John Webster Moves to St Andrews

John Webster has been appointed to a Chair in Divinity at St Mary’s College, the University of St Andrews. Of interest for this blog is the press release, which notes Webster’s future publications:

Book Review: Doxological Theology [7]

Christopher C. Green, Doxological Theology: Karl Barth on Divine Providence, Evil, and the Angels. T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology, Vol. 13 (T&T Clark: London, 2011)

8. § 51, The Kingdom of Heaven, the Ambassadors of God, and their Opponents

It’s no surprise that Barth has arranged CD III/3 so that the kingdom of heaven – or, more precisely, the praise of God in the resurrected Jesus – is the final word on the doctrine of providence. Green not only shows that §51 echoes the final statement of the Lord’s Prayer, with its tone of praise, but also how providence and doxology are natural bedfellows. This ties in with Barth’s ‘radical correction’ to the doctrine of providence: the positioning of providence after God’s election in Christ, which reveals God wholly to be gracious and not capricious. Thus God is genuinely praiseworthy, and there is no need to construct a theodicy in order to explain the relation between God’s holiness and God’s omnipotence.

For Barth, says Green, doxology assumes material participation in Christ, which means a participation in Christ’s priestly and kingly offices. Such participation acknowledges and enjoys the risen Christ as Lord over all things. There is no place to recognise das Nichtige; indeed, from this angle, das Nichtige does not even exist. Barth emphasises the place of the angels in this worship of God in Christ: the angels are constantly praising, and earthly (human?) praise is caught up in the song of heaven (Revelation 4–5) in such a way that angelic praise may be said to anticipate earthly praise: ‘on earth as in heaven’. And because angels are forever praising God, the will of God that creation should praise God is met, even when there are earthly creatures that persist in not praising God. In short, doxology is the ascription to God of all that is God’s in the first place (including good and bad – that is, the good and the ‘shadow side’ of creation), and a material participation in Christ, so that God’s holiness and omnipotence are held together through Christ’s priestly and kingly offices. In this, Barth has returned to his ‘radical correction’, meaning that the issue of theodicy raised by the possibility of divine capriciousness has now been settled by the genuine praiseworthiness of God in Christ.

Green’s chapter on Barth’s account of heaven, angels and demons (which are not an issue for Barth as there is no place for demons when Christ rules as priest and king) is a decent analysis, showing how all the themes emerging from §§48–50 find suitable resolution in §51. Thus Green shows clearly why Barth concludes his doctrine of providence with a discussion of the kingdom of heaven and Christ’s resurrection, and why, for Barth, angelology (he discusses the liturgical function of angels and refuses to speculate about angelic ontology) and demonology must take second place to the resurrected Christ.

9. Conclusion: A Doxological Theology

In his conclusion, Green makes two important criticisms of Barth’s theology in CD III/3. The first centres on Barth’s take on Christian participation in the material and formal offices of Christ. Given that through this participation, the Christian can affirm the risen Christ as Lord of all (the material offices) and recognise that this fact is obscured by a world still subject in some sense to das Nichtige (the prophetic office). Barth’s critique of Reformed orthodoxy on providence and evil exposes what he believes is an ambiguous relation between God’s holiness and God’s omnipotence; but Green argues that Barth has, in effect, relocated this ambiguity to the Christian’s participation in Christ, in so far as the Christian has a double perspective on discerning God’s providence. When it comes to participation in Christ’s prophetic office through prayer, Green wonders if the Christian can ever truly know God as holy in a meaningful way. Moreover, Green notices that because of his emphasis on the Christian’s prayerful participation in Christ through the Spirit, Barth presents God the Father as somewhat ‘eclipsed … in practice’ (Doxological Theology, p. 215) by the Son and the Spirit. This, for Green, is a direct consequence of Barth’s ‘radical correction’, because all that is known about the Father’s lordship in providence is subsumed by the Son’s lordship.

Green’s second criticism seems more straightforward: the topic of eternal life is dealt with in §49.1 (on preservation) rather than in §51 (on the kingdom of heaven), leading to the importance of heaven’s contemporaneity with earth in Barth’s theology of providence. Again, Green sees the roots of this in Barth’s ‘radical correction’. But Green also points out that Barth’s diminishment of heavenly hope (read: afterlife) runs contrary to the majority of the Christian tradition, and that the doctrine of providence is poorer if there is no heavenly hope.

*****

So what shall I conclude about Doxological Theology? While it adds to a wealth of literature persuading me that I need to read Barth on providence again and more closely, my impression is that Green’s insights are especially useful for showing how Barth has structured CD III/3. Green has shown that CD III/3 is to be read as a whole, and that §§50-51 are not merely add-ons to §§48-49. Moreover, Green demonstrates that providence is not an abstract doctrine, that doxology is at its heart, and that Barth’s genius on the matter was perhaps to show how providence is not solely a doctrine about God but also about creaturely participation in Christ; about creaturely obedience and not mechanical causality. If Green is right in his interpretation of Barth, I am not convinced that Barth’s take on the Christian’s perception of das Nichtige is correct, though it is certainly an interesting approach; but this is, of course, an issue with Barth, not with Green. I do wish there was more critical analysis of Barth, but Green does state in his opening chapter that this was not really his intention. And believe me, it’s enough for Green to have supplied such a wonderfully detailed commentary on CD III/3!

In short, I believe that Doxological Theology is an important contribution to Barth studies and more generally to studies on providence. And if anyone is currently working on a Ph.D thesis, Doxological Theology – a revised doctoral thesis – is a prime example of what can be achieved in a three-year period.

Let me close with a quotation from p. 220, in which Green ably summarises Barth’s approach to the doctrine of providence:

Barth writes his doctrine of providence on his knees. Like “sinking Peter,” who turns away from anxiety toward Christ in a moment of dire need, he soberly assures us that this is the correct stance of the theologian before the Lord of history. Therefore, he prays his way through the doctrine of providence, and he does this according to the prayer that is given to him by the Lord.

Vacancies at the University of St Andrews

Steve tells us about some new positions going at St Mary’s College, the University of St Andrews.

Senior Lecturer/Reader in Systematic and Historical Theology

Applications are invited for the post of Senior Lecturer/Reader in Systematic and Historical Theology in the School of Divinity, an internationally renowned centre of excellence. Applicants must have appropriate academic qualifications in Christian theology, including a PhD, and primary expertise in the field of Systematic Theology. You must have experience of successful teaching, assessment and supervision in a tertiary context, and a very strong commitment to research. You will have a strong record of research publications, and the capacity to make an immediate contribution to the established research excellence of the School, as well as a clear programme of anticipated research activity over the coming years.

The School is committed to the integration of the biblical and theological disciplines, and you will be highly motivated to work closely with colleagues across the range of Divinity’s activities. You will be interested in the history of theology, and may have a research background in any major area of classical or modern theology. However, you must also have demonstrable expertise in dogmatics, and be interested in the exploration of constructive theology in a contemporary context. You will contribute to the School’s programmes in these areas at both undergraduate and taught postgraduate levels, and supervise research students. You will also undertake administrative duties as directed by the Head of School.

Lecturer/SeniorLecturer/Reader in New Testament Studies

Applications are invited for the post of Lecturer/Senior Lecturer/Reader in New Testament Studies in the School of Divinity, an internationally renowned centre of excellence. All applicants must have appropriate academic qualifications in New Testament Studies, including an awarded PhD and excellent language skills. Relative to the level of appointment sought, you will have appropriate experience of successful teaching, assessment and supervision of students in a tertiary context, and an ability to teach in a range of core areas in New Testament Studies. You will have a very strong commitment to research, with a suitable record of research publications and the capacity to make an immediate contribution to the established research excellence of the School. You will have a clear programme of anticipated research activity over the coming years.

Applications will be accepted from candidates with a background in any major area of New Testament Studies, but preference will be shown to applicants who complement the School’s existing strengths. The School is firmly committed to the integration of the biblical and theological disciplines, and you will be highly motivated to work closely with colleagues across the range of Divinity’s activities. You will contribute to the School’s programmes at both undergraduate and taught postgraduate levels, and supervise research students. You will also undertake administrative duties as directed by the Head of School.

Book Review: Doxological Theology [6]

Christopher C. Green, Doxological Theology: Karl Barth on Divine Providence, Evil, and the Angels. T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology, Vol. 13 (T&T Clark: London, 2011)

7. § 50, God and Nothingness

Barth is rather confusing in his discussion of das Nichtige. On the one hand, Barth argues that das Nichtige has been totally defeated; there is no sense in which das Nichtige has any bearing on created reality. But on the other, Barth also appears to admit that das Nichtige continues to hold sway over created reality. How can these contradictory claims be overcome? In this seventh chapter of Doxological Theology, Green offers a framework for interpreting Barth, a framework that finds its origin within Barth’s distinction between the material and formal offices of Christ.

According to Barth, our knowledge of das Nichtige or the Nihil comes through our knowledge of its nullification on the cross of Christ. Consequently, any issues pertaining to das Nichtige can only be discussed from within the context of a creature’s de facto participation in Christ. Those who praise God in Christ are attuned through prayer to recognise the victory of God in Christ on the cross, whereas those who do not praise God – that is, those who examine the so-called problem of evil from a de jure participation in Christ – can only construct a theodicy that assumes a mechanical causality between sin and evil. On this latter account, the cause of sin or evil must either be Pelagian in orientation (because people bring evil on themselves) or Manichean (evil has a higher, metaphysical cause).

But given that das Nichtige has been cancelled by the cross, and given that Barth has claimed that the Nihil no longer exists in any sense, how should we assess the seriousness with which Barth continues to regard das Nichtige? Green argues that this is where Barth’s distinction between Christ’s material and formal offices comes into play. From the perspective of Christ’s material offices – that is, his kingly and priestly offices – God in Christ has completely cancelled das Nichtige. Christ reigns as Lord of all, and there is no threat to his lordship, no pretender to his throne. And for this reason, the Christian can be joyful. But das Nichtige still has a place when viewed from the perspective of Christ’s formal office – that is, when viewed from the perspective of Christ’s prophetic office. In this context, the Nihil hinders creatures from accepting the sovereignty of God in Christ, and continues to be an issue.

Of course, this is somewhat paradoxical: the Nihil hinders creatures from accepting that Christ has defeated the Nihil. But Green points out that Barth’s theology here is highly rhetorical and stems from faithfulness to the object of faith, rather than from a need to outline a coherent theology of the matter. Moreover, the ‘triumphal rhetoric’ (John McDowell) of Christ’s kingly and priestly offices, and the seriousness of das Nichtige under Christ’s prophetic office, are incomprehensibly held together as one perspective by the Spirit. On this basis, the coherence of Barth’s account of das Nichtige stems from the Christian’s actual, prayerful participation in Christ rather than from the depths of the confused human mind.

If this is so, Barth requires his readers to accept contradictory statements when it comes to the matter of God’s providence and the Nihil. Green puts it this way: ‘If theology is to partake in the clarity that comes from obedience, it must reflect this reality in its own language, even if that means making statements that are apparently contradictory.’ (Doxological Theology, p. 177). I dare say that not everyone will be satisfied by Barth’s position, even if they are convinced by Green’s analysis of Barth.

Liturgy is Fun!

As Old as Protestantism? A Timeline for Open Theism

A timeline for Open Theism is available here, with commentary from Greg Boyd (presumably) on the ReKnew website. Here is part of the commentary that is sure (possibly!) to cause a little controversy (perhaps).

More importantly, this chart demonstrates that the open view is just about as old as Protestantism is! It can therefore no more be dismissed as an innovation than can Lutheranism, Calvinism or any other expression of the Protestant faith.

Is Boyd overstating the case, or does he have a point? As the ReKnew blog does not appear to allow comments, feel free to use this blog to argue for or against this claim (and boost my traffic in the process, of course).

Modern Theology and Creatio ex Nihilo

The latest edition of Modern Theology is out, and, dedicated to the topic of creatio ex nihilo, and featuring essays by David Burrell, Janet Martin Soskice (the guest editor), Kathryn Tanner and John Webster among others, it looks more than good.

A Postdoctorate in Edinburgh, and More on David Fergusson and Providence

After looking at details of a postdoctorate available at the University of Edinburgh (H/T Michael Bird), I thought I’d have a quick peek at David Fergusson’s page on the Divinity website to see what he’s up to; after all, he’s done so much writing recently on the doctrine, it would have been improper for me not to do so. According to his page, Fergusson is working on three main publications: a monograph on the theology of providence, based on the 2009 Warfield Lectures; the Cambridge Companion to Reformed Theology (with Paul Nimmo); and a textbook on the theology of creation (Eerdmans). I’m looking forward especially to seeing the Warfield Lectures in print.

In Fergusson’s list of recent publications, there’s also the following essay: ‘The Reformed Doctrine of Providence: From Calvin to Barth’, in Theo Doer, Heleen Maat, Alco Meesters & Jan Muis (eds.), Van God gesproken: Over religieuze taal enrelationele theologie (Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 2011), pp. 233–245. I’d appreciate it if someone could send me a copy of this (please!), assuming they have access to it.

Spend a Day Discussing the Trinity...

… in St Andrews at the end of April.

Views of the Doctrine of the Trinity

Day Conference - 30th April 2013

Sponsored by St Mary's College, The School of Divinity of the University of St Andrews

9.30am - 5.30pm in Parliament Hall, South Street, St Andrews

Cost: Free (but must email here to register)

Classical Views of the Doctrine of the Trinity:

• Professor Paul D. Molnar, St John’s University, New York
• Dr. Stephen R. Holmes, The University of St Andrews

Relational Views of the Doctrine of the Trinity:

• Professor Paul S. Fiddes, University of Oxford
• Dr. Thomas H. McCall, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

All who can are invited to attend and participate.

To register for this conference, or for more information contact Dr. Jason Sexton.

ReKnewing Providence

I’ve just stumbled across www.reknew.org, via Rachel Held Evans. It’s a Greg Boyd-led initiative inviting ‘believers and skeptics alike to ask tough questions and consider a renewed picture of God.’ The aims of this movement (is movement it be) are listed in the ReKnew manifesto. Of interest to me is that the doctrine of providence is listed as the fifth item in the manifesto. Here’s the full text of that item:

The dominant image of God within Christendom after Augustine (5^th century) has been that of an all-controlling deity. The Church has therefore tended to espouse a “blueprint worldview” in which it has assumed every event that comes to pass conforms to a meticulous “blueprint” God had before the creation of the world. In this view, God wills (or at least allows) every particular event for a specific good reason—including each and every evil.

Our conviction is that the cross reveals the kind of power on which God relies: not power over others, but power under others. It is the power of self-sacrificial love—which is the greatest power there is, for it alone is able to transform hearts. Along with every church father before Augustine, therefore, our conviction is that “God is a God of persuasion, not coercion”—as Irenaeus (2^nd century) put it. While God remains in control of the big picture, we believe God has given humans and angels free will, which means we have a degree of “say-so” over what comes to pass. We can either use that “say-so” to further God’s purposes, or to resist them. As such, we believe all evil is the result of the misuse of created free wills, whether human or angelic. In place of the “blueprint worldview,” therefore, we advocate a “warfare worldview” in which the creation is viewed as a battlefield between God and Satan, along with all created human and angelic agents who align themselves with one or the other.

Moreover, since creation includes free agents who have the power to resolve possible courses of actions into actual events, we believe the future is partly comprised of possibilities and that the all-knowing God therefore knows them as such. Yet, because God is infinitely intelligent and can anticipate future possibilities as effectively as certainties, we don’t believe God loses any providential advantage. Whatever comes to pass, God had been preparing a plan, from all eternity, on how he would bring good out of it in case it came to pass. So while we don’t believe everything happens for a good purpose, we believe everything happens with a good purpose—namely, the eternally prepared good purpose God had in place in case any given event came to pass.

I can see Boyd’s fingers in this, and I dare say it will be worth keeping an eye on the ReKnew website for comments on determinism, Open Theism, and related topics.