Edited by Michael Allen and R. David Nelson, A Companion to the Theology of John Webster considers both Webster’s contribution to systematic theology and the development of his thought. The overall tenor of the volume is sympathetic; the contributors are long-time friends, colleagues, and supervisees. The material is divided into two blocks. The first block of essays considers Webster’s theological formation (topics include Eberhard Jungel, Karl Barth, and theological exegesis, among others); the second addresses key themes and topics (including the classical loci of Christian dogmatics). I will focus on a few of the essays before providing some evaluative remarks.
Kenneth Oakes’ chapter, “Webster on Karl Barth,” offers the first extended evaluation of Webster’s reading and retrieval of Karl Barth. Most significantly, Oakes catalogues the enduring positive appeal of Barth to Webster in his late career. The nature and extent of Webster’s retrieval of Barth in his final decade remains an area of dispute. Oakes, however, demonstrates that Webster remained confident of the merits of Barth for contemporary dogmatics—despite apparent shortcomings.
Matthew Levering evaluates one of the most criticized areas of Webster’s thought: its exegetical moorings. Responding to the question, ‘Is Webster’s use of scripture scriptural?,’ Levering defends Webster’s appeal to scripture to ground theological conclusions:
The scriptural citations mount in cumulative significance as Webster’s text goes on, but he does not anywhere announce that he is mounting a cumulative scriptural case. He simply assumes, as a theological given, that God can speak through Scripture to us today, both via individual texts and via a cumulative impact (111).
Capturing the distinctly theological mode of Webster’s exegesis, Levering concludes that the operative principles regarding God’s activity in relation to scripture and tradition are “eminently biblical” (112).
In her essay on Jesus Christ, Katherine Sonderegger carefully guides readers through the key features of Webster’s Christology. For Webster, Jesus is above all “Christus praesens” (208). She writes, “Rarely has the doctrine of the ascension played a more formative role in Christology than in Webster’s, especially in a Christology of the modern era” (208). Because of this, Webster’s Christology is “vigorous and direct, highly compressed and orderly, and shot through with a kind of quiet amazement” (212). In practice, this emphasis on the present, ascended Lord is reflected in Webster’s receptive approach to theology, which Sondegregger describes as a form of “attentive discipleship” (208). Sonderegger also draws attention to Webster’s long-standing concern to situate Christology within a trinitarian frame.
Tyler Wittman contributes a perceptive analysis of the role of “metaphysics” in Webster’s theology. Although Webster does not offer any sustained treatment of metaphysics or philosophy, there are clues and indirect remarks throughout his corpus that bear on these topics. Wittman argues that Webster’s use of metaphysics is “ad hoc, not principled”—determined by the issue at hand (265). This ministerial approach follows from Webster’s dogmatic principles regarding the nature of systematics, which, in turn, follow from his insistence on the material priority of theology proper. With these considerations in view, Wittman suggests that the operative metaphysics in Webster’s thought is best described as an agile theological realism: “metaphysical judgements about matters correspond to some objective reality” (269). Crucially, however, the objective reality is not given in an independent science but disclosed in divine teaching (above all, in Holy Scripture). Wittman writes, “theological metaphysics just is good dogmatics just is good exegesis” (272). Wittman concludes by commending Webster’s mode of reduction, which orders metaphysics to divine teaching (276–79). The discussion is particularly relevant in view of ongoing efforts to retrieve Webster’s thought for constructive dogmatics.
In the epilogue, “Courses Charted but Not Take,” David Nelson provides an analysis of Webster’s writing projects that were underway at the time of his passing. In part, the discussion relies on Webster’s proposal for a five-volume Systematic Theology submitted to Baker Academic. Preparatory and unpolished, the proposal nonetheless provides the only (now) publicly available material on what would have been Webster’s magnum opus. Nelson argues persuasively that Webster’s publication trajectory shapes the final decade of his writings—not only in terms of situating the task itself (in light of what Webster perceived to be the most prominent disorders), but also in working out particular doctrines. Nelson identifies three core convictions of Webster’s late-career thought: the material order of theology proper and economy, the subordination of theology’s polemical and practical-ethical tasks to analytical exposition, and the necessity of possessing a well-ordered intellect and spiritual virtues for doing theology.
Not only does the volume provide an overview of Webster’s theological theology, but it also provides footings for further engagement. To close, I will suggest a few avenues to explore in this vein.
First, the essays by Nelson and Oakes offer perceptive accounts of the theological legacy of Jüngel (chapter 3) and Barth (chapter 4), respectively, for Webster’s intellectual formation. But what are we to make of Webster’s late-career retrieval of the wider Christian tradition (notably, the patristics, Reformed orthodox, and Thomas Aquinas)? Future scholarship can provide extended treatment of these “architects of Webster’s theological mind” (208).
Second, the volume provides a point of departure for further exploration of the genealogy of Webster’s development. As Sonderegger remarks, “Webster was . . . able to learn, to cast off old ideas, and to deepen earlier ones. He did not draw attention to these steps he had taken” (212). The few retrospective passages in Webster’s corpus are exceptional. Several contributors gesture toward some significant shifts: Tyler Wittman registers the shift from a muted apocalypticism in the early years to a “Reformed Thomism” in later writings (275); Paul Nimmo captures the subtle development in Webster’s doctrine of God (286–87); and Sonderegger astutely recognizes the decreasing value of archaeology in Webster’s late-career. The essays thus provide a helpful starting point for characterizing and mapping the trajectory of Webster’s theology.
Third, and finally, there remains a need to situate Webster within contemporary accounts of Christian doctrine, especially because Webster’s late-career sparring partners are more often than not modern figures (even though his resources are by and large patristic, medieval, and reformational). Several essays introduce this task, but further attention to and comparison with such figures will yield much fruit in assessing Webster’s unique contribution. Webster had a deep appreciation for the modern theological tradition—an appreciation that he retained in his later years alongside his retrieval of pre-modern voices.
A Companion to the Theology of John Webster provides a much-needed introduction to the breadth of John Webster’s thought and contributions to the field of systematic theology. The contributors offer perceptive evaluations (including areas of criticism and commendation) of Webster’s theological legacy while also detailing the instruction that his literary corpus provides.
Brent Rempel is lecturer of theological studies at Stark College and Seminary.
Brent A. Rempel
Date Of Review:
January 30, 2023
