Showing posts with label John Webster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Webster. Show all posts

Monday, February 12, 2024

The Theological Task

 A sentence from John Webster that deserves some unpacking:

The primary theological task... is the dedication of intelligence to devout indication and description of Christian verities, whose goodness, once known and loved, dispels anxiety and draws both intellect and affections to satisfaction.

This is from God Without Measure Vol 1, page 100.  In the immediate context, Webster is discussing the doctrine of creation, but the description of the theological task seems to be more generally applicable.  I wanted to try to expand some of the phrases.

The primary theological task...

That immediately indicates that there are also subsidiary or secondary aspects to theology.  Webster mentions polemics and elenctics, both of which might be generally classed as apologetics.  We might add ethics, liturgics, and other branches of theological knowledge.  All these things are important.  They are all part of the theologians job description.  But they are not primary, and they won't be done well if they are allowed to take the primary position.  The primary task is not argumentative but descriptive.

...is the dedication of intelligence...

The theological task is an intellectual endeavour.  In my experience the church does not like this fact.  Intellectual tasks feel elitist.  People like the (biblical!) idea that the gospel is simple enough for anyone; they are less keen on the (biblical!) idea that there are depths in the gospel to stretch the brightest mind.  Theology doesn't always help itself.  It is easy to turn this intellectual endeavour into intellectualism, with accompanying intellectual arrogance.  But it doesn't have to be this way.  Intellectual endeavour is to be in the service of the church.

...to devout indication and description of Christian verities...

The subject and method of theology are dealt with here.  Theology is about Christian verities, the truths which are given in revelation, and the primary job is to indicate and describe these verities.  Because they are objective truths - things that are really real - the first job is simply to point toward them.  This is true of the metaphysical and the historical realities upon which the faith depends.  Theology ought to be very obviously not spinning theories but drawing attention to realities.  A second aspect to this is to describe these realities.  The key thing here is objectivity.  Theology is tied to reality, and therefore it can only follow reality.

...devout...

Just to highlight that one word.  Theology is an intellectual task, but it is also a task to be undertaken with devotion and worship.  This is not just an ideal; it is of the essence of the theological endeavour.  One cannot think right thoughts about God unless one's heart is humbly inclined to worship.

...whose goodness, once known and loved...

The description of Christian truth includes, necessarily, the display of the goodness of this truth.  This is not, or at least not yet, apologetics.  It is not necessarily conscious effort to persuade people to love the truths of the Christian faith.  It is just recognising that unless the goodness and beauty of these truths has been shown, the description of them is not yet complete.  God is goodness and beauty.  You cannot rightly indicate or describe anything about him without describing it in its goodness.

...dispels anxiety and draws both intellect and affections to satisfaction.

Theology seeks to satisfy the mind and the heart, and its task is not complete until the realities which it describes and indicates have taken root and brought out the fruit of delight.  Again, this flows from the subject matter: God is the eternal fountain of goodness and love.  Such a fountain is not accurately described without conveying something of that goodness and love.  Theology can provide genuine satisfaction, not in itself as a description, but insofar as it genuinely points to the source of satisfaction.  Webster's point about dispelling anxiety is important here.  Far too much theology, particularly in this age of cultural pressure on Christian faith, is undertaken from an anxious or defensive stance - it is, in a sense, already apologetics.  The primary task of theology, though, is to be undertaken with a calm attention to the subject matter which rules out anxiety.

Friday, July 09, 2021

The present presence of the risen Lord

The Lord Jesus is alive - risen, ascended, enthroned.  As the Living One, he is present in and to his church by the Holy Spirit.  He himself, as the One who is in heaven, is present with us on earth.  This is something which hopefully all Christians would acknowledge, but what do we do with it?  Is the presence of the Lord Jesus of functional importance to us?

One of the themes running through John Webster's collection of essays Word and Church is the constant danger of ignoring or minimising this presence.  As Webster points out, there are plenty of things - theological things! - that threaten to squeeze out the place of the risen Christ.  The church, for example, can easily expand to take his place, and the doctrine of the church can come to supplant the doctrine of the risen Lord Jesus.  When this happens - and we should probably not move too quickly to glance over at Rome here, since it surely happens closer to home than that - the church's sacramental and liturgical life continues, and it continues to talk about the risen Christ, but it becomes increasingly hard to see what difference it would make if Jesus were absent.  Perhaps he just set up the church and then left it to run - a kind of gospel deism.

I suspect that sometimes in evangelical circles the doctrine of Scripture can pose a threat in this way.  It is good that we have a high view of the Bible and its authority, but there is always a danger that the authority of the Bible is cut loose from the authority of the Lord.  In analogy to the danger with the church, might we come to act as if Christ had provided Holy Scripture as a deposit of sacred truth and then basically left us to it?  What difference would it make to our preaching and teaching if he were absent?

We are used to looking back, to see Jesus in his crucifixion and resurrection; we are used to looking forward, straining to see Jesus in his glorious return.  Are we used to looking up, to see Jesus in heaven - and not only to see him there, but to be lifted up in our hearts to be with him there now, because he is with us?

Because the only substitute for the presence of the Lord Jesus which is held out in the New Testament is the presence of the Holy Spirit.  Think about the discourse in the latter chapters of John.  Jesus is going away, but he will send another Counsellor.  And yet it turns out this is no substitution at all - for where the Spirit is, there is Christ himself!  It is his spiritual presence that we're talking about, or his presence by the Spirit.

It all raises questions particularly for our corporate worship (and I think the NT gives us reasons to talk specifically about Christ's presence in the gathered worship of his people).  When the Scriptures are opened and the word is preached, do we have a sense that Christ is presently speaking to us - is it first hand or second (or third) hand?  Is it the viva vox dei that we're hearing as we hear the voice of the reader and the voice of the preacher?  When we gather at the Table, is it the Lord's Supper that we're attending - is he the host?  Is he present, as the one who was crucified and is now risen, to feed us with his own body and blood?  Or is this just a memorial of a thing that happened long ago and far away?

The Lord is here!