Peter Leithart Critiques, John Webster Constructs … T. F. Torrance on Revelation and Scripture

I just finished a really good book, Athanasius by Peter Leithart. There are a few things I am intending on addressing from the book, on various fronts that he addresses in the process of getting at Athanasius’ theology (like a critique of Michael Horton’s Federal Theology … which is lovely). But this piece, this post comes from a hunting-gathering expedition I took into the Forest-land of end notes; which normally I tremble to enter, given its distance from the land of the living in the body of the text itself—but I was brave this time. As a result of my adventurous move, I came across a little critique that Leithart drops on T. F. Torrance’s reading of Athanasius. It’s really not a surprising critique, but it brings up an interesting discussion–methinks–and so I want to address it here.

In the following quote, Peter J. Leithart provides a mini-critique of the Barthian way that Torrance reads Athanasius relative to a theory of revelation (the context of the note is a discussion that Leithart is developing on the tripartite method of biblical interpretation that Athanasius follows—he is noticing how Torrance, according to him, misreads Athanasius). Note Leithart,

[…] and Torrance, “Hermeneutics of Saint Athanasius (Part 1),” Ekklesiastikos Pharos (1970-1971), in four installments. For all its virtues, Torrance’s series imposes a Barthian framework on Athanasius. Torrance detaches the res [reality] of revelation from the word of Scripture in ways that I think Athanasius would have rejected, and he attempts to explain his use of biblical paradigms while holding to Barthian scruples about natural revelation, scruples that Athanasius was far from sharing. [brackets mine] -Peter J. Leithart, Athanasius, 182 fn. 19.

This might mean nothing to you, but to me it is, obviously, interesting. Leithart is simply seeking to provide a critical reading of Athanasius, and so I think his reading is quite fair; further, that his little critique of Torrance, is most likely accurate (Torrance is known for his, as some have noted before, his hagiographic readings of folk … I prefer to think of it as constructive). But this does bring up something, and I wonder how this impacts you. What Leithart is noting when he speaks of Torrance and how he ‘detaches the res of revelation from the word of Scripture’ is in reference to Torrance’s Barthian theory of revelation; wherein there is a depth dimension to scripture, such that the meaning of scripture can’t simply be read off of the syntactical, grammatical structure of the text of scripture, but that scripture itself points beyond itself to its, reality, or Christ. Note what John Webster has written in his abstract to an essay he has authored for the most recent volume of the Scottish Journal of Theology entitled, simply: T. F. Torrance On Scripture; he writes,

Although it was never completed and has had only slight impact, T. F. Torrance’s work on the nature and interpretation of scripture is a primary element in his theology, though largely unstudied. For Torrance, a theology of scripture and its interpretation derive from a theology of revelation; revelation takes creaturely form in the incarnate Word, out of which is generated the apostolic community and its witness, which in turn generates scripture, the human word which ministers the divine Word. Scripture is the divine Word accommodated to human form, and so a sacrament or sign which refers to revelation; its social location is the life of the apostolic community. Interpretation of scripture is properly ‘depth-interpretation’, following the semantics of scripture by which reference to divine reality is made, rather than terminating on scripture’s syntactical surface. Fitting interpretative practice follows the text’s reference, penetrates to the thing signified, indwells its subject matters and listens to the divine Word. The interpreter is summoned to mortification of prejudice and constantly renewed attentiveness…. (see full biblio and abstract here)

So what do you think? 1) What do you think about a theory of revelation? Would you follow what Leithart attributes to Athanasius?; which is really just the traditional understanding of revelation. I.e. that scripture itself is God’s special revelation to humanity. Or, would you prefer Torrance’s and Barth’s approach which hold, that properly ordered, God’s Self-revelation is not collapsed into paper or a Pope; but, instead, it is God’s personal Triune self-revelation of himself through himself, through his eternal Word, his Son? This, as Webster underscores, will have impact upon, at least, the emphases of your biblical interpretation (like your methodology, and the ethics of reading the text etc.).

I would like to know what theory of revelation you follow, and why? Only if you want to let me know though …

A Critique of the ‘What Would Jesus Do?’ Society

I really like how John Webster describes Barth’s understanding against the Liberal Protestantism of his day. Ironically, I think, that the way Barth understood the Liberal Protestants of his day, could (should) be the way (by and large) that we understand American Evangelicals of our day [please note: I am speaking in generalities, there are obviously many exceptions to this amongst American Evangelicals, just as there was exceptions to the Liberal Protestants in Barth’s day]. In fact, I think this dovetails nicely with the post I just posted on Occupy Wall Street. It gets to the question of how it is that “good” honest hard working (even Christian) people can be duped into thinking that the aformentioned attributes serve as the garb that justifies their place in society (i.e. as good honest hard working folk). There is always room for conviction and self-“criticality;” I know we don’t like this, and I know that much of this ultimately bothers our sensibilities; but we are Christians, people of  love and truth (insofar as we participate in God’s life in Christ).

As I’ve already alluded to, the following is Webster commenting on Barth and his critique of the Liberal Protestants (which I am lifting and applying to American Evangelicals). This is intended to decenter our trust in ourselves, and instead cause us to throw ourselves at the mercy of God in Christ. This is intended to turn our lights on so that we can more critically see how what counts as Christian and Ethical (in America and the West), probably is not as ethical and Christian as we think. This is intended to highlight how it is that “we” so easily become the standard for what is good and right in the world instead of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

[A] large part of Barth’s distaste is his sense that the ethics of liberal Protestantism could not be extricated from a certain kind of cultural confidence: ‘[H]ere was … a human culture building itself up in orderly fashion in politics, economics, and science, theoretical and applied, progressing steadily along its whole front, interpreted and ennobled by art, and through its morality and religion reaching well beyond itself toward yet better days.’ The ethical question, on such an account, is no longer disruptive; it has ‘an almost perfectly obvious answer’, so that, in effect, the moral life becomes too easy, a matter of the simple task of following Jesus.

Within this ethos, Barth also discerns a moral anthropology with which he is distinctly ill-at-ease. He unearths in the received Protestant moral culture a notion of moral subjectivity (ultimately Kantian in origin), according to which ‘[t]he moral personality is the author both of the conduct with which the ethical question is concerned and of the question itself. Barth’s point is not simply that such an anthropology lacks serious consideration of human corruption, but something more complex. He is beginning to unearth the way in which this picture of human subjectivity as it were projects the moral self into a neutral space, from which it can survey the ethical question ‘from the viewpoint of spectators’. This notion Barth reads as a kind of absolutizing of the self and its reflective consciousness, which come to assume ‘the dignity of ultimateness’. And it is precisely this — the image of moral reason as a secure centre of value, omnicompetent in its judgements — that the ethical question interrogates. [John Webster, Barth’s Moral Theology: Human Action in Barth’s Thought, 35-6]

The ‘Human culture building itself up’ was the German one (for Barth) that ultimately expressed itself in German bourgeois society, and ultimately Nazi Germany. For Barth, for the Liberal Protestant, because of the collapse of the Christian self into the self as the moral self; there no longer remained space for Christ to break in and speak a fresh word of holiness over and against the established norms of what the Liberal Protestant had come to already think of what counted as such. In other words, Barth was against a What Would Jesus Do? society.

I am appropriating this critique from Barth (a la Webster) for the American Evangelical in particular. We have come to think that what counts as moral is captured by the symbol ‘Conservative’. It is this absolutized ‘Conservative Self’ that presumes that what it means to be moral, and Christian is to ask, simply, ‘What Would Jesus Do?’ This perfectly illustrates Barth’s critique of the German Liberal Protestant. For them, as for us, to be Christian, was to be nationalist, exceptional, and normal. It is this posture that negates any space for the Word of God to break in on all of these norms or the status quo; since the status quo is synonymous with being Christian. And it is this self-evidential situation which allows for atrocities to take place in the name of Christ; through the “absolute self.”

Is what I am getting at overstated?

John Webster: What Happens When the Christian is Reading Scripture?

Just as the last piece I quoted from Webster, this piece focuses on the aspect of sanctification as definitive for the Christian as he/she reads the scriptures. Webster in his book “Holy Scripture” elaborates on this focus, and for that I would commend it to your bibliography. In the quote below, Webster is underscoring that, basically (oversimplified) the text reads us more than we read it; since this is the place that God has decided to confront and encounter us. It is through this process of dynamic interplay between God and his people (us), that he confronts our sinful patterns of idolatry and theology of glory; one of the many reasons, why it is so important to simply read scripture! It is only as we are sanctified through divine encounter, with Christ, that we are continually made ready for him as his bride; in other words, we need to be washed, we need to be sanctified on a daily basis—this is the point that Jesus is making here,

1 It was just before the Passover Festival. Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus. 3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4 so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. 6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” 7 Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” 8 “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” 9 “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!” 10 Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean. 12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them. John 13:1-17 (NIV)

It is through encounter with him, and now each other, in him; that we continually are washed anew. If anything this should challenge us to be reading and meditating upon scripture without ceasing! I think we settle too quickly for the rubbish and titillation that this world has to offer; in fact it is this that we need to be washed of. I take what Webster offers below as a theological account of what I just wrote above.

First, the reader is to be envisaged as within the hermeneutical situation as we have been attempting to portray it, not as transcending it or making it merely an object of will. The reader is an actor within a larger web of event and activities, supreme among which is God’s act in which God speaks God’s Word through the text of the Bible to the people of God, as he instructs them and teaches them in the way they should go. As a participant in this historical process, the reader is spoken to in the text. This speaking, and the hearing which it promotes, occurs as part of the drama which encloses human life in its totality, including human acts of reading and understanding: the drama of sin and its overcoming. Reading the Bible is an event in this history. It is therefore moral and spiritual and not merely cognitive or representational activity. Readers read, of course: figure things out as best they can, construe the text and its genre, try to discern its intentions whether professed or implied, place it historically and culturally — all this is what happens when the Bible is read also. But as this happens, there also happens the history of salvation; each reading act is also bound up within the dynamic of idolatry, repentance and resolute turning from sin which takes place when God’s Word addresses humanity. And it is this dynamic which is definitive of the Christian reader of the Bible. [[John Webster, “Hermeneutics in Modern Theology: Some Doctrinal Reflections,” Scottish Journal of Theology, 336]

And here Webster, just following, quotes T. F. Torrance which makes even more clear what he has just stated:

. . . Or, again, a modern Reformed theologian, T. F. Torrance notes the inseparability of biblical revelation from the larger framework of reconciliation between God and sinners:’… the Word of God comes to us in the Bible not nakedly and directly with clear compelling self-demonstration of the kind that we can read it off easily without the pain and struggle of self-renunciation and decision, but it comes to us in the limitation and imperfection, the ambiguities and contradictions of our fallen ways of thought and speech, seeking us in the questionable forms of our humanity where we have to let ourselves be questioned down to the roots of our being in order to hear it as God’s Word. It is not a Word that we can hear by our clear-sightedness or master by our reason, but one that we can hear only through judgment of the very humanity in which it is clothed and to which it is addressed and therefore only through crucifixion and repentance.’76 [T. F. Torrance in Divine Meaning. Studies in Patristic Hermeneutics (T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1995), p. 8. cited by Webster, p. 337]

What a challenge to us. Do you read scripture?

John Webster: On the Authority and Morality of Scripture

Here is John Webster on the authority of scripture, and the moral requirement it involves as we engage it as God’s Word to us:

First, as divine speech and address, the text has authority. Though its genres are widely divergent (and though genre itself is not only a matter of textual form but also of readingstance), the Bible as a whole is address, the viva vox Dei which accosts us and requires attention. God’s address is interceptive; it does not leave the hearer in neutrality, or merely invite us to adopt a position vis-a-vis itself and entertain it as a possibility. It allows no safe havens; it judges. It is an ‘elemental interruption of the continuity of the world’.63 Christian theological doctrine about the authority of the Bible, and about the Bible’s status as ‘Holy Scripture’ has its roots here, in the bouleversement which God’s Word effects. Such doctrine is, crucially, not to be understood abstractly or formally, independent of the events of divine speech and the hearing which it evokes. The ‘authority’ of the Bible is not some textual quality per se, somehow inherent in this collection of pieces of inscribed discourse. Nor is it something which can be grasped as a purely formal relation between text and reader, or between text and teaching (as the quasi-legal language in which it is phrased can sometimes suggest). The authority of the Bible is real and functional; to speak of this authority is to articulate the relation between God as Word and the actions and dispositions of the church as the text is read. The text’s authority, its ‘holiness’ as ‘scripture’, is grounded in the fact that the text mediates divine speech in such a way as to command and establish reverence. [bouleversement=”upheaval”] [John Webster, “Hermeneutics in Modern Theology: Some Doctrinal Reflections,” Scottish Journal of Theology, 332-33]

This is good!

John Webster: Hermeneutics, Some Reflection

Here is how John Webster sums up his discussion on the relation of ‘The Word’ (Jesus) to biblical interpretation (hermeneutics). Webster has been arguing against the usual modes of hermeneutical consideration, as anthropology; and through a resourcement of Barth, he is presenting a ‘way’ that provides for a thick dogmatically oriented mode of hermeneutical theory.

To sum up: because God in Jesus Christ speaks, because Jesus is God’s living Word, then the ‘hermeneutical situation’falls under the rule: ‘We do not know God against his will or behind his back, as it were, but in accordance with the way in which he has elected to disclose himself and communicate his truth’.52 Once this is grasped, then doctrines begin to do the work so frequently undertaken by anthropology or theories of historical consciousness in determining the nature of the hermeneutical situation, thereby making possible the ‘formed reference’ which is the basic mode of theological depiction. [John Webster, “Hermeneutics in Modern Theology: Some Doctrinal Reflections,” Scottish Journal of Theology, 328]

In other words, modern hermeneutical proposals that seek to propound a theory of biblical interpretation that aren’t first given shape by a direct encounter with the Word (Jesus), dogmatically; will always fail to encounter Jesus for who he actually is because the interpretive event is not dominated by him, but them.

On Reading Scripture as ‘Christian’

Something that fits with my continued quest to be a ‘Christian’ in all things, Dogmatically, implicates, of course, hermeneutics. On a personal level, the Lord gripped my heart anew, in confrontational and drastic (or loving) ways, approximately 16 years ago—I was somewhat of a lukewarm Christian just prior to this fresh encounter with him. Part of this ‘grip’ involved an inculcation, in my life, towards becoming saturated in God’s second Word for us, the scriptures. I have been reading through the scriptures (approx. 3x a year sense) voraciously ever sense (even in the original languages). A symptom of this mode of living has resulted in a sensitivity to encounter with, as Webster calls it below, the viva vox Dei (or the ‘living voice of God’); that being itself, God’s eternal Logos, or Jesus Christ of Nazareth. As corollary, I kick against methods of biblical interpretation that do not start, methodologically, with an intentional and principial Christian ontology of reading scripture. More tersely, modern (which includes ‘Evangelical’) methods of biblical interpretation ultimately assume an anthropological posture that (crudely stated) places humanity (as abstracted from relation to God, or dualistically) over the text (and more importantly; material reality) of the written Word. John Webster offers an alternative, Christian, account (and critique) to the usually modernistic, dualistic ways of reading scripture; Webster writes,

Christian reading and interpreting of the Bible is an instance of itself. The complex configuration of text-acts and reading acts, the use of this text with those intentions to achieve these ends, is sui generis. It is not, of course, wholly dissimilar from other acts of reading undertaken by other readers in other communities with other purposes and self-definitions. But establishing the commonplaces and overlaps between Christian and other reading, however valuable in exposing docetism, often serves the purpose of underwriting a foundational anthropology which eclipses what in fact is most interesting about what happens when Christians read the Bible: that the Bible as text is the viva vox Dei addressing the people of God and generating faith and obedience. It is this address which is constitutive of the Christian hermeneutical situation, and it is this which in the last analysis means that that situation is without analogies. [John Webster, Hermeneutics in Modern Theology: Some Doctrinal Reflections, (‘Scottish Journal of Theology’), 317]

This way of construal implicates almost all instances of what counts as hermeneutics today (in the ‘critical’ traditions). To become more blunt (I know this is strange for me 😉 ), there is nothing special or Christian about reading the Bible through the Literal, Grammatical, Historical method today (which is a result of synthesizing enlightenment, rationalist anthropology with ‘Evangelical piety’) [don’t confuse what I label the ‘LGH’ with something like the Patristic ‘Grammatical-Historical’ approach and their usage of theoria). In many a “Christian’s” pursuit to say something intelligible (critical) about scripture; they most often, unconsciously (because they are not ‘Dogmatically’ sensitive) find themselves in cohabitation with ‘form-redaction critics’ (which while on the wane in some circles, is still alive and well in most quarters of what is considered critical biblical scholarship today). The criteria, and assumptions upon which this kind of criticism is built; finds its locus firmly situated in the dualist anthropology that Webster (in the quote) alludes to, and further develops and critiques throughout the rest of his essay (which I am still reading).

What agitates me most, is that ultimately, while good intentions reign, there usually is nothing intentionally ‘Christian’ about how ‘Evangelical’ (so called) Bible Colleges and Seminaries teach biblical interpretation. There needs to be a reformation! semper reformanda!

John Webster is One of My Favorites & A Critique of Evangelical Christology

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 😉 ?

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. 

[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.

Scripture in Soteriology not Epistemology

What do you think about John Webster’s take on “revelation,” under the context of Scripture?:

Yet at the very same time that the doctrine was eviscerated in this way, the demands placed upon it increased to a point where they became insupportable. Perhaps the most significant symptom of this is the way in which Christian theological talk of revelation migrates to the beginning of the dogmatic corpus, and has to take on the job of furnishing the epistemological warrants for Christian claims. This absorption of revelation into foundations has two effects. First, it promotes the hypertrophy of revelation by making it responsible for providing the platform on which all subsequent Christian teaching is erected; and thereby, second, it exacerbates the isolation of talk of revelation from the material dogmatic considerations (Trinity, incarnation, Spirit, church) through its mislocation and its reassignment to undertake duties which it was not intended to perform. This latter aspect of the fate of Christian teaching about revelation had particularly damaging consequences for Christian theological thinking about the nature of Scripture. For alongside the hypertrophy of revelation and its migration into epistemology, there develops a parallel process whereby revelation and Scripture are strictly identified. As this happens, then Scripture’s role as the principium cognoscendi of Christian faith and theology comes to be thought of in such a way that Scripture precedes and warrants all other Christian doctrines as the formal principle from which those other doctrines are deduced. (John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, 12-13)

[hypertrophy=abnormal enlargement of a body part or organ: so in Webster’s usage, the concept of “revelation” is enlarged to the point that it is made bigger, and broadened beyond the scope that it was intended when it is supposed to bear the weight of functioning as the foundation for Christian epistemology]

Does this jive with your conception of Scripture? Do you see it as the foundation and epistemological ground wherein you believe that its primary purpose is to serve as the furniture store for furnishing your theological living room? Or do you see Scripture as a place where God brings you into dialogue with Him, as the place where you are included in the Triune speech; and thus a place where you are enveloped into the divine dialogue that inheres between the Father and the Son by the Holy Spirit? Or do you think that my questions create a false dichotomy either/or situation? Or?

Scripture: Triune Speech

What do you think about John Webster’s take on “revelation,” under the context of Scripture?:

Yet at the very same time that the doctrine was eviscerated in this way, the demands placed upon it increased to a point where they became insupportable. Perhaps the most significant symptom of this is the way in which Christian theological talk of revelation migrates to the beginning of the dogmatic corpus, and has to take on the job of furnishing the epistemological warrants for Christian claims. This absorption of revelation into foundations has two effects. First, it promotes the hypertrophy of revelation by making it responsible for providing the platform on which all subsequent Christian teaching is erected; and thereby, second, it exacerbates the isolation of talk of revelation from the material dogmatic considerations (Trinity, incarnation, Spirit, church) through its mislocation and its reassignment to undertake duties which it was not intended to perform. This latter aspect of the fate of Christian teaching about revelation had particularly damaging consequences for Christian theological thinking about the nature of Scripture. For alongside the hypertrophy of revelation and its migration into epistemology, there develops a parallel process whereby revelation and Scripture are strictly identified. As this happens, then Scripture’s role as the principium cognoscendi of Christian faith and theology comes to be thought of in such a way that Scripture precedes and warrants all other Christian doctrines as the formal principle from which those other doctrines are deduced. (John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, 12-13)

[hypertrophy=abnormal enlargement of a body part or organ: so in Webster’s usage, the concept of “revelation” is enlarged to the point that it is made bigger, and broadened beyond the scope that it was intended when it is supposed to bear the weight of functioning as the foundation for Christian epistemology]

Does this jive with your conception of Scripture? Do you see it as the foundation and epistemological ground wherein you believe that its primary purpose is to serve as the furniture store for furnishing your theological living room? Or do you see Scripture as a place where God brings you into dialogue with Him, as the place where you are included in the Triune speech; and thus a place where you are enveloped into the divine dialogue that inheres between the Father and the Son by the Holy Spirit? Or do you think that my questions create a false dichotomy either/or situation? Or?

On Using Scripture

John Webster comments on the place that Scripture should have in our lives. He references an “old Lutheran divine,” A. Calov, on the “use of the article on Scripture”:

This article is to be used in the following manner: We are to recognize and accept without reservation the holy Scripture . . . as the Word of Almighty God, and we are to regard and cherish it as the most precious of treasures . . . We are devoutly to give audience to God speaking in the Word, we are to reflect upon His Word day and night and we are to explore it with true piety and utmost devotion . . . We are to turn neither to the right nor the left from Scripture, nor are we to suffer ourselves to be moved to the slightest degree by the solicitation of others or the desires of our own flesh, lest in some way we introduce something in doctrine or life which is contrary to better knowledge or against our conscience . . . We are to gain comfort from them alone in every necessity of body and soul, and through patient consolation of the Scriptures have a sure hope of life and remain steadfast to the end of life. (A. Calov, Systema 1, 517, cit. from R. Preus, The Inspiration of Scripture. A Study of the Theology of the Seventeenth Century Lutheran Dogmaticians (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), 12 cited by John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, 68.)

So much more important than the debates around which English translation to use; of more importance is that folks actually use the Scriptures, and approach them in such a way that we believe that God speaks to us of Himself through the Scriptures. There is a place for “critical” engagement of Scripture, but I’m afraid that critics have it backwards if they think they’re the ones doing the critiquing!!