Vanhoozer writes,
“Interpretation is one of the fundamental categories of theological thinking.” (FT, 311)
Vanhoozer focuses new emphasis and brings to our attention a neglected discipline of Christian life – hermeneutics. In the reading and study of God’s Word we attend to and should be able to dialogue at the level of hermeneutics, that is, to discuss the principles that make for good interpretation. Vanhoozer is challenging believers and Christian churches that are presently only using the Bible for their own self-centered purposes and ends or simply to maintain their theological traditions, to attend to learning from and submitting to what the human and divine authors intended to say in Scripture. How would Vanhoozer achieve this? Christians and church leadership must be willing to discourse on a biblical basis about their differing interpretations of Scripture. My experience has been that teachers and preachers are not interested in or prepared to engage at the level of hermeneutics when alternative interpretations and viewpoints are presented. They state their position and dismiss any biblically based substantial challenge to it. The church is not intentional about hermeneutics. In effect therefore, the church is actually teaching Christians not to think biblically, that is, with regard to the author’s intent, and therefore not to think at all theologically in the truest sense of the word as the constructive expression of sound interpretation. Most Christians merely listen to what is taught and fail to process what they hear or read from a “thick” theological and canonical context. Vanhoozer writes,
“Hart laments the church’s loss of prophetic voice: ‘Popular Christianity is rapidly approaching the state of perfect homogenization. It is religiousness rather than faith; it is geniality rather than love; it is wish rather than hope; it is opinion rather than truth.”[1] The Christian criticism of mass culture must begin with the church, with those of the household of faith.
In a culture of hermeneutics, there is more need than ever for theology – even in the church. But what can theology offer? What should be its reaction to the deconstruction of stories, texts and whole cultures? Theology must become involved in the reconstruction of culture. Theology must lay the intellectual foundations for lived biblical religion. It must serve the community of interpreters who believe that the Bible witnesses to God’s acts in the world and in his Word, Jesus Christ. Amid the ruins of our age, biblical interpretation is the best means of rebuilding the walls of a culture originally built upon the Book.” (FT, 332)
But given the Calvinist / non-Calvinist debate, what will be the message of this “theology?” Whose “witness to God’s acts in the world and in his Word, Jesus Christ” will dictate the content of what this theology has to say? Whose version of the “gospel” is the true biblical witness to God’s acts in his Word – Jesus Christ – who is the only one the Spirit of Truth can sanction? Whose conception of God is biblically accurate? Whose view of history, the nature of man, etc. is faithful to Scripture? Vanhoozer’s call to hermeneutics and theology would seem to have to include this issue of the Calvinist / non-Calvinist divide. This is no incidental matter that we can continue to rationalize away and ignore. Any degree of thoughtful listening and observation of the preaching, teaching, and practical ministry of the evangelical church today will reveal the confusion that exists regarding the most fundamental doctrines of Scripture. Evangelicals have dealt with it by simply ignoring it. It is indeed ironic that a church which believes in the authority of the Bible can simply dismiss pursuing and defining the truth of the Bible regarding some of its essential doctrines, especially its soteriology and the very gospel message itself. The very definition of the gospel and the nature of salvation is at stake. The essential message and task of the Church is at issue. That means the very essence of hope and meaning of life and people’s eternal destinies lie in the balance. Nothing could be more important than the gospel message, and there is nothing about which the Calvinist and non-Calvinist find themselves further apart with a theological gulf fixed. If it is theology that must reconstruct culture, then we had better have a serious discussion at the level of hermeneutics to identify a truly biblical theology and soteriology. There are presently at least two diametrically opposed soteriologies at work in the “evangelical” church today. The question is which is true? Which theology serves as a sufficient foundation upon which to build the Christian church and the Christian life, let alone renew a quickly decaying culture?
Back to “The Vanhoozer Essays”
[1] Julian Hart, A Christian Critique of American Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1967) 394.
The Truth of the Gospel 