Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #499019 in Books
• Published on: 2001-03-08
• Released on: 2001-01-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 298 pages

Customer Reviews

Up-to-date(ing) Evangelical theology
As a pastor (from a fundamentalist and Neo-orthodox background) who tries to keep up with what is going on in theology, I found this a fascinating read. Written from an evangelical point of view, it is a very sophisticated engagement with a wide range of theology, past and present. Each chapter has excellent historical background to introduce present theological engagements, as a prelude to the authors' own development of the topic. There is a stead critique of the failure of the Enlightment project and of foundationalisms, including evangelical foundationalisms regarded as inadequate in the post-modern context. The discussion of epistemology was very interesting, especially Reformed epistemology. (I have already ordered W. Jay Wood's Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous; part of the value of the book to me is new leads to explore). There is also much dialogue with Pannenberg, about whom Grenz has written a great deal. The discussions of the Trinity and of the place of community are very well done. The book is well written and has helped bring me to date on what I think will be an ongoing area of theological work, (more especially by evangelicals?) It would be interesting to see these authors' evaluation of Milbank and Radical Orthodoxy. However I can imagine that a lot of evangelicals are a bit alarmed as to where all this is going.

Engaging Proposal, But Essentially Does Not Deliver
I want to first say that this book is not for the faint of heart. It is highly technical, philosophical, and seems to draw more questions than answers in the end (clearly a sign of the post-modern trend). Though I admire so many aspects of this work, the book essentially fails to deliver a thoroughly evangelical model for 'doing theology' which would see scripture as our final authority (contra culture, neo-orthodoxy, post-liberalism). I state this criticism not as an ignorant evangelical, but one who shares their concerns: a desire for a more honest engagement and method for doing theology in our present culture. However, though they (Grenz/Franke) attempt to move from propositionalist methodology into a more culturally relevant method, they essentially desire to stay within the evangelical framework. At points they engage this reworking successfully, yet in the end they tend to align themselves more with the Post-Liberal, Yale theology of George Lindbeck and Hans Frei (and somewhat with the 'Neo-Orthodoxy' of Karl Barth), than a conservative evangelical could agree with. So, in essence, the book fails not because it essentially aligns itself with these methods for doing theology, but because it attempts to do this while at the same time remaining within the more conservative/evangelical tradition which sees scripture as the ultimate authority.

Other reviewers have given solid assessments of the many specifics of these aspects, so I will not write further on this. I will comment briefly on how the book attempts to give tradition and culture a somewhat equal status to scripture because the bible itself was written within a cultural and historical setting. From the outset, I feel this is honest, yet it seems to lean towards interpretations that tend to be drawn from present culture rather than an understanding of these eternal truths within their cultural setting. Some might say that Grenz and Franke have 'Left Foundationalism'. I don't think I would go that far, but they certainly attempt to exit the propositional methodology of scriptures for something that is more defined by culture.

In the end, their desires to move away from this type of 'doing theology' is well-warranted as this method (propositionalism) came out of a cultural reaction as well, the conservative reaction to the liberal interpretations of scripture during 'Modernity'. Essentially, the famous 'Fundamentals' came from this reaction as it was needed within its cultural context. So, I would agree with Grenz and Franke that we need to move 'Beyond Foundationalism'. This 'Foundationalism' (which refers to a method for doing theology) sets the scripture up as an essential treasure trove of propositional facts for the Christian to learn, memorize, and essentially believe in. Clearly, the method of 'proof texting' has been taught to the majority of believers as a very practical outgrowth of this kind of belief. As an evangelical, I don't see this as wrong as long as a thorough understanding of the book/chapter and background is understood well-enough to explain that proof-text. This is just one small example of the common 'Foundationalist' method for doing theology which this book sets out to revise.

This leads to the books final assessment: Does the book achieve what it sets out to do? I don't believe so, for the reasons I mentioned above. In the attempt to move beyond foundationalism, it seems to leave the distinctive of foundational/evangelical theology of the primacy of the written Word as authoritative and final in practice and life. It somewhat elevates cultural views of this authoritative written Word on equal status as the original context the writers engaged in. I believe the writers essentially aligned themselves more closely to the Neo-Orthodox view on revelation than most evangelicals would be comfortable with. Their handling of the 'Final Revelation of God', His Son Jesus Christ, seems to take precedence over the preserved written Word which both testifies of Him and is a testimony of the Holy Spirit. I think the balance between the Living Word/written Word is somewhat lost in this book, which is why I feel they have not achieved their essential goals, a revision of evangelical methods for doing theology (and an attempt not to leave it).

Lastly, their attempt is oriented more for the academic audience than for the common reader. The book is highly philosophical dealing heavily within this realm. The wordage is also extremely academic in nature, almost convoluted to a point. In my final assessment, I believe Dr. Kevin Vanhoozer's book, "The Drama of Doctrine" is a more faithful presentation of how to 'revise' evangelical methodology. This and his, 'First Theology' are excellent books on how to approach the Foundationalist methods, revise them biblically, and keep the Living Word/written Word in balance as testimonies to the One true God. His work is very generous, even-handed, and revises (more than departs from) evangelical methods for doing theology in our present, post-modern culture. However, this is still an excellent work in scholarship by two first-rate theologians.

Not a compelling proposal for evangelical theology
Stanley Grenz and John Franke have suggested a provocative proposal for construing theological method in the postmodern context. The impetus for their proposal comes from the widely perceived collapse of the modernist worldview and the resultant and contemporary postmodern cultural setting. The authors suggest that the traditional theological categories of "liberal" and "conservative" no longer function as adequate typologies because of the fragmentation occurring within both camps. The authors also argue that these typologies fail to take into account those theologians in both camps who reject traditional modernist assumptions and who desire to take the postmodern cultural milieu seriously. In light of these factors, the authors have proposed a new theological method which construes the theological task as a conversation among three participants (Scripture, tradition, and culture), which form the sources for theology in their proposal. Additionally, the authors argue that there are three focal motifs (a Trinitarian content, a communitarian focus, and an eschatological orientation) that provide coherence to their scheme and which make theology distinctively Christian.

Grenz and Franke conceive of theology as the product which emerges from a dialogue among three participants: Scripture, tradition, and culture. Although they construe theology as a dialogue among these participants, they nevertheless argue for the priority of one of the conversational partners (Scripture), by presenting it as the normative and final authority for the church. It is important to note though that the authors make a significant qualification with regard to the nature of the Bible's authority. They argue that the normative authority of the Bible does not come from the text of Scripture in and of itself, but rather derives from the voice of the Spirit who speaks to us through the text today. The authors posit that the Spirit appropriates the text and declares His message to the church (thus performing an illocutionary act), and by doing this the Spirit creates the new community of renewed people (thus performing a perlocutionary act). By receiving the message of the Spirit speaking through the text, "the contemporary church becomes the contemporary embodiment of the paradigmatic biblical narrative." Additionally, as the church receives the message of the Spirit in reference to the future new creation God intends to bring about, the new community receives a distinctively Christian interpretive framework that forms it's perceptions of reality and life. Therefore, in this proposal, the Spirit speaking through text serves an essential identity forming function for the church.

The authors acknowledge that their proposal of tightly linking the authority of the Bible to the concept of illumination might appear to open the door to subjectivism, but they believe that are able to avoid this conclusion by appealing to the priority of the community over the individual. One must ask, however, if this explanation really does remove the threat of subjectivism (which may in fact be an innate characteristic of adopting any form of a non-foundationalist epistemology). Although the authors argue that Scripture's status as divine revelation does not depend on an individual recognition of the Spirit's voice as speaking through it, it does depend on a communal reception as the community of the church testifies that God speaks through the Bible. And yet, this explanation seems to suffer from two difficulties. First, in light of the diversity of Christian communities (particularly with regard to how different communities understand the extent of the canon), one must ask to which community would an individual look for the answer to the question of what books the Spirit is speaking through (i.e., is the Spirit speaking through Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Baruch)? Second (and perhaps this is the formal cause of the first difficulty), it seems that merely widening the sphere of receptivity from the individual to the community doesn't solve the dilemma of subjectivity. Certainly it can be admitted that widening the sphere from the individual to the community lends to an appearance of decreasing subjectivity, but what is one to make of the differing conclusions with regard to the Spirit's message from the widely divergent communities themselves? Has the problem of subjectivity really been minimized in this schema? This reviewer cannot help but think that it has not. Therefore, while this reviewer appreciates the emphasis on the priority accorded to Scripture in their proposal, it's tight and inextricable linkage between the authority of the Bible and the concept of illumination seems unable to surmount the challenge of subjectivity that is inherent in their proposal.

Grenz and Franke argue that tradition also serves as a source of theology (as a conversational partner together with Scripture and culture). This follows from the previous assertion that the Spirit speaks to the contemporary church through the Word to create world. As history unfolds, Christians today recognize that God has spoken to the church of the past. Therefore, Christians today form only a part of the Spirit's ongoing dialogue with the believing community throughout history. In this scheme, Christian tradition serves as a contemporary referent, helping the present-day church maintain continuity with the Christian community of the past and also helping to avoid the dangers they encountered. Additionally, the trajectory of the past not only looks backward, but also serves as a forward-looking referent, suggesting new ways of articulating the Christian belief-mosaic in a contemporary setting. Additionally, Grenz and Franke present a broader understanding of the concept of inspiration, construing the concept as inclusive of the community bringing the canon together as the book of the Christian community.

Although Grenz and Franke make a helpful contribution by reminding the church of the essential place of tradition in contemporary expressions of theology, their proposal concerning the role and nature of tradition appears to have a number of difficulties. First, they appear to offer a discordant portrait concerning the authority of tradition. In one instance they argue for the fundamental inseparability of Scripture and tradition by stating: "the authority of both scripture and tradition is an authority derived from the work of the Spirit. Each is part of an organic unity, so that even though scripture and tradition are distinguishable, they are fundamentally inseparable."

In a later instance, they appear to separate and subjugate tradition to Scripture when they argue: "Despite their great stature [i.e., the past creeds, past confessions, and theological formulations], such resources do not take the place of canonical scripture as the community's constitutive authority."

The difference in perspective appears to arise as a result of the authors' understanding of what constitutes tradition. They take a negative view of tradition when it is understood from the perspective of fixed past confessional stances of the church, referring to such an understanding of tradition as "static." They take a positive view of tradition when it is understood from the perspective of "the ongoing deposit of `wisdom' emerging from this dynamic movement of the community under the Spirit's guidance." In these two different conceptions of tradition, the first (the "static" view) is definable and concrete (as it is encapsulated in the past creeds and confessions of the church), while the second (the "dynamic" view) appears to be nebulous and abstract.

A second difficulty arises from the wide diversity of Christian traditions, which raises the question of which tradition forms the trajectory for an individual confused by the varying competing Christian traditions. If the authors respond that traditions are merely local and function for particular communities (thus together forming the complex "mosaic of faith" throughout history), the question is still relevant for observers from outside the Christian community who are not part of a traditional trajectory. Which traditional trajectory would or should an outside observer consider as they seek to investigate or engage the Christian worldview? Would such a decision be merely arbitrary? The apparently arbitrary and subjective nature of emphasizing the local over the universal seems to result in a relativistic trap.

The final conversational partner in theological formulation in the Grenz-Franke proposal is culture, which serves as the particular context of the Spirit speaking to the church through Scripture. Additionally, Grenz and Franke argue that the voice of the Spirit can be discerned through the media of culture, especially in light of Pannenberg's insight that "all truth ultimately comes together in God." The implication of this is quite significant for the practice of theological reflection as "theology draws from all human knowledge, for in doing so it demonstrates the unity of truth in God." Therefore, theology will become interdisciplinary as it draws from the insights of various contemporary disciplines. Additionally, an awareness of our own contextual placement ought to encourage us to reconsider our own understanding of the Christian faith.

This area of the proposal is the one that this reviewer had the most difficulty with. Grenz and Franke's work serves to remind us of the contextual nature of our own situation (and the contextual nature in which Scripture was written and which tradition developed), which is helpful. A neglect of these basic truths may lead to theological presumption as a reader privileges a particular reading of Scripture without justifiable warrant (usually via a bald claim that the reading represents the "natural" reading of the text).

On the other hand, the assertion that the Spirit's voice can (and should) be discerned through the media of culture seems to be a claim without justifiable warrant. Additionally, the Bible seems at times to present the insights from contemporary culture in contrast and in opposition to the truth of God (cf. 1 Cor 3:19-20), which raises the difficulty of distinguishing between genuine expressions of God's voice in culture versus competing voices that do not represent the truth of God.

This reviewer also has difficulty with the concept of culture as a "source" of theology, particularly since the claim that God speaks through culture in ways that we can authoritatively appeal to seems to rest on such a questionable foundation. This reviewer prefers to understand the role of culture in theology as providing contemporary categories and forms of thought (because we are situated in a particular cultural context) which serve to communicate God's truth from Scripture (which was given in a different cultural context).

The authors conclude their proposal by outlining the three focal points of theology that provide coherence to their paradigm and which, they argue, constitute a particular theology as distinctively Christian. The authors argue that the Trinity forms the structural motif for theology, and that any theology that claims to be Christian must be Trinitarian in content since it "reflects the biblical narrative, dominates the Christian tradition, and resonates with the cultural moment." The authors argue that the Trinity not only provides the content of theology, but also serves in a structural capacity so that the Trinity stands at the very center of the theological enterprise and is in essential dialogue with every theological loci.

It should be noted that the authors distinguish their categories of thought concerning the Trinity from the traditional categories describing the metaphysical substance of the Godhead. They prefer to use the categories of relationality, and reference contemporary theologians as criticizing the traditional emphasis on the property of the Divine essence.

Since the Bible reveals God as Trinity, and since the church has confessed this truth throughout history, it is appropriate to acknowledge this key doctrine as a distinguishing characteristic of authentic Christianity. This reviewer has some difficulty with some aspects of their proposal however. First, the authors criticize the traditional categories of substance when defining the Trinity in preference for relational categories. Although it may indeed be helpful to describe the Trinity in relational terms, to do so independent of the discussion of substance (such as distinguishing between the plurality of Persons and the one Divine essence or substance) runs the risk of sacrificing a monotheistic commitment (i.e., relationality implies plurality, but says nothing about the inseparable unity of the Godhead). Second, while the Trinity certainly can and should function as a distinguishing criterion for authentic Christianity, is it alone a sufficient distinctive able to separate Christian theology from non-Christian theology? What is the warrant for limiting the criterion for what is authentic Christianity to an affirmation of God as Trinity? Should key questions with regard to soteriology, for example, be brought to bear in answer to the question of what constitutes authentic Christianity? Further, the authors admit that revising the exact content of the doctrine of the Trinity can and should be an important part of the Christian agenda. The danger of such an open posture, however, seems to be the lack of any objective criteria by which one may determine at what point such revisions render a particular stance as ceasing to be Trinitarian in any meaningful sense of the word.

In addition to presenting Trinitarianism as the structuring motif of their theological enterprise, Grenze and Franke argue that community serves as the central organizing motif of theology. The authors argue that the overarching focus of the biblical narrative is the person-in-relationship or the individual-in-community, which drives the assertion that community must be the integrating motif in theology. Thus, the community plays a crucial role in identity formation in this scheme, and becomes the "community of reference" for the individual. This theme brings the various strands of theological articulation together into a single web or mosaic.

This part of their proposal also seems to have difficulties. First, although Grenz and Franke argue that the ultimate goal of the biblical God is the establishment of community, there are other theological communities that understand the ultimate goal of the Triune God differently (such as communities who argue for a redemptive or doxological goal as ultimate). Further, the biblical evidence offered in support of the contention that the establishment of community is the ultimate goal of God appears quite capable of being understood in a different way than the authors propose.

Second, the authors argue that theology as "the study of God" is never generic, but always set forth from a particular community. Therefore, they argue, Christian theology speaks about the God known in the Christian community. This assertion raises the particularly troubling dilemma of answering the question the authors themselves pose early in the book: "Why give primacy to the world-constructing language of the Christian community?" Their answer is that the Christian model provides a helpful vision of the kind of community that all religious belief systems (in their own way and their own understanding ) seek to foster. Apart from the difficulty of substantiating the claim that all religious belief systems seek to foster a particular kind of community (i.e., a "life-in-relationship" community presented as the "human ideal"), the question must be asked: is the authors' answer in any sense compelling? More relevant perhaps, the Bible itself answers the question about the primacy of the biblical God in a dramatically different fashion (cf. especially Isaiah 46:9).

In addition to presenting Trinitarianism as the structuring motif of their theological enterprise, and community as the integrating motif, Grenze and