Behind T. F. Torrance, I would have to say that John Webster is my favorite theologian. Everything and anything I have ever read of his (or heard of his—i.e. lectures via Mp3) has simply been some of the most edifying exercises I have ever engaged in! Ironically, I haven’t been able to read very much from Webster (which might kind of dampen my prior words, heretofore); my local theological library hardly carries any of his books. One 
book that my local theological library does carry is his Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. This little book continues to be my favorite book on a doctrine of Scripture. I think my library carries one more book by Webster, his: Barth’s Ethics of Reconciliation, which I haven’t read yet. Anyway, since I know that at least some of his students from Aberdeen read my blog; I wanted to present a request. If you have any essays or anything from Webster that you think I would like to read; then would you please share it with me π ?
Let me close this post with a great quote from Webster. The quote comes from his chapter for the Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology; his chapter is entitled, awesomely, Jesus Christ. His chapter serves as a wonderfully crafted critique of Evangelicalism’s penchant for doing historiography for Christology, instead of theological exegesis & Dogmatics as Christology.Β
[T]he best evangelical theological work emerges from delight in the Christian gospel, for the gospel announces a reality which is in itself luminous, persuasive, and infinitely satisfying. That reality is Jesus Christ as he gives himself to be an object for creaturely knowledge, love, and praise. To think evangelically about this one is to think in his presence, under the instruction of his Word and Spirit, and in the fellowship of the saints. And it is to do so with cheerful confidence that his own witness to himself is unimaginably more potent than any theological attempts to run to his defense. The historical or apologetic anxieties to which evangelical Christology has often succumbed, and the jeremiads against the present age to which it has often given voice, are both overtaken by the sheer splendor of his self-communication. Evangelical Christology is properly doxological in the way it frames and accomplishes its task.
Christology responds to the self-communicative presence of its object in the twofold work of exegesis and dogmatics. Exegesis is not the same as study of the history of biblical literature and religion in their settings. Modern evangelicals have sometimes been bedazzled by the range and sophistication of historical procedures at their disposal, and busied themselves to master them in the hope of outbidding their opponents. But historical studies are the servant of exegesis, not its master. One thing which evangelical doctrines of the sufficiency of Scripture ought to have secured is that the ultimate resource is the text, not what can be reconstructed about what lies behind the text, for the text is an act of God’s self-disclosure. The fruits of the immense labors of evangelical New Testament scholars are by no means negligible; but in and of themselves they do not constitute a hearing of the Word, though they may offer much needed preparation for such a hearing. The real test of the utility of historical work is whether it enables exegesis. In a Christological context, this means that there is more to be gained from a potent reading of the Johannine prologue than from the most exquisite dissection of its historical background. Perhaps one of the most significant influences which evangelical theology might bring to bear upon the study of the New Testament would be to recall its practitioners to the task of theological interpretation, that is, reading Scripture as divine address.
Exegesis is served by dogmatics, whose task is to look for systematic connections between the constituent parts of the Christian gospel, and to attempt their orderly and well-proportioned exposition. In particular, dogmatics can help to prevent the distortions of perspective which can be introduced into an account of the faith by, for example, pressure from polemical concerns or excessive regard for extra-theological norms. Modern evangelical Christology has not been well served in this regard, and stands in need of a descriptive dogmatics of real moment. What is required is not an account of the person of Christ with better warrants (historical or philosophical) but a richer, more expansive, and fine-grained portrayal of the doctrine. In fulfilling this task, there is much help in the tradition, both ancient and more modern, and evangelical Christology may need to give its mind to the task of historical theology. As often in intellectual work, the way back may prove to be the way forward. [John Webster, Jesus Christ, in Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology, 60-1]
There is freedom in being a Christian Theologian; a vocation I continue to aspire to. And John Webster exemplifies what this means, as one of the best in this vocation. This quote (which was only going to be the first paragraph, but I couldn’t stop) is simply, timely. Evangelicals need to come back to their first love, Jesus. And Christian New Testament scholars need to come back to the Scriptures as if they trust them, because they trust Him. I could say much more in response to Webster’s points, but they are thick and clear enough on their own.
Thanks. I share your appreciation of John Webster’s writings. You write of hearing Webster mp3 lectures. Can you tell me where I might find some for download?
Prof. Webster’s Kantzer Lectures from TEDS a few years back are still online (audio): http://www.henrycenter.org/kantzer-lectures-past/
Bobby, have you seen JW’s newer piece on TFT on Scripture yet? It’ll be in the forthcoming essay collection The Domain of the Word. His short intro editorials in IJST are also great for snippets on the general discipline and practice of systematic theology.
Darren has pointed where I would point. Word and Church is a bit pricey, but worth the expense, though the other essay collection, Confessing God, is a bit more out of reach price wise. Webster is certainly my favorite living theologian, though I’ll confess to not having read much more of him than you have, Bobby. I forget where, but I remember hearing mp3s of a lecture doing theological exegesis of Ephesians chapter 1. It was brilliant – I wish I could find it again. Or, I wish he’d finally publish the Ephesians commentary.
Who’s John Webster?
The Ephesians lecture was at Covenant College in 2008… Looks like they may have taken the mp3s down. Lame.
Another affordable option is his “Holiness”. This was the first book I read of John’s, and it is still one of my favorites (particularly the chapter on theology at the beginning).
If you have access to an online database, check out his “Principles of Systematic Theology” in IJST, vol 11, 2009. It’s a great intro to the current trajectory of his theology.
@David,
See the link that Darren provided; those are the lectures I was referring to π . Great to hear from you!
@Darren,
Yes, I was aware of that volume; and I look forward to getting my hands on it some day. Maybe I’ll see if I can’t get a review copy. I have read some of his essays, particularly the one that you and Jordan are referring to in IJST—I have an electronic copy of that already. Thank you for the heads up.
@Adam,
Thank you, brother. That’s a good distinction—i.e. living theologian. I have plenty of other top picks, but there is just something about Webster and his ‘Christian’ emphases that I really like, and am edified by! Thank you for pointing me to further resources from Webster, too!
@Justin,
The real question is; who’s Justin Stratis? π
@Jordan,
Thanks for clarifying where those Ephesians lectures were; that is lame!
I will p/u Holiness; I’ve wanted to read that for quite awhile (with a million other things I am currently reading).
As I said to Darren, I already have that essay from IJST, electronic form, and it is excellent.
@Everyone,
Thank you all. I think the only Webster students missing, that I “know” of is Jon Coutts and Randy Boswell. They must be reading Webster.
Btw, another Jordan (not Jordan H.), just sent me massive amounts of Webster essays and resources (it appears, I haven’t had the chance to access yet). This Jordan is a PhD student in Illinois. Thanks other Jordan, and thank all of you Aberdeeners for making a showing, and providing me with some great leads. I knew all I had to do was mention Webster, and you all couldn’t resist (I’m glad π ).
Btw John Webster is an Anglican, and at one time was an Archbishop. He also did his Ph.D. Jungel, who he says pressed him into Barth.
Just a question, but what is it theologically that makes Webster one’s favorite theologian? Especially since you have not been able to fully read his material. Friendly question. π
Webster was an Archbishop? He was ordained and made a canon at Oxford, from what I understand, but I know nothing about any other ecclesiastical office.
I had Webster for his class, “Principles of Systematic Theology,” when I was at Aberdeen, which still shapes how I think about the discipline. I think Darren’s suggestion — to look at his editorials in the IJST — is a very good suggestion. Holiness is a good intro to his basic motivations in doing theology.
My memory is wrong, he was Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon at Oxford. It was Rowan who later became the Archbishop of Wales. I think they both taught at Oxford around the same time. Again going on my old memory here.
Just a note, I am older than both Webster and Rowan Williams! So I am allowed a mental silp now and then. π
*slip.. lol
I checked DOB, 1955 for Webster, 1950 for Williams, and 1949 for me. π
Here’s a little snapshot of Webter’s theology from his own words..
http://www.anglicantheologicalreview.org/read/article/926/
*Webster’s (I am such a poor typer! π
Fr Robert,
I just like him, a lot! I wouldn’t think one would have to read someone’s whole corpus to know whether or not they like a particular theologian. Nevertheless, I just like Webster’s cadence and the way he works constructively. I could base my appreciation for him purely on his book “Holy Scripture.” This book has helped me more than anything else I have ever read on a doctrine of Scripture, and I read this book just at the right time. I have read plenty of his essays, and such; and then heard him in those lectures. That’s enough for me to know that I haven’t come across any other theologian who is quite like Webster.
Bobby: That’s fine, I too have a few like that myself, I love for example the Anglican F.C. N. Hicks, D.D. (Nugent Hicks, sometime Bishop of Lincoln), and I have but one book of his: The Fulness Of Sacrifice, An Essay In Reconciliation (1930, my copy is the Third Edition, S.P.C.K. 1946). Just profound!
I like John Webster myself, I have his Second Edition: Karl Barth.
Btw, Anglicanism and many Anglican’s are just rich in history! And there are some Irish Anglicans also, I mean in history too. And too btw, you might like reading the great Anglican, Austin Farrer sometime. He has been called the greatest Anglican theological mind of the 20th century, by Rowan Williams. Quite a statement from him!
John Webster also taught some courses at McMaster Divinity College (at McMaster University), Hamilton, Ontario back in the early/mid-1990s. At the time I was there, taking my M.Div., he was still full-time at Wycliffe College (Toronto School of Theology at University of Toronto). I took his Contemporary Theology and really enjoyed the course. He was articulate, well-reasoned, positive in approach. I also recall him saying at various points he followed Barth. Regrettably, I do not have any of his books; I have an article or two. Bobby, having access to the material you mentioned was just supplied to you by e-mail would be a treasure, if you are sharing.
Ian,
What an honor to be able to sit under Webster! Yes, he does like Barth, indeed π ; but not w/o a critical/constructive appropriation. In fact, in his book “Holy Scripture” he interacts with Barth’s theory of revelation and doctrine of scripture; it is Webster’s appropriation of Barth, in that book, that helped to finally push me over the edge toward a modified Barthian theory of revelation. I like the way he goes about engaging Barth (you’ll have to read it someday to find out what I mean). I’ll see what I can do about “the material.” Blessings.
@Fr Robert,
Glad you like Webster too!
@Bobby: Perhaps Webster is the most radical, but true Barth scholar today? I would gave Webster’s book: Karl Barth, or ‘Barth’ (the second edition), to the real serious Barth student! And let’s be honest, we are all “students” when it comes to reading and doing theology with Barth! Yes, I too am moving again with Barth! As Barth said he was a child of the 19th century (theological), he moved theology well into the 20th, and to the 21st.. and no doubt will be read until the “eschaton”! As I have said before, Barth is a modern Church Father, not infallible of course, but he does press us into the “theological” place. And may we always thank him for that!
@Robert, I would think McCormack is the most radical Barth scholar around; and that Webster comes in second on this π .
I am a serious Barth student; my address is: 1108 NW 148th Circle Vancouver, WA 98685 π . Ha.
Yes, we are all students, no doubt; at least those of us who are students. I agree that Barth is a modern Church Father; that’s why one must ‘at least’ go through Barth (at some level) if they hope to get to the ‘other side’. Myk Habets and Phillip Tolliday have edited a book on this very topic (published by Wipf & Stock) entitled Trinitarian Theology After Barth; which illustrates this point. Darren has done a review of this book here: http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/12/01/jts.flr164.full?keytype=ref&ijkey=6ial8bXeq313Ugb
Bobby: Yeah McCormack is right there, but he’s not an Anglican! π
Btw, Barth’s filioque is baffling to me? As TFT said, from Athanasius: “that the Spirit and Son coinhere in one another, and that the Spirit is ever in the hands of the Father who sends”… but as TFT finishes, “For Athanasius the Son and the Spirit are both “of the Being” of the Father so that the idea that the Spirit derives from the “Being” of the Son just did not arise and could not have arisen for Athanasius.” (page 188, The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons, TFT)
Fr Robert,
I like TFT’s solution to the Monarchia and economy of God; the way that he shifts the discussion to the ‘being’ of God as something that all of the persons are consubstantial with, and thus eschewing the problems that created the Great Schism for example.
Bobby,
Yes, if the Church only followed more of Athanasius’s splendid thoughts of the doctrine of God triune! It still baffles me how Barth missed this aspect? But Barth was not really a full patristic, perhaps this is his greatest weakness?
True that Barth’s primary conversation partners were not the patristics — though of course he listened to them and attended to them where appropriate. More significant than Athanasius for the doctrine of the Trinity were the Cappadocians; I actually find Athanasius rather weak from a Chalcedonian vantage point, which of course isn’t the fault of anyone living and writing in an earlier generation.
I much prefer Barth’s mode of listening to the Fathers in their particular contexts, and not regarding their formulae as definitive for the church universal, to say, the more honorific or theologically hagiographic mode of T.F. Torrance.
I am suspended at the moment between Barth’s and TFT’s mode of engaging the patristics.
Darren, TFT makes much of Epiphanius and Didymus the Blind amongst others (contra the Cappadocians); what do you make of that and them.
Btw, I would agree that TFT’s mode is more hagiographic than openly constructive at many points in his writing. For example, I am reading his “Calvin’s Doctrine of Man” right now, and it is very apparent that I am reading more of TFT and less of Calvin at certain critical points; I know this, because I know TFT π by now .
I’ll have to plead ignorant there — I don’t know anything about either figure or where they stand with respect to the Cappadocians. I have a friend working on a thesis in Edinburgh on TFT’s use of the patristics, and I’m really curious to see what he comes up with in a few years.
Darren,
Who is this friend? And if you have his/her email I would love to get that; it can only help me in my own research to be in contact with someone like that (if you don’t think they’d mind).
All I know about Epiphanius and/or Didymus is what I’ve read of them from TFT in his Trinitarian Faith.
Please know I am not putting Barth down here at all, just noting perhaps some of the great man’s weak areas. As far as Athanasius, he takes Scripture and works his doctrines from the Bible, and he is not excessive in his approach with speculation, as others can be. And he forms both monotheism and Christology, thus he did or does not formulate a full Trinitarian creed so much. Certainly the Cappadocian’s did formulate a fuller creedal doctrine.
And btw, I would still be closer here to TFT myself, on both the Church Father’s and of course the Trinity. I like TFT’s “theologically hagiographic mode”! π His book: The Trintarian Faith, etc.,is a classic, I just wish people would read it!
Fr Robert,
I definitely lean TFT on his engagement with the Fathers; it’s just that when I read Barth I am intrigued by his way as well.
I agree with you on his book ‘Trinitarian Faith’ it is one of my favorites from him! I think TFT is at his best with his Trinitarian theology.
Bobby,
Yes, we simply must love them both! Btw, again I think Webster’s Second Edition of his book: ‘Barth’, is one great Intro into the theology of Barth! See chapter 6, Reconciliation… I quote from that chapter, page 114:
“I have been very conscious of the very special responsibility laid on the theologian at this centre of all Christian knowledge. To fail here is to fail everywhere. To be on the right track here makes it impossible to be completely mistaken in the whole. Week by week and even day by day I have had, and will have (in the continuation), to exercise vigilance to find that right track and not lose it.” (CD)
One grand statement, certainly! And for all us other wee ‘theolog’s’ to measure!
That quote, is a good one, Fr Robert.