biblical exegesis, structure and outlining, illustration, application) and delivery. Prereq, PT410, PT500. Co-requisites, NT403 and NT501. This homiletics practicum meets two hours weekly. Spring semester. Mr. Julius Kim. [emphasis added]

Every single one of our homiletics professors has always taught and teaches now the exegetical, homiletical, theological, and moral necessity of the application of the text by the preacher to the congregation. One of the first things that every homiletics student has always learned at WSC is what application is and how to do it. It has always been and remains our understanding of preaching that a sermon without application is not a proper sermon. Indeed, as a matter of history, the Reformed understanding of preaching has always required application of the text to the congregation by the preacher. Read any exposition of Scripture from the classical period of Reformed theology (1520-1700) and one will find Reformed writers and preachers routinely speaking of the “use” of a passage or a “lesson” from a passage.

Now, what counts as application? That, of course, is the sixty-four thousand dollar question. The great thing is that the minister always serves the text. The minister is a servant of God’s Word. His vocation before God and the congregation is to bring God’s Word, not his private opinions. The nature of the application is determined by the nature of the text. A narrative passage will be applied one way, a “doctrinal” passage will be applied another way, a “parenetic” (hortatory—a passage that is primarily exhortation) will be applied in a way that is appropriate to it, and a wisdom text yet another way. In each case, the text must determine the nature of the application. To decide a priori (something decided before all the facts are in) what the application of the text must be, before one has done the exegetical work and let the text shape the application is sheer rationalism. In such a case the preacher is no longer under serving God’s Word.

This is part of the problem in this whole discussion. Too many folk have an a priori definition of “application.” The application of John 3;16 is not the same as the application of Matt 5:17 or Gen 1 or Prov 1 or Ps 23. These are different sorts of texts requiring different sorts of applications. Sometimes the proper application is simply “repent and believe,” but often the application is more extensive than that. It’s almost always appropriate to ask of a passage (and to find the answer to the questions from the text), “What does this text teach me about Christian virtue?” (e.g., faith, hope, and love) or “What does this text teach me about the third use of the law?” Our catechism is in three parts (guilt, grace, and gratitude) for a reason: it follows the pattern of the book of Romans and many passages in Paul where he frequently preaches the gospel and then makes a moral application. For example, he preaches the gospel in Ephesians 1:1-2:9 and then makes what might be considered a moral application,

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (ESV).

There is a sense, however, in which he’s still preaching the gospel. He doesn’t really begin to explicitly and extensively apply the text, to preach the law in it’s third use, to speak about the morally and logically necessary virtues which the gospel should foster in Christ’s people by virtue of their mystical union with Christ, until chapter 4:

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (ESV).

The Apostle Peter, on the other hand, sometimes does things in a different order. He sometimes give the moral application and then the gospel rationale. For example, 1 Peter 2:13 is followed by vs. 21 where he gives the gospel warrant for the moral exhortation. The apostolic pattern, whether in Hebrews or in the Johannine epistles or the gospels is to connect the gospel and the third use of the law. The latter does not appear nakedly in Scripture.

Part of the difficulty in this discussion is that there is not agreement in practice as to what constitutes a sermon. In broad terms this post assumes that a sermon is a close exposition of God’s Word that contains both declaration and application. Declaration is the announcement or proclamation of the law and the gospel. I’ll define application below. A sermon may be “redemptive-historical,” i.e., one that focuses on locating a passage in the progress of redemption and revelation or it may be topical (e.g. the afternoon/evening catechism sermon which tends to focus on the doctrinal or moral sense of a text or series of texts). There is a place for both. It is clear to me that the apostles did not feel compelled to choose between redemptive-historical and topic sermons and the Reformed tradition has never felt the need to choose between these two. 

What is application? It is an appeal to the congregation to reckon with the proclamation, doctrine, and moral demands explicit or implicit in a given periocope of Scripture and to believe its proclamation and doctrine and, having believed, to submit to its demands. Any particular application will be determined by the text. It might be a simple call to faith or it might be a detailed exhortation to godly living. The teaching, nature, and immediate (and broader) context of the preaching text must determine the application.

Perhaps it’s helpful to say what application isn’t?

1. It is not bare lists of “dos and don’ts.” For many “application” seems to mean lists of things to do or 10 steps to a happy marriage. A preacher is not a marriage therapist nor is he Dr Phil or Dr Laura. This is not to say that the preacher should not apply a text to how husbands and wives should love one another, but, as R. B. used to say, any sermon that could be preached by a rabbi (or we might add, an imam) isn’t a Christian sermon. The one thing that that Christian preacher knows, that neither rabbi nor the imam knows, is the gospel of Christ’s holy incarnation, obedience, death, resurrection, and ascension for his people. This must be the basis for any exhortation to obedience and sanctity. Exhortation to obedience and sanctity is absolutely necessary but no more so than the gospel itself. To separate the two is moralism or rationalism or both.

2. It is not ten steps to a happy/fulfilled life. See #1. In general if you see Joel Osteen doing it on TV, it’s probably not something you want to do.

3. It is not a partisan political lecture or learned disquisition on the latest novel. That’s why we have political analysts on TV and public radio or Mars Hill Audio.

4. It is not an angry rant about whatever last irritated the minister. I’ve heard a lot of sermons in Reformed churches that were little more than abusive, angry, bitter tirades by angry, disillusioned ministers. One of the first sermons I ever heard in the first Reformed congregation of which I was a member was by a visiting pastor who is now glorified. We were blessed with a gifted and godly minister who preached Christ sweetly and graciously but this Sabbath the visiting minister began laying into us about our idolatry of the state football team from the word “go.” I can still see his face contorted by anger. Okay. He had a point. We are all idolators by inclination and many of us probably were guilty of idolizing the local football team. It’s always appropriate to preach the law in its first use (see HC Q. 2) and usually in its third use (see HC Q 2 and questions 86–129) Many of us probably were (and remain) too deeply invested in the team and its success. There’s no question that God hates idolatry and that he will not share his glory with another (see the first and second commandments). So, in a sense the preacher succeeded. I remember the sermon. He did make some of us feel guilty for our sins, but I don’t recall hearing the gospel. I don’t recall that he ever told us what Jesus did for us idolaters and that, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, there is hope for us idolaters. I do recall being impressed, however, by his anger and evident disappointment with us and his bitterness. Venting is not application; it’s just self-indulgence.

5. It’s not an expression of the minister’s private views. It is the announcement of God’s truth, by his ordained servant, as revealed in his inerrant Word.

For some folk application denotes some concrete plan for taking back the culture (or whatever) for Christ. Does Scripture teach the sort of cultural transformation model that so many Reformed folk seem to believe? Again, if that’s in the text (which is an open question!) then it should be preached, but for my part I think that finding such a transformationalist agenda in God’s Word is a pretty good trick. Now we’re not arguing about application any longer but about hermeneutics and theology.

“Yes,” you might be thinking, “but I heard a WSC student preach and there was no application at all.” For the sake of discussion let us say that this “sermon” contained neither the pedagogical use of the law nor a call to faith in Christ nor any third use of the law as the moral norm for the Christian life. In such a case the student utterly failed to do what he was taught at WSC. How could that happen? Well, students sometimes fail exams. That usually happens because they don’t listen to or obey their instructors. I find that I must repeat instructions at least three times before students listen and obey. Seminary students are sinners and this means that they sin, that they are sometimes rebellious and stubborn or taken with some novelty or other. Students don’t come to us from a vacuum. They come to us with a background and homiletical influences and patterns. We aren’t the Marines. We’re only a school. We can teach, cajole, beg, insist, and flunk when needs be but that’s about it. If a WSC student does give a poor exhortation, it would be helpful if someone let us know about it. We’re not looking for “rats,” but we do appreciate thoughtful, careful, constructive criticism of student sermons. Many times students do get evaluated, on paper, by elders and others in the congregation and those evaluations are reviewed, with the student, by our practical theology department. Further, when faculty hear students preach the students know to expect feedback. We try to be positive and constructive but we do also correct them. Recently I heard a student sermon that had excellent content but a less than stellar delivery. The student was worried about making mistakes so he took an extensive manuscript to the pulpit and, as a consequence, had poor eye contact with the congregation. We talked about it (and I guess he had other feedback too) and now he knows better. Another student sermon I heard not long ago was reasonably well delivered but had content that needed revision. Again, this student received feedback from faculty almost immediately and, from what I hear, it helped. We are talking about students after all. They’re in seminary to learn. They neither come to us fully formed nor do they leave fully formed. I’ve been preaching/exhorting since 1984 and I (hope that I) learn every time I preach.

There are things a congregation can do to help itself and the student preacher. When this congregation invited the student to preach, did they know the student? Did they bother to call anyone on the faculty to find out about him? (For that matter, how often do classes/presbytries bother to call us to find out about a student before they come to the floor/committee for examination? Rarely). Ultimately it is not the seminary but the church who is responsible for who gets into her pulpits to exhort or preach.

So, Clark, are you telling us that there have never been any influences on the homiletics at WSC that opposed what many people consider to be “application?” No, I’m not saying that. In the now distant past, we had an administrator, who was also an instructor in church history, who was not in the practical theology department, who inculcated into some students a view of preaching which the faculty regarded then (to the degree anyone knew it was happening) and regards now as idiosyncratic and unrepresentative of the seminary and out of step with the Reformed tradition of preaching. That some have tagged this approach to preaching the “Westminster Californiai” approach is bizarre. Yet, somehow we’ve been tagged with this. We’ve even had a distinguished visitor lecture us about the necessity of application as if we didn’t believe in application. It was very confusing. None of us could tell what he was talking about at first. We wondered if was at the right seminary and then slowly it dawned on us that he had the impression that we all subscribed to this peculiar view of application.  

Let me be clear. As far as I know (this is my 12th year teaching at WSC) we all agree with William Perkins on application.

The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect stimulates and stirs it up. But it provides no remedy for it. However the gospel not only teaches us what is to be done, it also has the power of the Holy Spirit joined to it. When we are regenerated by him we receive the strength we need both to believe the gospel and to do what it commands. The law is, therefore, first in the order of teaching; then comes the gospel. 

He continues in the next chapter:

Application is of two kinds, mental and practical…. Mental application is concerned with the mind and involves either doctrine or reproof (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). When it involves doctrine, biblical teaching is used to inform the mind to enable it to come to a right judgment about what is to be believed. Reproof is using biblical teaching in order to recover the mind from error.

Practical application has to do with life-style and behaviour and involves instruction and correction.

He continues by using Paul’s categories (instruction, reproof, correction etc). I commend to you the reading of Master Perkins.

When I was a student we were exposed formally to Derke’s approach to preaching, Bob Godfrey’s approach to preaching, and to Jay Adams’ approach. Some of us were exposed informally to a view that was more concerned about the flow of redemptive history and the unfolding revelation of the biblical eschatology (view of ultimate reality and heaven) that has roots in some modern Dutch-Reformed circles) than about the direct moral application of a passage. This view was attractive to some, especially to those who came out of moralistic backgrounds because it seemed to focus so directly on Christ and God’s grace). In retrospect it’s clear now that this movement did believe in application but in a very limited number of applications. One of the chief applications was, “Don’t be a moralist.” Sometimes this approach, particularly in the hands of a young preacher, could yield arcane sermons or sermons that were more like bible studies than sermons.

No one on campus has inculcated or otherwise advanced this notion among students for many years. None of our homiletics instructors or professors has ever taught this approach to preaching.

WSC is a biblical seminary and because it is, and because Scripture confesses the faith, we are a confessional seminary. Scripture is not raw data. It is not a wax nose. It has it’s own over-arching, coherent theology and it contains multiple threads within that theology. It also contains clear and multiple examples of the moral application of special revelation to God’s people. As a confessional seminary we confess, teach, and preach the moral, logical, exegetical, and theological necessity of applying God’s Word to God’s people in obedience to the Word, in accordance with the faith we have received in a way that is edifying to the church and honoring to her Lord.

UPDATE 

From the “And Another Thing” dept:

• What must be avoided is arbitrary applications or what Mike Horton and others have been calling therapeutic moralistic Deism. I’ve seen some quite random applications from narrative texts. The application from narrative texts has to flow logically from the broader and closer context. It can’t be a springboard for our own opinions (a hobby horse). To pick a hard case, I think it’s fair to move from the bizarre case of Zipporah’s circumcision to the necessity of infant baptism and perhaps more broadly to not holding back from the Lord what is properly his. As I say, that’s a hard case and I’m sure that most Baptists would disagree with my application and I guess at least a few paedobaptists might disagree with me.
• Application is more easily done by a minister among his own congregation than by visiting (e.g., student) preachers.
• Application doesn’t have to be extensive to be effective. It doesn’t have to be heated. There’s no reason why it can’t be done with a smile. One of the most important things I learned from Rev Cammenga (Escondido URC) is how the importance of a well-timed smile.
   
•  There’s nothing about Biblical theology, properly conceived that is against application. BT is nothing more than telling the progressively unfolding story, accounting for the relations between heaven earth, accounting for types and shadows, accounting for the organic unity of Scripture. The writers of Scripture were themselves biblical theologians and they moved from narrative to application freely. I don’t see why we can’t do the same. 
   
• One important thought that I omitted is that it we must resist the temptation to (using Willimon’s term) “translate” the text. Rather we must draw God’s people, the Spirit permitting, into the world of the text. As people identify with the text, as the Scriptures begin to re-describe them, as they get caught up in the great story (particularly in narrative texts), they can and do make application of the text to themselves. Preachers should be aware of this. This doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t make application, they must, but it doesn’t need to be ham-fisted to be effective. Indeed, even the word “effective” is a loaded term. Perhaps we should say that both “affect” and “effect” belong to the Spirit but when I say “effective” I mean, “communicates well.”