Chapter 6
PROPORTION AND TOPOGRAPHY IN ECCLESIOLOGY: A WORKING PAPER ON THE DOGMATIC LOCATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
Tom Greggs
I
One of the most significant contributions that Professor John Webster has made to the field of ecclesiology within contemporary theology is to remind systematicians of the primacy of dogmatic content in accounts of the church over ecclesiological descriptions focused on social scientific description, ecclesial human reality, church polity, function, governance and/or modelling.1 Against prevailing trends in attending to the empirical in ecclesiological discussion, Websterâs voice has been something of a voice crying in the wilderness for a dogmatic account of the church. This is evident in his chapter in Pete Wardâs recent edited collection Perspectives on Ecclesiology and Ethnography,2 in which Websterâs chapter stands as a challenge to the rest of the content of this volume â a prophetic warning against the conviction that the real is âsocio-historicalâ in theological discussion.3 Not unaware of the danger of falling into dogmatic idealism, Websterâs essay fiercely rejects the position in ecclesiological discussion that âthe church is the people of God because certain events occur within a group of human beings â a causal order at which even the most frankly intrinsicist theology of grace might be dismayedâ.4 More acutely, however, Webster locates this propensity not only external to the dogmatic enterprise which has led away from dogmatic theology and towards the empirical and historical, but also within certain decisions in dogmatic organisation through appeals to elements of the Christian faith such as the incarnation or grace in a way which is âoften rather randomly chosen, abstractly conceived, and without much sense of their systematic linkagesâ.5 In this, he sees the underlying problem resting in assumptions concerning the res of Christian theology, which leads to the following mistaken principle: âsince the object of Christian theology is the economy of Godâs works as creator and reconciler of humankind, then theology should naturally direct its attention to the temporal and social as the sphere of Godâs presence and activityâ.6 Helpfully, against this, Webster reminds the ecclesiologist:
The temporal economy, including the social reality of the church in time, has its being not in se but by virtue of God who alone is in se. Time and society are derivative realities, and that derivation is not simply a matter of their origination; it is a permanent mark of their historical condition.7
This determines that ecclesiology must understand the church as a creaturely reality which stands under the metaphysics of grace. Thus, for Webster, to speak of a doctrine of the church means that one must first speak of the doctrine of God, on which for him ecclesiology hangs:8 to speak of the sort of social history that the church is is to speak of its origin in Godâs goodness.
Thus, Webster sees the doctrine of the church as deriving from trinitarian deduction. Seeing credo in ecclesiam as succeeding credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem ⌠et in Jesum Christum ⌠credo in Spiritum Sanctum, he argues that ecclesiology has its place in the âflow of Christian doctrine from teaching about God to teaching about everything else in Godâ.9 In what follows, there is a masterful account, therefore, of the inner life of God who is âalive with self-moved lifeâ10 before moving on to the (indeed any) discussion of divine operations in relation to the church per se. Here, Webster differentiates his position from that of social Trinitarians, about whom Webster is rightly nervous in that they use ârelationâ to pass too quickly and easily between God and the church without adequately accounting for the gracious act of God in creating the church or the differentiation of the life of the church from Godâs own life.11 Only once this ground has been cleared does Webster go on to describe the âTrinitarian deduction of the churchâ in any detail, tracing how particular works of God might be appropriated to particular Trinitarian persons. There are (inevitably) three moves: (1) âThe church has being because of the eternal will of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who âdestined us in love to be his children through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his willâ (Eph. 1:5).â12 (2) âThe church has its being because of the person and work of the eternal Son.â13 (3) âThe church is and acts by virtue of the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life.â14 Each of these discussions emphasizes the inner divine life of a particular person of the Trinity before accounting for their role in the economy, and before moving to consider ecclesiology specifically.
Having established this, Webster subsequently addresses the socio-historical phenomena that characterize the church as the society which exists in Godâs society. The first emphasis here is on the creatureliness of the church and its current condition as those in whom âthe motion of God and the motion of creatures are not inversely but directly proportionalâ.15 In this, Webster seeks to draw attention in ecclesiology away from simple empirical study and towards the nature and economy of God; away from notions of human self-realization of the church towards understanding the church as signs of the triune being and working; and from concerns with the phenomenological to a recognition that the temporal forms of the church are ânot unconditionally transparentâ.16 Only now will Webster hazard statements about the churchâs fundamental form (âthe primary structures of its creaturely, social-historical existenceâ).17 In this, Webster lists the three examples (from what would be a larger set) of: assembly (a âhuman act of assembly [which] follows, signifies, and mediates a divine act of gatheringâ);18 hearing the proclamation of the Word of God;19 and order (as a âruled society, [of] common life under âlawââ).20
Webster sees all of this as essential for those who wish to engage in study of the church in whatever manner: without remembering this account of divine agency in the church, âan ethnography [one could add any other social science here] of the church does not attain its object, misperceiving the motion to which its attention is to be directed, and so inhibited in understanding the creaturely movements of the communion of saintsâ.21 Thus, there exists a hierarchy between modes of ecclesiological investigation: the first (and higher) mode is dogmatic, in offering a Trinitarian account of the church; the second relates to the phenomena of the church. This hierarchy has to be respected so as to resist treating the church as any other society â creating a ânaturalized ecclesiologyâ in which the true object of theology is in the background or covered over.22 Dogmatic ecclesiologyâs purpose is in part, therefore, to âresist this by keeping alive the distinction between and due order of uncreated and created being; by indicating that the phenomena of the church are not irreducible but significative; and by introducing into each ecclesiological description and passag...