The Kevin Vanhoozer Interview

GD: Hello Kevin Vanhoozer and welcome to Exiled Preacher. Could you tell us a little about yourself?

KV: Thanks for bringing me into the Exile. I'm a middle-aged student of theology in the Reformed tradition who teaches evangelicals (at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) and writes for catholic Christians. I'm married to Sylvie, who is French, and I have two daughters, Mary and Emma, who are both in college. I've spent most of my adult life trying to answer the question, 'What does it mean to be biblical?' and half my adult life in Europe and the UK.

GD: What do you enjoy most about being a systematic theologian?

KV: I enjoy seeing connections between things - not only between doctrines but between things in everyday life. I'm interested in the history of ideas and how these ideas take on flesh and influence culture, and the church. Being a systematic theologian allows me to indulge all my interests - in literature, film, art, music - by relating them all to God. Most of all, I appreciate the privilege and responsibility of seeking to understand God for the sake of my own well-being and that of the church.

GD: A lot of your work e.g. Is there a meaning in this text? and to some extent The Drama of Doctrine has been about biblical hermeneutics in the postmodern world. Why do feel particularly drawn to this aspect of the theological task?

KV: I'm not interested in either hermeneutics or theological method for their own sakes. I don't want to turn method in theology into a theology of method! On the contrary, from the very beginning my interest has been in thinking about God and the world biblically. I quickly learned, however, that it is not enough simply to use the Bible or claim to be biblical. Everybody uses the Bible, even the heretics. So, because I believe that the ultimate authority for theology is the triune God speaking in the Scriptures, I have had to spend more time than I perhaps would have liked trying to clear my throat (to use Jeffrey Stout's metaphor for method).

I had to engage with postmodernity simply because it is part of the intellectual context in which the church, at least in the West, lives and moves. Also, when I was teaching at the University of Edinburgh, my students forced me to give a reason for the hermeneutical hope - that I could ascertain the meaning of the biblical text - that was within me. The suspicion that meaning and truth are simply ideological tools was too serious to ignore.

GD: One of your burdens in The Drama of Doctrine (DofD) is to bridge the gap between theology and the practice of the church. Why do you think that reconfiguring theology in terms of dramatics is the way to make doctrine more practical?

KV: Theology is faith seeking understanding, but understanding is more than theoretical. If we really grasp who and where we are as disciples, we should know how to live out our faith. All too often, however, the church professes its faith but is unsure how to practice it. Even some of my seminary students come to theology classes somewhat reluctantly, assuming that doctrine is neither practical nor relevant to their future ministry.

To define doctrine as direction for fitting participation in the drama of redemption - in what God is doing in Christ through the Spirit to form the church and renew creation - is to ensure that the understanding that faith seeks will not stop short of practice. My goal as a theologian is to move beyond the acquisition of knowledge to its application in real life: in a word, I want to get wisdom.

GD: Is it right to make the metaphor of drama the driving force of Christian theology? One criticism of the DofD was that space was sometimes devoted to drama theory at the expense of biblical exegesis and exposition. How would you respond to these points?

KV: The driving force of Christian theology is the God of the gospel. The subject matter of theology is intrinsically dramatic: God in his missionary movements (viz., Son and Spirit). It's a matter of God saying and God doing the good for the world in Jesus Christ. Christianity is neither a system of ideas nor of morality but a way, a way of life. Life is something to be done, and so is drama. I had not intended to plumb the model of drama so deeply, but I did so because the more I did so the more the approach yielded understanding. My research affected me on a personal level: I came to see myself as an actor with a script, called to act (or improvise) in a new situation. Everyday life became infused with urgency as I tried to speak and act in ways that fit the holy script and glorified God in new contexts.

I don't myself think that the drama theory got in the way so much as open up new vistas. Part One, where I set forth the drama of redemption, is replete with biblical theology. Also, my colleague Bob Yarbrough compiled a Scripture index for Drama of Doctrine during his sabbatical, and I was pleased to see that there were ten pages of entries!

GD: You often make use of "speech act theory" in your books. I think that this can be a helpful way of focusing attention of God's communicative action in Scripture. But is there not a danger of relying too heavily on philosophical language theories in theological work? Today's fashionable "speech act theory" may become tomorrow's despised "common sense philosophy".

KV: I agree. I'm not a speech act theorist tout court. But I do think that the insight into illocutions - that we do things in saying things - marks an important and permanent gain in our knowledge of language. For what it's worth, William Alston agrees with me! Of course, it also needs to be said that all biblical exegetes and theologians have a theory of language, whether they acknowledge it or not...

GD: Is there room for inerrancy in your theodramatic account of the Bible as the God-given script that the church is to understand and perform?

KV: Yes. I hold Scripture to be the word of God written. I believe that God speaks by means of the human discourse of Scripture and that the Holy Spirit so guided the authors that what they say/do with their words corresponds to the divine intent. God is the divine playwright who communicates his ideas through the voices of the various human authors. It's true that the term 'inerrancy' does not appear in Drama of Doctrine, but it doesn't follow that the idea is absent. To think that it does is to commit the word-concept fallacy.

One reason I didn't employ the word is that there is confusion about what inerrancy means. It doesn't mean that we should interpret the Bible literalistically, turning a deaf ear to its figures of speech and literary genres. What it does mean is that when we rightly interpret the Bible, taking due consideration of what authors are doing with their words in their speech and literary genres, we can be assured that its truth claims are indeed true. And by 'true' I mean that its claims are reliable because they correspond to God, his creation, and to what God has done, is doing, and will do to renew his creation through Christ.

GD: Thanks for that. Some people have wondered about your position on inerrancy simply because you did not use the word. In the DofD and in your essay in Always Reforming, you are quite critical of the theological method of older Reformed dogmaticians like Charles Hodge. Why do you think that their methodology was so flawed?

KV: I don't want to exaggerate the problem. I grew up, intellectually speaking, reading Hodge and Warfield and it was they who first awakened in me an excitement about systematic theology. Moreover, I think they said what needed to be said in their own intellectual context. Faced with the alternatives, Hodge was right to emphasize theology as an inductive science, that is, a principled study of the biblical text, rather than a mystical or speculative endeavor.

If I am critical, it is only because I think we can (and must) do better today, not least because others have raised objections that Hodge and Warfield are not here to answer. I see my own work as continuing in their basic trajectory, giving authority to what Scripture says, while at the same time responding to criticisms of their views of science, method, and knowledge.

Paul Helm has led me to wonder, however, if the terms in which I have described Hodge's method (e.g., 'empiricist') are entirely appropriate. They probably aren't (I have never pretended to be an expert on Hodge or to give the last word). Nevertheless, I continue to believe that systematic theology can do better than what Hodge suggests (the inductive method) at least with regard to its biblical interpretation. The model of inductive science suggests to some (even if this was not Hodge's intent) that the task of theology is primarily theoretical: that of systematizing truths. Make no mistake, this is an important task (which is why I insisted that my Research Professorship be identified as 'Systematic Theology'), but so are the pastoral and sapiential tasks, and these requires imagination as well as induction.

GD: I'm sure that Paul Helm (who sometimes drops in here) will be gratified to see your remarks on Hodge's 'empiricism'. On reading the DofD, and your criticisms of Hodge elsewhere, I have sometimes wondered what a Vanhoozer-authored systematic theology might look like. Would you follow the traditional schema and work through the great biblical doctrines from God to Eschatology in terms of theodramatics, or do you propose an entirely different way of doing things?

KV: Not too much has been written about the history of systematic theology as a literary genre. Systematic theology is, of course, more than a form of writing, but it is also not less! I'm still thinking the matter through. The key is to write in such a way as to make possible an illuminating and edifying reading of Scripture and thus a deepened Christian understanding. There are a number of models out there - everything from Aquinas' Summa and Calvin's Institutes and from Hodge's Systematic to Barth's Dogmatics. My inclination is to emulate several models of 'best practice'. But I can't here reveal my secret formula!

GD: That's a bit tantalising! Are you planning at some point to write a full-length systematic theology?

KV: Yes, God willing. Everything else is but a tilling of the ground...

GD: Could you tell us your top three pieces of music?

KV: No, but here are three from my top 100: Allegri, Misere (sung by theTallis Scholars); Bach, St. John Passion (John Eliot Gardiner, conducting); Brahms, Second Piano Concerto.

GD: What is the most valuable work of theology that you have read in the last year? It is a must read because?

KV: I have to mention two, not least because they¹re doing something similar. Paul Molnar's Divine Freedom and the Doctrine of the Immanent Trinity (2002) and Matthew Levering's Scripture and Metaphysics: Aquinas and the Renewal of Trinitarian Theology (2004) are both concerned with affirming the reality of God's action in the world (the economic Trinity) while not dragging God down to the world's level. Each in his own way, the one in dialogue with Barth and the other with Aquinas, emphasizes the importance of not letting the immanent Trinity collapse into the economic. That way Feuerbach lies...

GD: In the DofD, you suggested that the theologian is a "dramaturge", whose task is to enable the pastor -director to understand the biblical script. But not all pastors make time read great works of theology. They are too busy preparing sermons, visiting their people, organising the church's evangelistic programme and so on. Why should pastors make the effort to become pastor-theologians?

KV: Both parts of the Great Commission, evangelism and making disciples, require theology. Theology is a form of the ministry of the Word; specifically, theology is a the ministry of Christian understanding. We need theology in our evangelism because theology is about preserving the integrity of the word, the message of the gospel an evangelist proclaims. We need theology in our disciple making because theology is about reminding us who we are and what we are to say and do as followers of Jesus Christ in this or that situation.

The world is filled with therapists and managers. What the church needs now is people who can (1) articulate from the Bible the truth about God, the world, and ourselves in terms that are faithful to the Bible and intelligible in the contemporary context (2) exhort their congregations to say and do things that corresponds to the truth of Jesus Christ as attested in the Bible.

GD: Are you in the process of writing a book at the moment? Care to give us a sneak preview?

KV: Yes, I'm working on a book for the Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine series. It's entitled Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship. It sets forth the contours of a dialogical theism that develops the doctrine of God largely out of the biblical depictions of God speaking. It then brings this communicative focus to bear on the twin vexed issues of divine action and divine suffering. The result: an 'upgrade' of classical theism that makes interpersonal dialogue rather than impersonal causality the keystone of the God-world relation, some notes towards a theo-dramatic metaphysics, and a new vision for how divine sovereignty engages human freedom in commanding and compassionate (i.e., communicative) fashion.

GD: That sounds very interesting. Best wishes with your work. Thanks very much for spending a little time here in Exile. It's been great talking to you!

John Frame on the task of Systematic Theology

John Frame

Today I took delivery of John Frame's Salvation Belongs to the Lord, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, P&R, 2006 (here). Taking a preliminary flick through the book, I skimmed through Chapter 6, What is Theology?

Frame puts forward a two-fold definition of the theological task: "theology is knowing God, and theology is the disciplined study of God." (p. 73.) He is critical of Charles Hodge's definition, "the exhibition of the facts of Scripture in their proper order and relation". Hodge seems to be saying that the facts of Scripture are in some kind of improper order and that the task of the Dogmatician is to organise them better. Frame suggests that "Hodge didn't have a very clear idea of why we need theology." (p. 79.) We need theology says Frame, "for the sake of people. Theology is the application of the Word by persons to the world and to all areas of human life." (p. 79.) True theology is applicatory. It enables the people of God to live out the Word of God in the present day context.

The method of theology is primarily Biblical exegesis, "in the final analysis, systematic theology should be exegetical. Whatever else it does, it must set forth the teaching of Scripture first and foremost." (p. 84.) Frame commends the theological method of his mentor, John Murray, as set out in Murray's essay Systematic Theology (Collected Writings of John Murray Volume 4: Studies in Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, 1982. p. 1-21). Murray's article makes very interesting reading. Amongst other things, he argues that systematic theology should be deeply rooted in exegetical and Biblical theology. I hope to return to Murray's far reaching methodological proposals after Easter.

Frame's emphasis on the applicatory purpose and exegetical method of systematic theology ties in nicely with Vanhoozer's canonical-linguistic approach doctrine. Vanhoozer argues that the task of doctrine is to enable the people of God to play their Biblically scripted roles in the unfolding theo-drama. "The task of theology as scientia is to determine what God has said in Scripture, thus to take the measure of reality. Theology in its exegetical mode involves cultivating interpretive virtues, habits that put us into cognitive and covenantal contact with the script, the theo-drama, and the triune God alike." (The Drama of Doctrine, WJK, 2005, p. 241.)

This is what we need, a systematic theology that grows out of interaction with the form, shape and contents of Scripture. A theology that is orientated towards practical performance by the people of God.

Review Part 6: The Drama of Doctrine

Some concluding reflections

Vanhoozer has given us a fresh way of looking at theology. His theo-dramatic approach reminds us that the purpose doctrine is to enable the church to perform the Scriptures. The work is both up to date and faithful to the Biblical principles of Reformed Theology. Vanhoozer enables us to grapple with the complexities of the postmodern situation with sensitivity and integrity. Here is a fine example of a multidisciplinary approach to theology as the writer draws on Biblical, Systematic and Historical Theology, literary theory and dramatics. He gives welcome emphasis to the church as a company of players directed by her pastors to play her part in the unfolding theo-drama.

On the negative side, although Scripture is quoted throughout book, there is little sustained exegesis of texts. For example, while reading Part 4, I expected that Vanhoozer would explain what it means for us to play our roles "in Christ" Biblically. My mind raced ahead to Romans 6 and I hoped for some sustained reflection on the passage. He did get there, but not to linger long.

The work sets out an new approach to doctrine rather than being a systematic theology in its own right. You will not find much on justification, the final resurrected state etc. Vanhoozer has criticised the cognitive-propositional theological method of Charles Hodge. He clearly regards such an approach as inadequate. But I am left thinking, what would a full-length canonical linguistic systematic theology look like? Perhaps now that the writer has has given us his theo-dramatic proposal we can eagerly await such a work from his pen.

For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle [Greek, theatron] to the world, to angels, and to men. (1 Corinthians 4:9)

Click on the Drama of Doctrine label below for more review posts.

Review Part 5: The Drama of Doctrine

Now we come to the final section of Vanhoozer's book. Having set the scene with discussion of the drama, the script and the dramaturge, he turns in Part 4 to The Performance. "Biblical script without ecclesial performance is empty; ecclesial performance without biblical script is blind. Doctrine serves the church by unfolding the canonical logic of the theo-drama and by offering dramaturgical direction as to how Christians today may participate in and continue the evangelical action in a new situation". (p. 362).

With this in mind, the writer shows us the way in which doctrine prepares believers to play their roles "in Christ". Talk of role playing should not be construed as pretending. That would be hypocrisy. Doctrine enables Christians to be what they truly are as disciples of Christ. This is not about believers learning their lines by rote and acting in a mechanical way. Doctrine helps us to improvise - to act fittingly and wisely in any given situation.

Vanhoozer draws upon Constantin Stanislavski's system of method acting at this point. Stanislavski wanted actors to move beyond representing the external life of the character that they were playing. He insisted that they must pour themselves into the part in order to truly inhabit the character. Vanhoozer sees a parallel between Stanislavski's advice to actors, "yourself in the part and...the part in you" and the role and identity of a Christian disciple, "You in Christ...Christ in you." (p. 372). Christians have been called to act as saints. This involves spiritual formation and character transformation by the work of the Holy Spirit. When this happens, believers are enabled to be what they are in Christ.

Christians play out their roles not as isolated individuals, but as part of the church - the company of the gospel. The church is a community of "costumed interpreters", clothed with the righteousness of Christ. As such, the church is a theatre of martyrdom, a people who bear witness to and live out the cross of Christ. The cross is "the climax to a covenantal drama in which penal substitution and relational restoration are equally important and equally ultimate." (p. 387). One might better say that the penal substitutionary death of Christ is the means by which relational restoration is made possible.

Vanhoozer rightly insists that we must move from a right understanding to a fitting performance of Christ's death. Did not Jesus challenge his disciples to take up their cross and follow him? (Matthew 16:24.)

The church participates in and performs the doctrine of the atonement when it indicates what God was doing for the world in Christ and thus what we must now be doing if the world is what the gospel declares it to be...The church's theology is prophetic when doctrine directs the church in ways that attest being-toward-the cross and being-toward-resurrection (p. 433).

Given Vanhoozer's sensitivity to the postmodern context, he is admirably clear on the controversial matters of heresy and excommunication. Heresy is a distortion of the drama of redemption - "a different gospel than is not another" (Galatians 1:6). He defines heresy thus:

A heresy is thus a fateful error that compromises integrity of the theo-drama, either by misidentifying the divine dramatis personae, misunderstanding the action, or giving directions that lead away from one's fitting participation in the continuing action. (p. 424).

A heretic has removed himself from participation in the theo-dramatic action. Such a person must be excluded from the life of the church. Excommunication has a dual purpose: 1) To preserve the integrity of church's witness to the gospel. 2) To bring the offender to repentance so that he may be restored to the fellowship of the family of God.

If a theologian is the dramaturge, helping the pastor/director to understand the script that the company of the gospel is to perform. What of the pastor himself? He "helps the congregation become better actors by helping them learn the script and understand how it should be performed in the present cultural scene". (p. 449). The great creeds and confessions of the church are of great help to the pastor/director. The ancient creeds such as Nicea and Chalceldon are examples of "Masterpiece Theatre". They remind us that the local church is part of the catholic church. We can learn from centuries of debate how we may best understand and perform the Bible. Denominational Confessions such as the Westminster or 1689 Baptist Confession are compared to "Regional Theatre". These documents were attempts to remain faithful to the creedal inheritance while innovating to respond to specific issues of the day. The variety of regional theatres represent a rich ecclesial unity in diversity. Finally, we have the "Local Theatre" of the individual congregation. The local church must seeks perform her role as a concrete and contextualised part of the catholic church. Local churches are led not by management schemes, but by preaching pastors who help the people to understand and perform God's word in their given situation.

Thus, the theo-drama is enacted on a local level by vibrant, well taught congregations of visible saints who bear witness in word and deed to what God has done in Christ for the salvation of the world.

Click on the Drama of Doctrine label below for more review posts.

Review Part 4: The Drama of Doctrine

The next main section of The Drama of Doctrine, Part 3 is The Dramaturge. Here Vanhoozer discusses the task of the theologian in helping the church to play her role in the theo-drama. The theologian is to the church what a dramaturge is to a play. A dramaturge helps the director of a play to understand the text that is to be performed. He will try to ensure that the director enables the cast to play their roles in a way that is faithful to the play-script. In terms of the theo-drama, the theologian will assist the pastor-director to understand Scripture accurately. The pastor can then direct Christians to perform faithfully their Biblically scripted roles.

The dramaturge-theologian is concerned about scientia - the accurate exegesis of Scripture and sapientia - the faithful performance of Scripture. A faithful performance of Scripture involves the transposition of the Biblical message into the contemporary world. It is here that Vanhoozer's distinction (borrowed from Ricoeur) between idem and ipse identity comes into its own. Idem denotes something that remains the same, while ipse suggests "personal identity [that] allows for development" (p. 127). We must not try to re-stage the theo-drama as an exact copy of the New Testament church - idem identity. Our task is to perform the Scriptures in our own cultural linguistic setting - ipse identity. "Canonical linguistic theology aims at the contemporary realisation or performance of the same Christ-shaped wisdom that is the focus of the Scriptures." (p. 240.)

The Canonical linguistic approach to the scientia of theology is postpropositionalist, postconservative and postfoundationalist. Theology should not be reduced to "dedramatised propositions" (p. 269). Such a method is reductionistic, failing to recognise that God has spoken in various ways by the prophets (Hebrews 1:1). "God communicates to his people, both directly and indirectly, in and through Scripture, but it need not follow from this that communication consists of revealed propositions only." (p. 278). Postconservative theology takes into account the rich unity in diversity of God's communicative action in Scripture. This in no way implies that Biblical propositions are redundant. But propositions should not be privileged over other forms of communication in Scripture. "A 'biblical' theology, therefore, involves more than summarising the propositional content of the Scriptures. It involves acquiring cognitive skills and sensibilities, and hence the ability to see, feel, and taste the world as disclosed in the diverse biblical texts." (p. 285.)

According to Vanhoozer, the problem with foundationalism is that propositions are isolated from Scripture as the basis upon which elaborate theological systems are built. This abstracts theology from its Scriptural form. Systematic Theology must draw upon the rich variety of Biblical revelation.

Against both the foundationalist tendency to objectivise truth and the postmodern tendency toward epistemological scepticism, Vanhoozer proposes a theo-dramatic approach to knowledge. This is grounded in the four-fold pattern of Biblical revelation: Creation: Right Cognitive Functioning. We have a God-given cognitive powers that enable us have a reliable understanding of truth. Fall: Distorted Cognitive Functioning. Sin has distorted our cognitive powers of reason, memory and imagination. Our understanding is, therefore rendered fallible. Redemption: Restored Cognitive Functioning. By grace, our minds are renewed so that we cultivate intellectual virtues. "In the final analysis, knowledge in theo-dramatic perspective has less to do with becoming a scholar and more to do with becoming a saint." (p. 304.) Consummation: Perfiected Cognitive Functioning. Finally, we shall know God as we are known, face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12.) Our knowledge may not be perfect now, but through the Scriptures and by the work of the Spirit we are given an adequate understanding of the truth as it is in Jesus.

Theology must move from the scientia of an accurate understanding of Scripture into the sapiential task of preparing the Church to live wisely for the glory of God. The theologian's aim should be to help the Church to perform the Scriptures fittingly. This involves being faithful to the transcultural truth of the gospel and the contemporary setting. The Church needs the right theo-dramatic perspective to enable her "to make wise judgements about what is truly good and fittings in a given situation, given what God has done in Jesus Christ." (p. 335.) The Early Church exercised right theological judgement when the Council of Nicea used the improvisatory language of Jesus as homoousios with the Father in order to safegaurd his full deity. We too must learn to improvise if we are to bring the message of Scripture alive in our generation. Sapiential theology is sensitive to the present day setting, but it is also prophetic, confronting contemporary culture with Word of God. As a prophetic community, the Church will bear witness to the resurrection of Christ and live in the light of God's coming kingdom.

In this section, Vanhoozer offers us a vision of theology that is Biblical , practical and able to meet the challenges of the postmodern world. We need dramaturge-theologians who will enable the Church to both understand and live the Scriptures.

Click on the Drama of Doctrine label below for more review posts.

Review Part 3: The Drama of Doctrine

Part 2 of Vanhoozer's work is taken up with a discussion of Scripture as the God-given theo-dramatic script that the church is to follow. He seeks to rehabilitate the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. "The church performs not its own words/script but the words of Word and Spirit." (p. 114.) But sola scriptura is more than just a doctrine of Scripture abstracted from the life of the church. "Sola scriptura is ultimately the name of a practice to be performed by the church in the power of the Spirit." (p. 115.)

The canon of Scripture is authoritative for the church because the canon is the covenant document that constitutes the church. Scripture reveals the history of God's covenant dealings with humanity from the Abrahamic to the new covenant. Christ is the focus of God's covenant acts, laws and promises. The covenant is administered today by the Holy Spirit's use of Scripture. From another perspective, the canon is the product of the prophetic office of Jesus Christ. He "is the content of the Scriptural witness, the one who interprets the Old Testament witness, and the one who commissions the New Testament witness. (p. 195.) The church is called to live out the teaching of Scripture because "the canon appears as a function of Jesus' lordship over the church." (p. 196.)

Vanhoozer has some very helpful things to say about the relationship between the church, Scripture and tradition. He insists that tradition is Biblical. The writer gives the example of Philip preaching the gospel to the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8. Philip explained Isaiah 53 to the Eunuch in accordance with the apostolic tradition and so brought him to faith and understanding. But not all traditions are necessarily Biblical. The canonical traditions and practices take precedence over all other forms of tradition. Tradition is helpful. The Rule of Faith formulated by the early church under the guidance of the Spirit enables us to understand the Biblical script accurately. The ancient creeds give us an example of 'Masterpiece Theatre' that the church today can learn from and follow.

Vanhoozer makes a distinction between what he calls "Performance I" and "Performance II" views of the relationship between church and canon. Those who espouse Performance II such as George Lindbeck in his The Nature of Doctrine locate doctrinal authority in the cultural-linguistic practices of the church. Postmodern theorists focus on the church's culture-bound, fluctuating understanding of Scripture rather than on the meaning of Scripture itself. In that case, the interpreting community of the church usurps God's authority as the author of the text of Scripture. The implications of this position are disastrous:"For Biblical studies it means that "How does the church use Scripture?" not "What does Scripture mean?" has become the operative question. (p. 169.)

Sola Scriptura insists that our authority lies not in the church as an interpretive community, but in God, the playwright of the drama of redemption and the author of the canon of Scripture. "The triune God stands behind the canon, ensuring the truth of its testimony, guaranteeing the fulfilment of its promise, in many and diverse ways, keeping his word." (p. 178). What matters primarily is what God does though the Biblical texts rather than what the church makes of those texts. Vanhoozer is an authentically Protestant theologian at this point. What he says regarding the authority of Scripture over and against exponents of "Performance II" updates the Reformer's critique of the Roman Catholic view of the relationship between church and tradition.

"Performance I" interpretation is all about the way in which the church follows the normative patterns of Scripture. This view recognises that the theo-drama is God's play and that the church is to perform the role the he has scripted for his people. The Spirit who inspired the canon also illuminates the church that she might understand and practice the Scriptures. Because the Spirit is at work in the church, her traditions have value and ministerial authority. Tradition serves the church by passing on the apostolic faith from generation to generation. "Performance I" is based on the Spirit's use of Scripture in the life of the church. This perspective reminds us that the Scripture is the script that the church has been called to perform. "To practice sola Scriptura means to participate in the canonical practices that form, inform and transform our speaking, thinking and living - practices that the Spirit uses to conform us to the image of God in Christ". (p. 237.)

Vanhoozer's view of Scripture in the context of the theo-drama is refreshing. He interacts sensitively with the postmodern context and challenges the evangelical churches not just to confess the doctrine of Scripture, but to follow the scripted and spirited practices of the Bible. He recognises the role of the human authors of Scripture without downplaying "the Spirit's prompting the human authors to say just what the divine playwright intended (p. 227.) He does not describe the Bible as inerrant, but there is nothing in The Drama of Doctrine that suggests at least to me, that Vanhoozer has revised his stance on this matter, see here .

Click on the Drama of Doctrine label below for more review posts.

Review Part 2: The Drama of Doctrine

Vanhoozer divides his book into three main parts: Part One: The Drama, Part Two: The Script and Part Three: The Dramaturge. I hope to reflect on each part in turn in a series of posts and then finish with a concluding review post.

Part One: The Drama:

In this section, Vanhoozer develops his controlling idea that doctrine is best viewed as theo-drama. He quotes Dorothy Sayers to the effect that the gospel is “the greatest drama ever staged…a terrifying drama of which God is the victim and the hero.” (p. 39). Theology must be faithful to the good news of the gospel that proclaims what God has done on the stage of world history. There is more to theology than restating underlying Biblical propositions. This does not mean that propositions are unimportant. The gospel is premised on propositions such as “Jesus is risen”. But Biblical propositions must not be dedramatised, abstracted from the theo-drama and forced to fit into an “epic” system. The danger of such an approach is that theology is distanced both from God’s communicative acts in Scripture and the life of the Church.

A vital task for theology is to identify the dramatis personae of the theo-drama. This is why the doctrine of the Trinity is so important. The theo-drama of salvation from sin is only effective if God is truly revealed in three persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To be unorthodox at this point is to be cut off from saving participation in the drama of redemption.

Theology deals with the entrances and exits of this Triune God. The climatic entrance of God is the incarnation of Jesus Christ as “God with us”. Christ has exited our world via his atoning death, resurrection and ascension.

“Evangelical theology deals not with disparate bits of ideas and information but with divine doings – with the all embracing cosmic drama that displays the entrances and exoduses of God”. (p. 39).

The supreme authority for theology is God’s communicative action in Scripture. The Bible does not simply describe the theo-drama. God uses Scripture to enable his people to participate fittingly in the drama. Vanhoozer draws on speech act theory at this point. The Bible contains more than “just words” because words are speech acts – they do something. In Scripture we have God’s illocutions – what God does with his words. For example, he makes promises and reveals his purposes. But God also ensures that his word has a perlocutionary is effect. By the Spirit, God’s word is believed, understood, received and obeyed.

The people of God have been swept up into the theo-drama by the communicative acts of the Triune God. We have our roles to play in the great drama of redemption. The purpose of doctrine is to direct us to perform our Biblically scripted roles faithfully in the present day. Doctrine must always be related to the mission of the church, especially the tasks of evangelising the world and building up the people of God. “The mission of the church, and therefore of theology, is to participate in and continue the joint mission of Word and Spirit.” (p. 71).

Click on the Drama of Doctrine label below for more review posts.

Review Part 1: The Drama of Doctrine by Kevin Vanhoozer

The Drama of Doctrine by Kevin Vanhoozer, 2005, 488pp, Westminster John Knox Press

This book is an attempt to view Christian doctrine as “theo-drama”. The focus of the theo-drama is the communicative saving acts of the Triune God. Vanhoozer writes, “the gospel – God’s gracious self revelation in Jesus Christ - is intrinsically dramatic. Why is it then, that Christian doctrine so often appears strikingly dull by way of contrast?” (p. xi. ) In our postmodern age where “feeling is believing”, doctrine is dismissed as divisive and irrelevant. Part of the problem is that theology often seems to be remote from the Christian life. Vanhoozer proposes to bridge the gap between doctrine and practice by insisting that the purpose of theology is to help believers to participate fittingly in the theo-drama. Developing the metaphor of drama, Vanhoozer proposes that we view Scripture as the script of the play, theological understanding as performance, the church as the company of players and the pastor as director.

“Thinking of doctrine in dramatic rather than theoretical terms provides a wonderfully engaging and in integrative model for understanding what it means to follow – with all our mind, heart, soul and strength – the way, truth and life embodied and enacted in Jesus Christ.” (p. 16.)

Throughout the book, Vanhoozer draws on drama theory in order to set the whole field of Christian doctrine in a dramatic context. This can be helpful and illuminating. But sometimes, too much space is given to the details of drama theory to the detriment of Biblical exposition.

Vanhoozer writes from the standpoint of Reformed Theology, but he is not afraid to question the methodology of 19th Century Reformed Theologians such as Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield. (See here & here). His canonical linguistic approach to Christian Theology seeks to address postmodern concerns without surrendering the authority of Scripture as the divinely authorised script that the Church is to follow.

See here to "Experience the Drama" of Vanhoozer being interviewed on his book.

Click on the Drama of Doctrine label below for rest of review posts.

VanWHOzer?

Favourite Evangelical Theologian Poll Result:

Kevin Vanhoozer46%

Don Carson 23%

Sinclair Ferguson 17%

Wayne Grudem 8%

Donald Macleod 6%

.

Some readers may be wondering just who is Poll topping theologian, Kevin Vanhoozer? He is Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

>

In the Preface to The Drama of Doctrine, he writes,

<
"At the heart of Christianity lies a series of vividly striking events that together make up the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel - God's gracious self-communication is intrinsically dramatic. Why is in, then, that Christian doctrine so often appears strikingly dull by way of contrast? And not only dull but weak. " (p. ix)

.

To remedy this problem, Vanhoozer proposes to use the metaphor of drama to bring theology to life and demonstrate its importance to the Church:

.
"This book sets forth new metaphors for theology (dramaturgy), Scripture (the script), theological understanding (the performance), the church (the company), and the pastor (director). It argues that doctrine, far from being unrelated to life, serves the church by directing its members in the project of wise living, to the glory of God. It sets out to convince ministers and laypeople alike not to dismiss doctrine as irrelevant, and to encourage theologians not to neglect the needs of the church. It aims to make the pastoral lamb lie down with the theological lion. Its goal is to refute, once for all, the all too common dichotomy between doctrine and real life. Christian doctrine directs us in the way of truth and life and is therefore no less than a prescription for reality". (p. xii)

.

LINKS

..

Profile / bibliography here .
,
An appreciative, yet not uncritical review of The Drama of Doctrine (WJK 2005) here .
,
Vanhoozer on inerrancy here .

Kevin Vanhoozer on Biblical Inerrancy

See here for Vanhoozer on inerrancy. He roots inerrancy in the Bible's own self witness,

The basis for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is located both in the nature of God and in the Bible's teaching about itself. First, if God is perfect – all knowing, all wise, all-good – it follows that God speaks the truth. God does not tell lies; God is not ignorant. God's Word is thus free from all error arising either from conscious deceit or unconscious ignorance. Such is the unanimous confession of the Psalmist, the prophets, the Lord Jesus and the apostles. Second, the Bible presents itself as the Word of God written. Thus, in addition to its humanity (which is never denied), the Bible also enjoys the privileges and prerogatives of its status as God's Word. God's Word is thus wholly reliable, a trustworthy guide to reality, a light unto our path.

Vanhoozer deals with the oft repeated claim that BB Warfield virtually invented the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, by demonstrating that the Church in all ages has accepted the total reliability of the Bible. He charges those who find errors in the Bible with exegetical insensitivity. It is often the case that those who argue for an errant Bible interpret texts in a hopelessly wooden way without regard for the context, intention or literary genre of the passage.

All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.

(Psalm 119:60)