And the mystery theologian is...

The prize (not that there is a prize) goes to Pastor Zach. As the man said, the "Name that theologian" quote was from Holiness (SCM Press) by John Webster.

Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch by John Webster

Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, by John Webster,
Cambridge University Press, 2007, 144pp

Christian theology is an attempt to articulate the gospel in accordance with the witness of Scripture. But how should we view Scripture in the context of the church's theological task? Should we see the Bible simply as a human book that speaks of man's consciousness of the divine? Or would it be better to regard Scripture as a God-given text that the church must seek to understand and obey as best it can? Both positions are obviously reductionistic. The first fails to take seriously Scripture's own claim that it is the living and enduring Word of God. The second recognises the divine origin of the Bible, but does not give sufficient attention to the place of Scripture in communicative action of the triune God. How then may we understand Scripture in relation to God's self-revelatory presence and saving purposes? This book is John Webster's attempt to sketch out an answer to that question.

In the first chapter Webster discusses Revelation, Sanctification and Inspiration. From the outset Webster makes it clear that he does not want to consider the Scriptures in isolation. A theological account of Scripture must set the Bible in the context of God's self-revelation and the reception of that revelation by the church. Webster's concept of revelation has a decidedly Barthian emphasis. For him revelation is reconciliation. But it is possible to hear of God's offer of reconciliation without actually being reconciled to him. Revelation is only reconciliation in the context of the effective call of the Gospel. Webster is right, however to stress the role of Scripture the communicative action of the Triune God. Scripture serves the revelatory presence of God, as the Father brings his people into fellowship with himself through the work of the Son in the power of the Spirit.

The biblical writings are distinguished from all other literature by the designation “Holy Scripture”. Webster invokes the concept of the ‘sanctification’ of Scripture to hold together both the divine and human aspects of the Bible, “the biblical texts are creaturely realities set apart by the triune God to serve his self-presence.” (p. 21). But the theologian is unhappy with the oft drawn analogy between Scripture as a divine/human book and the union of divine and human natures in the person of Christ. He suggests that the analogy blurs the distinction between Christ and the Bible. Webster prefers to speak of Scripture as a witness to God’s Word. This was Karl Barth’s preferred way of viewing Scripture, to the extent that he viewed Scripture as a fallible, human witness to the divine Word,

“The men whom we hear as witnesses speak as fallible, erring men like ourselves. What they say, and what we read as their word, can of itself lay claim to be the Word of God, but can never sustain that claim”, (Church Dogmatics Book I, 2, p. 507).

Webster formulates the idea of Scripture as testimony with greater care and respect. He does not want to so stress the fragility of Scripture’s human witness to the divine Word that the relationship between the Bible and God’s self-revelation become almost accidental. We have to bear in mind the work of the Spirit in the production, preservation and interpretation of Scripture.

What Webster wants to avoid in rejecting the analogy between Christ and the Bible is the attribution of divine properties to the text of Scripture. At this point he draws on Herman Bavinck’s idea of the ‘servant form’ of Scripture. As developed by Berkhouer, this perspective is taken to suggest that in the Bible we have the treasures of God’s self-revelation in ‘earthen vessels’, subject to human weakness. Webster does not spell out what he means by human 'weaknesses', but I guess he has the traditional Evangelical doctrine of biblical inerrancy in his sights. This calls for a couple of comments. First, in Bavinck, the notion of the ‘servant form’ of Scripture is explicitly rooted in an incarnational analogy,

"The incarnation of Christ demands that we trace it down into the depths of its humiliation, in all its weakness and contempt. The recording of the word, of revelation, invites us to recognise that dimension of weakness and lowliness, the servant form, also in Scripture. But just as Christ's human nature, however weak and lowly, remained free from sin, so also Scripture is 'conceived without defect or stain'; totally human in all its parts but also totally divine in all its parts." (Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1, Herman Bavinck, Baker Academic, 2003, p. 435).

Second, I agree that it would be wrong to attribute divine properties to a text. But the Bible is not simply an inert text. It is the product of the God's communicative action. As Timothy Ward points out, Scripture is better described as ‘Word’ or ‘message’ than ‘text’. In Scripture we have God's speech acts performed through the words of Scripture. This construction does not entail divinizing the biblical text, but it does mean that Scripture will reflect the divine identity of its ultimate author. As God’s speech act, we can expect that Scripture will be wholly reliable and without error. (Words of Life, Timothy Ward, IVP, 2009. See p. 78ff for his interaction with Webster).

After discussing the sanctification of Scripture, Webster moves on to reflect on the inspiration of the Bible. He holds to the verbal inspiration of Scripture. But the theologian rightly insists that inspiration does not simply have to do with the original production of Scripture, as God moved men to write the Bible. As Bavinck points out, theopneustos (2 Timothy 3:16) means that Scripture is both God-breathed as to its origin, and God-breathing as he continues to speak through his written Word.

Despite the strictures noted above, there is much that is helpful and thought provoking in Webster’s treatment of the relationship between God’s self-revelation and Scripture. In setting Scripture in the context of the communicative presence of the triune God, he is able to conclude, “what we encounter in Scripture is the terrifying mercy of God’s address.” (p. 41).

Webster also discusses Scripture, Canon and the Church. He provides a good Protestant account of the canon of Scripture in terms of the Church recognising what God has given in the sacred writings rather than the Church conferring its authority on the Bible. He interacts with Gerorge Lindbeck’s postliberal approach to the Bible. Lindbeck lays great stress on the role of the Church as an interpretative community. What the Church makes of the Bible is what seems to matter above all else. But this proposal virtually ignores the self-communication of God in Scripture. The Church is enabled to understand the Bible by the witness of the Spirit. Her authority is not the voice of the Church as an interpretative community, but the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture.

A rich chapter is devoted to reading in the economy of grace. Shortcutting complicated hermeneutical theories, Webster commends a simple, trusting and attentive reading of Scripture, saying, "Faithful reading of Holy Scripture in the economy of grace is an episode in the history of sin and its overcoming." (p. 87). How we ought to remember that when tempted to skim through our daily Bible readings! We need to cultivate a deep, meditative and prayerful engagement with Scripture.

Finally, drawing on the teaching of the Reformers, Webster makes a case for Bible-based theology in the context of the secular university.

Webster’s dogmatic sketch of Holy Scripture helps to place the Bible in its proper theological context – the self revelation of the one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He has attempted give a us coherent account of Scripture as the living and active Word of God to human beings, through human beings. He could have gone further in asserting the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible as God’s authoritative speech. We certainly need to avoid giving the impression that we attribute divine properties to Scripture. We do not worship a Book. But ‘bibliolatry’ is not the only danger we face. We also need to avoid driving a wedge between the eternal and omniscient God of the Gospel and his communicative action in Scripture. God’s Word is ever God’s Word.

“‘The grass withers, and the flower falls but the word of the Lord remains forever’. And this word is the good news that was preached to you.” (1 Peter 1:24-25).

John Webster on Bible reading

"Faithful reading of Holy Scripture in the economy of grace is an episode in the history of sin and its overcoming." (Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 87).

Rebellious Praise

"Praise is the great act of rebellion against sin, the great repudiation of our wicked refusal to acknowledge God to be the Lord. In sum, therefore the Church is holy as, day by day, it magnifies God and worships his name, ever world without end." (John Webster, Holiness)

Alien?

It has become fashionable to question the traditional Protestant teaching on the imputation of the 'alien' righteousness of Christ to the believer. Richard Gaffin recently wrote that,

"righteousness, as imputed, is, in an absolutely critical sense, anything but 'alien'. Here imputation, realised in union with Christ, results in a 'fellowship of righteousness' [Calvin's words]. It is an imputed righteousness, which does not, indeed cannot, exist apart from that union. Why? Because it is not an abstract entity but his righteousness that is imputed to me, reckoned as mine." (Always Reforming, editor A. T. B. McGowan, IVP, 2006, p. 286).

I found myself nodding in agreement when I first read that statement. It is certainly true that Christ's righteousness has become ours because of our union with him. He is "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Jeremiah 23:6). So far, so good.

But reading John Webster's Holiness gave me pause for thought. Webster insists that the holiness of the church and the individual believer is an alien holiness. Now, Protestant theology has long held to the alien nature of justifying righteousness. This safeguards the gracious character of justification. We are justified by Christ's righteousness, not by any works of our own. But Webster insists that holiness too is 'alien' partly because he wants to distance himself from social trinitarianism. That school of thought tends to overemphasise the Church's participation in the life of the Trinity. The distinction between God's intertrinitarian fellowship and the Church can therefore become dangerously blurred. This is what leads Webster to posit that the Church's holiness is in fact an alien holiness. Her holiness is the gift of God's electing grace, effected by the cleansing power of Christ's blood, created and sustained by the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

"The Church's holiness is therefore an alien sanctity. Because the Church is holy by grace, and because grace is a movement of relation and not a mere handing over of a commodity, then in the case of the Church the attribution of holiness is not a matter of straightforward ascription of a property. God's holiness is proper to him; indeed, it is him, for he is originally holy. The holiness of the Church by contrast, is not a natural or cultural condition. As with all the predicates of the Church, the Church is what it is spiritually, that is, by virtue of the presence and action of the triune God. (Holiness, John Webster, 2003, SCM Press, p. 62-63).

This stress on the alienness of the Church's sanctification reminds us that holiness cannot be possessed or domesticated by the Church. She is holy by virtue of the gracious activity of God.

So, maybe there is some value in retaining the notion of alienness. Yes, we are united to Christ so what is his has become ours. We are righteous and holy in him. But our union with him is not ontological, it is soteriological. The distinction between the believer and Christ remains intact. It is his righteousness and blood alone that saves, apart from anything that we have done. In this sense, righteousness and holiness are properly alien to us. They certainly lie outside of us until we are united to Christ by faith. I am not suggesting for a moment that Gaffin's construction would deny this last point. He emphasises that it is Christ's righteousness as imputed that is not alien to the believer. But even when Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, we are accounted righteous in him and because of him not for anything in us. The older language of alienness reminds us that both righteousness and holiness are gifts of grace, not achievements of the believer.

Holiness by John Webster

Holiness, John Webster, 2003, SCM Press

In this remarkable book, John Webster attempts to develop a dogmatic theology of holiness. Webster is an academic theologian with a special interest in Karl Barth. But he does not view theology as a merely "academic" exercise. Theology is a work of human reason that has been sanctified by God and that is subject to the revelatory presence of the Holy Trinity as set forth in Holy Scripture. Webster insists that the theologian needs to undertake this venture with prayerful dependence of the Holy Spirit in the context of the communion of the saints. The grand objective of theology is the sanctification of God's holy Name. Webster disagrees with some modern theologians who seek discern the meaning of holiness by a study of religious phenomenon of "the sacred". We can only understand the holy God, who is Father, Son and Spirit as he brings us into saving fellowship with himself by an act of free mercy. The writer offers a compelling vision of the task of theology,

"Theology is an office in the Church. When Church and theology are shaped into holiness by the gospel, then the work of theology is one to which the theologian is called and appointed and for which the theologian is equipped, in order to undertake a particular task. Theology is not free thought or speech, if by 'free' we mean unattached to any given set of objects or any given sphere of inquiry. Theology is not free speech but holy speech. It is set apart for and bound to its object - that is the gospel - and to the fellowship of the saints in which the gospel is heard as divine judgement and consolation - that is, the Church." (p. 2)

We are to view God's holiness in relational terms. The triune God is holy in himself. His attributes including holiness are a true revelation of the being of God. But his holiness is revealed to us in the acts of creation and redemption. The Father elected human beings for fellowship with himself. The Son has rescued humanity from sin by his atoning work. The Spirit perfects the work of redemption by sanctifying sinners and bringing them into fellowship with God. Webster is clear that God does not set aside his majestic holiness in the event of our salvation. It is as the Holy One that the Lord acts to overcome our unholiness to reconcile us with himself. But what of God's holiness in relation to those who remain in their sin? To such, the holy God is a "consuming fire". The theologian does not comment on this aspect of the subject, choosing to emphasise God's holiness in salvation rather than in judgement. But if an account of holiness is to follow the contours of Holy Scripture, then something should be said about God's holy and eternal wrath against unrepentant sinners.

The doctrine of God's holiness should not be separated from the doctrine of the church because the holy God has acted to sanctify a people for himself. However, Webster is careful to guard against social trinitarianism, which tends to blur the distinction between God's intertrinitarian life and the life of the church. He rightly prefers to discuss God's relationship with his people in terms of the doctrine of election. The church exists because the Father has chosen and gathered a holy people to himself. This is a work of free grace accomplished by the Son and enacted by the Spirit. The church does not possess an innate holiness. Hers is an alien holiness bestowed upon her and maintained by God's sanctifying grace,

"The church is holy; but it is holy, not by virtue of some ontological participation in the divine holiness, but by virtue of its calling by God, its reception of the divine benefits, and the obedience of faith." (p. 57).

The church exists to confess God's own holiness. She does this as she hears and responds to the promise and commands of the gospel. The church's holiness becomes visible when she confesses her sin and asks God for mercy. The holiness of the church is missional. She bears witness to the world in word and deed, "the dynamic of holiness includes not only gathering and withdrawal but also sending." (p. 74). The holiness of the church is expressed as she prays, 'Hallowed be thy name!' "Praise is the great act of rebellion against sin, the great repudiation of our wicked refusal to acknowledge God to be the Lord." (p. 76). This consideration of the holiness of the church - the people of God - is a welcome corrective to privatised versions of holiness and spirituality.

But where does all this leave the holiness of the individual Christian? The theologian devotes the last of his four chapters to this subject. Here is his basic proposition,

"The sanctification of the Christian is the work of the Holy Trinity in which the reconciled sinner is renewed for the active life of holy fellowship with God. Grounded in the electing, reconciling and perfecting work of Father, Son and Spirit, the active life of holy fellowship is the work of faith, which is at every moment characterised by mortification and vivification, and which is actual as freedom, obedience and love." (p. 78-79, italics original)

As Webster expounds this proposition phrase by phrase, he develops a theology of the Christian life of holiness. The holy life is not a matter of autonomous self-actualisation. That would be a denial of our creaturely dependence upon God. The writer draws on Calvin's teaching on 'double grace' at this point. God not only reconciles us to himself and acquits us from guilt, he also transforms us for holy action. The goal of our election is that we should be holy, (Ephesians 1:4). Holiness is evangelical sanctification - a holiness that has been declared by the gospel and is received in faith. But holiness is not only declared in the gospel, it is also commanded by the gospel. The believer has been united to Christ in his death and resurrection. The pattern of the Christian life is that of mortification and vivification. Through the Spirit, sin is put to death and holiness brought to life. The life of holiness is an expression of true Christian freedom. We are free not for self-realisation, but to obey the law of God and walk in his ways.

The theologian draws on the teaching of Barth here and there. His influence can perhaps be discerned in Webster's teaching on election as "the separation of humankind as a holy people" (p. 48). Does this mean all humankind? He does not spell out what he means in detail. But there are many good things here. The writer has given us a well argued and attractive account of Christian holiness. Webster's theology is deeply trinitarian and is full of textual exegesis and biblical reflection. He helpfully draws upon the theological insights of John Calvin, John Owen and Jonathan Edwards. This study enriches our understanding of the holy God of the gospel. Here is a work of 'holy reason' that is of great practical value both to the church and individual believer.