See J. Vanhoozer, ‘Into the Great “Beyond”: A Theologian’s Response to the Marshall Plan’, in Beyond the Bible by I Howard Marshall (Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, 2004).
In his chapter, Vanhoozer (rightly) critiques the idea of extracting biblical principles from scripture for the following reasons:
1) they are seen as transcultural but are usually culturally affected; 2) this approach privileges didactic passages over other types; 3) a set of acultural principles does not give “a more accurate indication of God’s will than its canonical expression.” (92)
Vanhoozer would rather learn patterns of judgment from the whole canon (each text to be read in the context of whole canon). Judgments can be expressed in different conceptual forms, e.g. Phil 2 and Nicea’s homoousios. The aim is making the same kinds of judgments found in scripture, being formed by the Holy Spirit and in Christ’s likeness.
Vanoozer doesn’t like the ‘redemptive trajectories’ of, e.g., William J. Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001) or Stephen E. Fowl, Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998). The reason he gives for this is because the interpreter’s view ends up “lording it over the text” since they decide where the trajectory goes (90-91). As an example, Fowl and Webb disagree over whether homosexual relations are legitimate from a Christian point of view. But this criticism seems to me to fail, firstly because people with similar methods of interpretation often disagree as to how to understand a text, but that does not necessarily impugn the method. Secondly, it seems to take insufficient account of the Spirit’s guidance of the church in interpretation. Thirdly, for someone as acutely aware of hermeneutics as Vanhoozer, it seems surprisingly naïve about the culturally conditioned nature of any engagement with texts. Deciding how to interpret a text is not the same as ‘lording it over the text’, which I presume means ignoring the text if it does not fit our current views rather than being challenged and changed by the text.
Vanhoozer’s idea of formation as part of reading scripture, and of learning patterns of judgment as part of that, are correct, but I’m sure Fowl takes those ideas on board. Furthermore, how could one take on board patterns of judgment from the canon and not develop something like a redemptive trajectory? If you take a canonical pattern of judgment to be a movement towards justice and equality and away from violence, then you have to disagree with some texts in both testaments. This shows that choosing a ‘pattern of judgment’ is already an interpretive act that involves far more than just the text. Feminist readings have shown this, as have the brilliant readings of James Alison in Faith beyond resentment.
Vanhoozer also ignores the fact that traditions develop and that changing interpretations are part of that. As the second point above suggests, I think he fails to trust in the work of the Spirit in the collective work of the church. He says he is “happier to speak of a Christological trajectory, of a movement that leads to the wisdom of God summed up in Jesus Christ, not to something beyond it, even when that something is associated with the Spirit” (91). But what does this mean? It might work fine as a way of interpreting the OT, but since we have so much to deal with that is not discussed in the NT, how can we not go beyond the NT? (I think the ‘it’ in his sentence is ambiguous: is he suggesting a redemptive trajectory approach tries to go beyond the text of the bible or beyond the wisdom of God?)
I feel as though Vanhoozer has done a lot of work in hermeneutics that is then short-circuited by his somewhat conservative theological positions.
Recent Comments