I appreciate Vanhoozer’s thorough examination of what amounts to serious theological distortions stemming from a “metaphysics of relationality.” In his First Theology he interacts with the more radical contingent of relational theologians and reiterates the essential biblical, hermeneutical perspectives of conservative evangelicalism. Most non-Calvinist evangelicals do not embrace the radical forms of “open theism” and “relational” theology that Vanhoozer critiques in First Theology and Remythologizing Theology. I agree with Vanhoozer that we should let the Bible speak its message to us and not read into it our own historical, social, or theological agendas. We know that God is personal and that the Bible is his word. He is speaking to us in it. And although we may not fully understand all that God’s word is saying with respect to God’s own nature, we can grasp what it assuredly cannot be interpreted as saying if we acknowledge and give proper place to the fundamental criteria for all rational thought, discourse, and interpretation – logical and moral coherence.
Much of what Vanhoozer borrows from “speech-act theory” can shed light on what is already elucidated in Scripture, but the use of Bakhtin’s literary/critical devices and “Authorial/hero” analogies only serve to obscure the theological questions at stake. Vanhoozer take us further afield from biblical thought patterns with his teachings on the realization of one’s own “voice-idea,” character and existence “consummation,” “heroes,” “potentially infinite dialog with the Author God,” etc. It is neither pedagogically or biblically helpful to describe the gospel as “the gospel mythos” which is “the good news that the Author freely and lovingly consummates human heroes by entering into the story himself with both hands, Son and Spirit.” (RT, 356-357) Also, the whole premise that an author can write a book about characters and somehow those characters come ‘alive” with a freedom of self-determination and then use this as analogous to the God/man/world relationship is confusing and unconvincing. The author analogy seems to be inadequate to reflect the real world biblical dynamic which does not have the nature of a script that predetermines “whatsoever comes to pass.”[1] At the bottom of all this we sense that the problem of theological determinism that Vanhoozer is trying to circumvent persists.
In Remythologizing Theology Vanhoozer critiques a radical polyphonic view of God’s relation to the world, a view that according to Vanhoozer characterizes open theists, process theologians, and other types of panentheists. (RT, 314) He writes,
“Polyphonic authorship involves the author making space for and listening to voices other than his own: “the variety of discourses in the novel prevents the novelist from imposing a single world-view upon his readers even if he wanted to…a polyphonic work…demands that the author cease to exercise monologic control.”” (RT, 311-312)
“Transposed into theology, radical polyphonic authorship stands for the way in which God orchestrates an open-ended conversation among his creatures. Its crucial assumption is that an author’s genuine love for his creation requires an emptying out or kenosis that results in the author’s relinquishing control and authority in order to be genuinely present. Human characters become co-creators and co-authors of an indeterminate wiki-world. Characters become collaborators in the writing of their own histories. The result: a loss in the author’s privileged (sovereign) status…” (RT, 312)
“Here, then, is the key question: is God’s authorial influence agential? Can God author action and, if so, what kind? If God cannot originate a sequence of events or bring about a particular action, can God be said actually to love the world? Perhaps, if love means “intent to persuade to the better?” If, however, there is no guarantee that God will persuade, for what can we hope?
…To affirm a radical polyphonic divine authorship is to imply that God limits his speech and activity, his authority and power – his say-so – to sustain a genuine conversation with his creatures, some of whom (the human kind) become virtual co-authors. The polyphonic Author is present to but not in control of creatures if “control” means determining their actions. Is there any guarantee, however, that polyphony will not degenerate into a cacophony in which everyone says and does what is right in his or her eyes?” (RT, 314)
Note several things about this passage. Vanhoozer has a hard time understanding how it is that God can be “in control” of his world and not have determined the actions of his creatures. Vanhoozer is correct in his critique of radical polyphonic authorship if by God’s “relinquishing control and authority in order to be genuinely present” it is meant that God can no longer exercise any authority or control any events so as to accomplish his plans and purposes in the world. This extreme view is not logically or morally necessary for God to love people or be genuinely present in the world. If that were the case, and this is Vanhoozer’s concern, he certainly would no longer be God. He might as well be absent. So, this is certainly not the biblical view. But Vanhoozer’s mistake is to make this an all-or-nothing situation. The Bible affirms that somehow God accomplishes his will in the world. Vanhoozer wants to know how. That’s fine, but Vanhoozer uses one extreme as a foil for justifying another extreme, that is, a polyphony that cannot guarantee degenerating to cacophony verses his deterministic view of God’s sovereignty. But there is no need to understand God’s “control and authority,” even if “communicative,” in absolute, deterministic terms. That would be to err on the opposite end of the spectrum. It raises equally problematic concerns about what it means for God to love and be present with his creatures. If according to the adherents to radical polyphonic authorship what is being “relinquished” is absolute deterministic control over “whatsoever comes to pass,” then we would, on biblical grounds, be compelled to agree with them. The problem here is in the verbiage of God “relinquishing” control and authority. God can love and be genuinely present and allow persons to exercise their wills in choices that are wholly theirs and not “relinquish” his “control and authority,” because his “control and authority” is not dependent upon him having absolutely predetermined “whatsoever comes to pass.” If we do not presuppose Reformed determinism, then when God acts as he does in a non-deterministic manner with man, he is not “relinquishing” his “control or authority.” God’s “control and authority” need not be a universal divine causal determinism (i.e., Calvinist sovereignty) for God to maintain “control and authority.” According to Scripture God can allow for a genuine human freedom – a freedom which is not absolute. Vanhoozer rightly rejects a radical polyphonic authorship, but sees only one other option – God’s absolute predetermination of “whatsoever comes to pass” lest there be no “hope” because God could not effectively “persuade” us to do his will and the world would then “degenerate into a cacophony in which everyone says and does what is right in his or her eyes.” Is this really the case if God has not determined the every thought, desire, and action of all his creatures? Not necessarily. Note what is going on here. Vanhoozer’s thinking about the possibilities here are being dictated by his Calvinist doctrines. It is the case if God doesn’t predetermine all things that they will degenerate into a “cacophony” and there will be no “hope” if one presupposes a doctrine of total depravity or human inability which requires the absolute, irresistible, effective action of God on persons to will and to act according to God’s own will. But such a doctrine is biblically unsustainable. Is there a “guarantee” that “polyphony will not degenerate into cacophony” that does not require theistic determinism? There must be, for the logical, moral, epistemic, and biblical incoherence generated by theistic determinism is indicative that something is seriously amiss in that theology. We cannot take the liberty of wreaking logical, moral, and theological havoc to preserve what the Calvinist perceives on the basis of his own doctrines as necessary for God to remain sovereign over his world. What I am saying is that we do know what God’s authority and sovereignty cannot mean. They cannot mean what result in incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions with other clear teaching in Scripture.
If we want to speak in terms of a “guarantee,” (and this may not be where we should go), any “guarantee” lies in the gracious initiative and selective actions of God to bring light and life into our darkness and by his Spirit to be personally present and involved in, through and even upon men so that men can respond or fail to respond to his inevitable reign as Savior, Lord and King. Such a description is more consistent with the biblical data. It is affirmed throughout Scripture that we have substantial input into the writing of our own histories. The Bible is clear about us having been created by God with this freedom of the will. Vanhoozer’s problem is that he cannot shake off his determinism. He is also presupposing as true his Calvinist ideas about human inability and unconditional election that require an absolute determinism thereby limiting his theological possibilities and compelling him to fear that God will lose his “privileged (sovereign) status,” that is, his universal causal determinism.
Interestingly Vanhoozer has no problem with theistic determinism per se. After all, he is a Calvinist. What he has a problem with is the way his divine determinism is presented in “classical theism.” It has traditionally been presented as impersonal, indifferently casual, and “monological.” But I have argued that Vanhoozer fails in getting around the problems of his theistic determinism. In that Vanhoozer objects to the characterization of Reformed Calvinism as monological, he simply declares it dialogical and feels he has solved the problem of absolute determinism. The question becomes whether or not determinism is by definition “monological.” Vanhoozer’s explanatory options are limited because he is presupposing that the Calvinist doctrines of human inability and an effectual call are true. But neither alternative – that God “relinquishes control and authority” absolutely or God never “relinquishes control or authority” over anything or anybody at any time because he has ordained “whatsoever comes to pass” – are biblically accurate. This is a false dichotomy. But Vanhoozer cannot give up the latter horn of this false dilemma that is his traditional theological perspective. Since he will not consider a position that presents a third option to his dilemma he searches for an explanation as to how God determines the actions of his human creatures while loving them and being genuinely present to them. Does God limit his “say-so” in the world? If we are not thinking in absolute deterministic terms, for God to limit his “say so” is not a threat to God’s sovereignty. God has relinquished nothing. He still has “say-so” in the world. “Say-so” never was for many Christians defined as God’s comprehensive predetermination of every person’s thoughts, desires, attitudes, and actions, let alone their eternal destinies. Therefore genuine human freedom is not a threat to God’s rule. Even in the free choices that God gives man to make, he has not “relinquished” his “say-so” in the world. Why would we ever think God has “relinquished” his “say-so” in the world in light of what God has accomplished “in Christ?” There is nothing to fear God “relinquishing” if he has designed humans to be genuine moral agents who exercise their freedom under his rule and reign. He has “said” and will “say” what needs to be said when and how he decides to say it! God is still sovereign, man must respond one way or another. All things, especially our eternal destinies, need not be predetermined by God. Certainly the way of salvation and the options open to us have been predetermined and established by God. And therefore, a careful examination of Scripture leads us to know that our final destiny genuinely involves both God and us. To interpret this truth that our final destiny genuinely involves “both God and us” as some kind of “cooperation” between God and man, a meritorious act on man’s part or a contribution to his salvation, etc. would be a serious mischaracterization of the nature of the response of faith as presented in Scripture. Such a view only demonstrates the distorting effects of Calvinist theology. And out of fear that God’s glory would be diminished and man’s will encroach upon a salvation that is “all of grace” by proposing that God effectually calls a limited number of predestined elect to salvation is not a biblical solution. That God has not predestined any of us to eternal damnation is his mercy to us and the only concept of mercy worthy of the God of the Bible. To define God’s “mercy” or “grace” as his predestination of some undeserving sinners to salvation and all other undeserving sinners to damnation is to make God out to be arbitrary and to create a moral void respecting our knowledge of just judgment and the true character of God in this regard. That he has provided the way to eternal life and made it a real possibility for each of us is his love and grace. That he will divide those who do not believe from those who do, assigning the believer to eternal life and the unbeliever to eternal condemnation is his just judgment upon us for our sins. In the believers case God’s wrath is atoned for “in Christ” but in the unbelievers case his condemnation remains “because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (Jn. 3:18) This is a more biblically and morally coherent view.
Vanhoozer’s allusion to the end of the book of Judges[2] confirms that Vanhoozer’s proposition – that in order for God to be successfully sovereign he has had to have predetermined all events and our eternal destinies – is not the reality of our situation. Ironically, this passage affirms libertarian freedom and defeats Vanhoozer’s Calvinism. In this very passage the Bible is affirming libertarian free will, this is, the possibility that everyone can do what is “right in their own eyes,” something God obviously does not desire and obviously has not predetermined, yet he is not the less sovereign for it. It would be incoherent to hold to theistic determinism in light of the God/man relation described in the book of Judges. The familiar cycles of the book bear witness to a God in a dynamic relationship of genuine response to the actions of his people. He does not absolutely predetermine “whatsoever comes to pass” yet remains in authority, able to work his will, despite the fact that humans have a substantial degree of freedom. His will is not to predetermine our every action and our eternal destinies. His will and his ways are larger than that, and in its grandeur he has not left our life in him and our eternal destinies unattended, but has worked for our redemption out of love; a redemption appropriate to our human nature that encompasses all things in his love and justice. Total inability is a false doctrine. Granted, we are all sinners, but God is in dynamic personal relation with human beings and works in the world through his Word and Spirit in those who are willing and through others despite their unwillingness. At other times he does what he pleases however, wherever and in whomever he sees fit. This is the way of sovereignty – it includes God’s wisdom, compassion, faithfulness, and love.
This is why Vanhoozer’s fear that there is no “guarantee” to “persuade” is foolish. No there is no guarantee that God will persuade, but as I pointed out above, God’s sovereignty consists in more than “persuasion.” But note that the Calvinist admits that God does employ persuasion, but here again we must realize that “persuasion” is incoherent with Calvinism’s ultimate theistic determinism. Vanhoozer should not borrow the language of “polyphonic authorship” to describe his theistic determinism. There is a subtle misapplication of the word “persuade” here. To “persuade” implies sole authorship of one’s actions and the ability of contrary choice. When Vanhoozer writes, “If, however, there is no guarantee that God will persuade, for what can we hope?” he again presupposes the Reformed doctrine of human inability and therefore “persuade” here must yield to an “effectual call.” For Vanhoozer and Calvinists this statement would read, “If, however, there is no guarantee that God will persuade, for what can we hope if he does not effectually call? Only in theistic determinism is there any hope!” But that is not true. What if you are not among the unconditionally elect? You have no hope! And you cannot know that you are among the elect (the epistemic problem), you cannot know that you can be saved. So, Calvinism only offers “hope” on the basis that one presume their own election. It is based on a personal. Furthermore, there are myriads of people who have no hope and never could have this hope. They are the non-elect. In contrast, on libertarian freedom, God offers hope in Jesus Christ. He presents Christ to you presumption in the gospel and therefore you can know you have hope and salvation by believing what God says he has accomplished on your behalf. Therefore, the epistemic problem of Calvinism is solved. Because this hope is found in Christ, you know for sure of God’s love and promises to you and that he will be faithful to them. These are not wrapped up in an unknown decision of God made in eternity past regarding your own eternal destiny. They are fully displayed in Jesus Christ on the cross for all to see and avail themselves of by faith. All that God is to us and has for us is found “in Christ.” God has provided all things for life and godliness and for eternal life. Your life here on earth and your eternal destiny are for you to decide. This is the biblical worldview that provides the sinner true hope.
I can guarantee that God will accomplish what he intends in this world even given libertarian freedom, but Vanhoozer should not use the word “persuade” to give the impression that that there is a real type of human freedom that is compatible with an absolute theistic determinism. There is not. The two are incompatible. Rather, biblically speaking, our hope as sinners and the “guarantee” of salvation is found in the absolute success of the saving work God provided “in Christ” to be offered to sinners and appropriated by faith. Within the context of trusting God and believing in what he has accomplished in Christ lies one’s hope and guarantee of salvation. It is a guarantee based upon the work of God on our behalf. As such it is all of grace. And in hearing it, the person hears of the real possibility of the hope of eternal life, and by receiving and believing a person becomes a child of God. What occurs in the hearing of the gospel and upon believing is of God’s Spirit and those who continue to live by faith in Christ are kept by the power of God. This explanation best fits all the elements that Vanhoozer is struggling to incorporate into his theology. This explanation is the most coherent given all the biblical data. Vanhoozer’s determinism prevents such coherence in his theology.
Vanhoozer goes on to adopt a less radical version of polyphonic authorship. He adds the aspect of “dialogue” or divine “interjection” of the “word of the Lord” that actually makes things happen.
“The crucial issue for theologians who continue to employ the analogy of authorship is how to conceive of special divine action. Any Christian theology worth its salt (and light) must be able to ascribe the Exodus of Israel and the resurrection of Jesus Christ to divine agency. Is there a third way if neither intervention nor influence is up to the task? There is: interjection. To interject is to interrupt a situation through an abrupt address: “Samuel!” (1 Sam. 3:6); Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Mt. 4:17); “Follow me” (Mt. 9:9) In the next section I will once again co-opt Bakhtin, this time to argue (with a little help from Barth and Balthasar) for a dialogical version of polyphonic authorship that gives pride of place to divine interjection, and to “the word of the Lord” that came to them and comes to us.” (RT, 316)
But neither does “interjection” satisfy for the absolute “effect” that Vanhoozer’s theistic determinism requires. And we immediately see the incoherence in Vanhoozer’s position. Even if the call to “Samuel!” or the “Follow me” to the disciples are effectual, which they very well may be even on a libertarian freedom view, the “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” was certainly not effectual. Many refused to repent and believe. My essay on the rich young ruler also made the case against Vanhoozer’s theistic determinism. Libertarian freewill is the biblical view. It has no problem with intervention, influence, or interjection. But even interjection is not going to give Vanhoozer what he is looking for. When Jesus “interjected” the command to “repent,” there were those who would not. The reason for a person’s repentance or a failure to repent is not to be found in the word working according to a predetermined decision of God to cause that word to have its effect in some and not others, otherwise the same word is meaningless and disingenuous to those God predetermined it should not have that effect (i.e., the non-elect). God would then be speaking words that he has no intention of allowing to be realized in the hearer. In these non-elect hearers, God has no intention of realizing the words according to their content. The word to them is not only null and void; it is a falsehood.
Contrary to this view, the reason for a person’s repentance or a failure to repent lies in the person’s capacity to will, and from that will, to decide and act. This capacity is engaged in the dynamic of salvific proclamation because of the special presence of the Spirit who accompanies an accurate, biblical presentation of the gospel message. The content of the message implies the engaging of the will as a decision rooted in the individual as a self. The self is engaged through the will because of the way God made mankind in his image as a person. Personhood entails and facilitates the dynamic, relational nature of the communion God seeks with his human creatures. God communicates, intervenes, influences, and interjects to establish a personal relationship and as such that relationship involves the person as an individuated being, a self, who is able to render a positive or negative response to God’s demonstrations of love to them, especially in the intervention of Christ Jesus. The Word of God presents the same will of God to each hearer. Each hearer therefore, given the presence of the Spirit, the content of the Word and the nature of the human will has the real possibility to act in accord with the revealed will of God to them. They should and can repent. The diversity of response is due to the person themselves not the “call” as “effectual” or non-effectual. The call itself is not the cause of the different responses to that call. The diversity of response ultimately lies within the hearers. It is they who, with respect to their own wills, accept or reject the Word and Spirit.
Non-Calvinists will read Vanhoozer and ask what is really new here in emphasizing that God is a “communicative agent” and that he accomplishes things in the world through “speech-acts” or that he “engages human persons as persons according to their rational, volitional and emotional natures?” (RT, 333) If it is to diminish impersonal causal determinism we heartily applaud the movement to a more biblical understanding of how God works. If it is attempting to rationalize a presupposed Reformed Calvinist theology of election and effectual calling brought to the text, we must adamantly disagree. Many non-Calvinists remain continually baffled by the Calvinist attempts to move from impersonal causality to something more personal while stating God predestines some and not others to salvation. In defense of the non-Calvinist theological perspectives (some of which as Vanhoozer rightly points out have erred on the other extreme), an important element of their strength lies in the fact that they do present an interpretation of Scripture that does not generate the degree of logical, moral, epistemic, and theological incoherence that Calvinism obviously does. For many non-Calvinists coherence in these areas is essential to a sound, biblical hermeneutic. You cannot claim your interpretation is legitimate without logical, moral, epistemic, and biblical coherence. Many non-Calvinists never viewed God as an impersonal cause because they could never embrace theological determinism on the grounds that it generates rational incoherence. Most people hear about the Calvinist “doctrines of grace” (i.e., TULIP) and leave scratching their heads. They either dismiss it or suffer through the mental anguish and spiritual distress that is caused by the suppression of reason necessary to finally embrace Calvinism.
Insurmountable difficulties stem from the Calvinist doctrines of sovereignty, unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible “grace.” For many of us the God of the Bible always was a “God-in-communicative-act”- a personal God in personal dialogue and interaction with man through his Word. It is always how we viewed God because it is always how we read Scripture – as God’s Word to us, that is, his speaking to us – a Word that needs to be taken in a complete, direct, and personal sense. It is a Word that we either accept or reject. God’s acts and words are recorded for us in the Bible. God speaks and is therefore personal, and what he says he says to persons made in his image. The doctrines of creation (sovereignty), man as made in the image of God (relationship), the fall of man into sin (human freedom), the incarnation of Christ (loving intervention), the proclamation of “good news” for all persons (influence), the eschatological judgment and consummation of history (sovereignty, intervention) are all part and parcel of our beliefs.
Vanhoozer conspicuously leaves out the most viable biblical option in his theology. It is the non-Calvinist view that God remains sovereign in the sense of successfully ruling over his creation and bringing it to his desired ends while he determined to grant to man a will that is substantially free to do other than the will of God. Vanhoozer’s non-negotiable absolute theistic determinism restricts his theological perception of God’s ways as found in Scripture. He struggles to give proper place to the dynamic of God’s actions and relationship to man, but he can never rise higher than his theistic determinism will allow. “Intervention” and “influence” are options for a sovereign God as well as “interjection.” Certainly there must be an efficacy to what God does according what he has planned and purposed. But God’s efficacious activity needs to be biblically defined and not unqualified as to its depth and scope in relation to mankind so that we reduce God to an “Author” who is the only actor in his own historical novel. Many who are of the Reformed persuasion may be excited about Vanhoozer’s writings. He offers a theological approach that may shed light on an otherwise dark and perplexing aspect of Reformed theology. But non-Calvinists will view Vanhoozer’s endeavor differently. In a very real sense, gi09+en the complicated nature of the problems generated by Reformed theology and the complex nature of the compatibilist remedies suggested, what Vanhoozer offers up to us is a sort of confession that something is amiss in Calvinist thought. Vanhoozer exemplifies the struggle of the Calvinist. It is a struggle to be released from the despairing grip of the inevitable causality inherent in Calvinism that generates it logical, moral, and theological problems. Let alone that it completely eviscerates the gospel of its good news. Vanhoozer seeks a way to properly orient the fundamental idea of a deterministic sovereignty, fixed eternal destinies, and definitions of human depravity that conflict with the biblical testimony to genuine relationship to God, the exercise of human freedom, moral responsibility and faith. Through “speech-act” theory Vanhoozer is seeking to find a way forward within his deterministic Calvinist theological context to remedy the problems this theology generates. In my opinion, what he really should be seeking is the way out of his theology. And lest he fear betraying his allegiance to the Calvinist understanding of “the sovereignty of God,” he should take comfort in the fact that he need not compromise biblical truth or authority on these matters, for the Bible itself provides that way out and the way forward.
Back to “The Vanhoozer Essays”
[1] See the discussion and observations of Dorothy Sayers in essay “Vanhoozer 1.16 – The Author / Text Analogy and the Problem of Evil.” See also Dorothy Sayers, The Mind of the Maker, (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), 63.
[2] Judges 21:25, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”
The Truth of the Gospel 