The Drama of Doctrine by Kevin J. Vanhoozer is not for the faint of heart! In fact, Vanhoozer gives some directions for how to even read this thick tome in the preface. But the material is excellent, even if it isn't the most accessible book I've ever read. He gives everyone their voice and the footnotes bear this out. There are better reviews than I could give on this book (see below) so I will give a brief overview with some of the things that struck me.The book is divided into four parts: The drama: The Gospel (Part One),The script: Scripture (Part Two), The dramaturge: Theologians (Part Three), The performance: The believers as the actors (Part Four). "The drama of doctrine is about refining the dross of textual knowledge into the gold of Christian wisdom by putting one's understanding of the Scriptures into practice. ... The proper end of the drama of doctrine is wisdom: lived knowledge, a performance of the truth." p 21
Personally, I was challenged to not have a reductionistic view of Scripture and understanding the importance of illumination by the Holy Spirit. Vanhoozer shows the significance of Sola Scriptura as it pertains to the church (a concern given the events of the past week - 1, 2, and 3 to give you a start). The point of Scripture is performance (versus simply knowledge) and, so that Scripture might be rightly performed, we must understand both church history and contemporary culture. In the final pages, he gives some examples with the doctrine of creation, human beings, and the atonement. The analogy to drama was helpful (rather detailed also) and he carries this analogy all the way through the book.
For a couple of lectures given by Vanhoozer that go over the material in this book, visit Asbury Seminary's website and subscribe to their podcast. He was their Theta Phi lecturer for this year. Also, Andreas Köstenberger’s review of this book is insightful (with a helpful response by Kevin Vanhoozer).
5 comments:
Sorry to put you on the spot here, but what did you think about the Kostenberger review and the Vanhoozer response? I've read most of "The Drama ..." and I don't mean to be simplistic, but it seems to me that the book is saying "Be y'all doers of the word and not hearers only ..." So, I'll say that I enjoyed reading the book, because it got the rusty gears of my brain a bit oiled ... and beyond that I've had trouble discerning whether I really got all that much out of it. I don't mean for that to sound pompous or stupid, but it's just the feeling I've had post-The Drama of Doctrine ...
About the reviews:
I thought that the first part of the Kostenberger review gave a good picture of what to expect from the book. The later part and Vanhoozer's response shed a bit more light on the book, but for the most part they went over perceptions and reactions to parts that I didn't completely catch as important (that's why they teach in seminaries and I struggle to read their books).
As for the book itself:
I had to underline and take notes - otherwise, I would not have gotten much of anything out of it. The chore of writing a review helps me to crystallize my thoughts. It is helpful for me to do this, even if no one else reads the post. I had to go over the entire book again in order to make something out of it. Plus, his lectures at Asbury helped too.
After saying all that, I agree with you b-u-r-l-y, KJV is pointing us to be doers of the word. While that is the main point, his caveats and explanations to that statement are what fills the book.
Another quick comment question: KJV argues against foundationalism, and seems to be psedo-pro-post-foundationalism. What I mean by that is that he seems to be a cautious foundationalist. He seems to be one calling for humility in ones foundational stance. Do you follow me? What do you think? I had to read that section about three or four times.
Well this is my take on that section, for whatever it is worth.
KJV says (or quotes favorably) that "the postfoundationalist seeks to hold on to the ideals of truth, objectivity, and rationality, while at the same time acknowledging the provisional, contextual, and fallible nature of human reason." (p 293) This is the goal of someone wanting to connect with meaning in the text.
He attacks foundationalism, the idea that all beliefs are founded on (foundational or basic) beliefs that are undeniably true or self-evident - (a product of modern thinking) but yet he doesn't go the other way with those that say there that the community alone (or cultural-linguistic practice) makes up what we believe in.
What I think he is doing is taking the good of classical foundationalism and the good of the post-modern response and trying to show a way of thinking that uses both 'goods.' He does call for humility in this type of postfoundational stance, but he offers two points: we do know enough and we shouldn't allow humility to degenerate into slothful thinking. He also incorporates that we have fallen reason, and while the Bible "is trustworthy and reliable, our use of them is not." (p 304) In this, he is calling for humility.
If he is calling for humility in the other stances, it seems that he is calling for the type of humility that winds up changing one's mind.
But, I could be way off base and missing his whole point. I like the map analogy, but that's because I like maps.
Thanks, Todd. That's helpful and seems to be what I recall him saying ... you just expressed it better than I was able to ... and I think you did clarify for me what he was saying ...
Post a Comment