First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics

Trinity Journal, Spring 2003 by Horton, Michael S

The covenantal theme comes to the fore in ch. 6, in connection with speech act theory once more. Not only is "covenant" a theme of a particular kind of discourse, it is the shape of all discourse. Here Vanhoozer moves through the particular to reach the universal. Again he emphasizes that speakers do many different things with language besides either asserting or encountering. In addition, the doctrine of the Trinity grounds such communicative relations. Vanhoozer anticipates the objection that he is too eager to find vestiga trinitatis under every bush. "While I certainly do not think that everything in our world is a 'vestige' of the Trinity, I do think that in this case there is something more than an interesting analogy. The doctrine of the Trinity, I shall argue, stands not as an analogy but as a paradigm for human communication" (p. 168). "The so-called missions of the Son and Spirit, authorized by God the Father/Author, bear a certain resemblance to the economy of the 'sender-receiver' model of communication" (p. 168).

Next, Vanhoozer repeats the argument of ch. 4, namely, that perlocutionary acts are communicative rather than strategic. "The divine intention does not contravene but supervenes on the intentions of the human authors" (p. 194). At the same time, he critiques Stanley Grenz's position, which refuses to locate authority in the quality of the biblical writings (i.e., its inspiration), rather than in the use the Spirit makes of the Bible. The separation of text from author in the hermeneutics of Ricoeur leads Grenz to a flawed separation of Word and Spirit: "Indeed the only illocutionary act Grenz actually ascribes to the Spirit is speaking: 'The Spirit performs the perlocutionary act of creating a world through the illocutionary act of speaking . . . by appropriating the biblical text as the instrumentality of the divine speaking.' Speaking, however, is not an illocutionary act! . . . The Spirit does indeed perform perlocutionary acts - no disagreement here. Yet the Spirit does so only on the basis of concrete textual illocutions - the content! -of Scripture" (pp. 197-98). Vanhoozer argues that the Spirit makes the already-given speech acts (illocutions) effective instead of working independently of them. "Perlocutions 'proceed' from locutions and illocutions, but not vice versa" (p. 200). In a further retrieval of the reformers' insight, Vanhoozer concludes, "The Spirit speaks in and through Scripture precisely by rendering its illocutions at the sentential, generic and canonical levels perlocutionarily efficacious" (p. 200). In summary, "What God does with Scripture is covenant with humanity by testifying to Jesus Christ (illocution) and by bringing about the reader's mutual indwelling with Christ (perlocution) through the Spirit's rendering Scripture efficacious" (p. 200). This renders us covenant keepers, witnesses, and disciples.

The third section (Hermeneutics) begins by advancing the following thesis: "The Bible should be interpreted 'like any other book,' but every other book should be interpreted with norms that we have derived from a reflection on how to read Scripture" (p. 208). Again, the particular determines the universal, rather than vice versa, pace modern foundationalism. Appealing to John Milbank, Vanhoozer claims, "Secular literary theories are theologies or antitheologies in disguise" (p. 209). Following Fish, Hauwerwas places meaning in the community, not the text (p. 210), a recurring tendency that we have encountered in both Yale and Chicago schools. Despite their differences, they both conflate textual meaning and communal interpretation. This escape from the literal sense of the text represents "a textual gnosticism" (p. 211). It is no wonder, then, that the Spirit replaces the Word and is no longer the Spirit of Christ. "The Shekinah cloud has settled on the interpreting community" (p. 212). This means that "textual sense" is a property of the community, not the text, and that there is no clear distinction between text and interpretation. "Must all hermeneutic roads lead to Rome?" (p. 219). Such approaches fail to respect the genuine alterity of the other. The question, then, is not whether hermeneutics will adopt a theological framework, but what kind it will adopt. He argues that faithful interpretation of texts "ultimately depends upon the theological virtues of faith, hope and love" (p. 231). Neither the spirit of the age nor the spirit of the community can account for illocutionary acts apart from Scripture. "The Spirit may blow where, but not what, he wills" (p. 233).