Here are our big questions in this series of posts: How do we move beyond the Bible? Should we? Better yet: Since we have to, how do we move beyond the Bible into our world but do this biblically? This is the concern of Zondervan's new Counterpoint book edited by Gary Meadors: Four Views on Moving beyond the Bible to Theology (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)
. Let's begin today with a question: Do you think it is "biblical" to divorce on the grounds of either mental cruelty or physical abuse? How do you get from what the Bible says about divorce's legitimate reasons to your "yes"? What does Vanhoozer's theo-dramatic approach teach us about permissible grounds for divorce?
I asked a number of Bible folks in New Orleans last weekend the question above, and some said "No. Physical abuse is not permissible grounds for divorce." Other said, "Of course" and some tried to cover physical abuse with "except for sexual immorality" in Matthew 5 (which I think is not a part of Matthew 5 but I appreciate the attempt to think biblically).
Today we look at Kevin Vanhoozer's proposal. Here's an opening statement of his: "John the Baptist had to prepare the way of the Lord; our task is to continue it." Here is the issue: what does it mean to "continue" and how do we "continue" the task in a way that is biblical and Spirit-led? In a way that reminds of William Webb's approach, Vanhoozer criticizes AJ Jacobs for taking the letter seriously and not getting to the spirit of the letter.
Vanhoozer believes we have to use all the disciplines and the church in order to discern how to live biblically today. It begins by recognizing the theo-drama of the Bible: the Bible is Story in that it is a series of events that cohere and provide a lens through which Christians can think. In fact, aping words of the postmodernists, Kevin says it is theodrama "all the way down."
The big difference between the redemptive-historical approach (he refers to Vos) and Vanhoozer's theo-dramatic approach is that Vanhoozer's focuses on our extending, continuing and participating (reverse order of course) in the biblical drama by performing that drama in our world today.
Vanhoozer's known for clever lines (which are too often repeated); here's one that sums his approach up: "the point is not to extract a principle through a procedure but to become a wiser person precisely by considering particular instances of canonical wisdom: not abstract truth but concrete wisdom-in-act" (158-159). Action is inherent to the canonical interpretation; the Bible is the Script that needs to be performed. Theology helps the church live out the Bible.
On performance: we "unfold" what is "infolded" in the canonical text. Then Vanhoozer moves to improvisation: at Nicea repetition wasn't enough; there had to be creative improvisation (homoousios).
There are five acts: creation, election of Israel, Christ, Church and consummation. We live in Act 4, not 2, 3 or 5. As the church moves forward to continue the drama it has the great tradition to guide it. The operative word for the church is "judgment." It renders judgment on how to respond in its world.
Vanhoozer, unlike the other authors who were fixed on moral issues, explores theological issues -- and he looks at Mary. He also looks at transsexuality.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Some have been asking if Vanhoozer references N. T. Wright, I am not sure if he does in the short article in this book, but he certainly does in his book length treatment of this hermeneutical method in The Drama of Doctrine. I too think that this method has much to offer, and if you are in this boat, you will also want to read the following in addition to N. T. Wright's The Last Word:
-Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama: Theoloigcal Dramatic Theory (5 volumes): this is the watershed work, and everyone who uses the metaphor of drama in theology needs to wrestle with it
-Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen, The Drama of Scripture: although writeen on a more popular level, this books shows how this metaphor can work out in practice.
-Samuel Wells, Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics: this book focuses on the ethical side of the coin, and shows the potential of the metaphor.
-Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: this is the longer form of the article in Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology
-Trevor Hart, ed, Faithful Performances: this collection of essays approaches this issue from a variety of different angles, and is a great introduction to some of the most pressing issues.
I hope this is helpful.
Short answer: what John said in #5 and Bob in #12. Also agree with Rebeccat in #9 and Brad in #10.
Longer answer:
I don't know exactly how this correlates with Vanhoozer's theodrama, but I believe that there is such a thing as the spirit of a teaching and that we can be fair to that spirit even if it goes beyond the letter.
Deut 24:1-4 assumes that marriage, divorce, and remarriage were an unfortunate part of life. It forbids a man to remarry a wife he has put away who has then married another man and been put away by him.
Ezra 9-10 God's people have a big divorce proceeding and send their foreign wives and children back home
Malachi 2:13-16 The men were "breaking faith" with the "wife of your youth" - creating a first wives' club, so to speak. In this context, God says "I hate divorce."
Matt 5:31-32 an exception for marital unfaithfulness
Matt 19 exception for marital unfaithfulness
Mark 10 and Luke 16 repeat Jesus' discussion but with mention of the exception
1 Cor 7:12-14 a believing spouse should not divorce an unbelieving spouse (this is not a direct line from Ezra 9-10).
1 Cor 7: 15-16 A believing spouse who is abandoned is not bound.
Deut 24 assumes that divorce and remarriage will occur but it limits it. Matt 5 and 19 establish the importance of marriage but allow that exceptions will occur for unfaithfulness. Paul adds the exception of abandonment.
I have seen the Malachi passage used to suggest that God will be displeased with any victim of abuse who divorces, but this is unfair to the context. The context is more like middle-age men who divorce their first wife for a "trophy wife", something like that.
Marriage is between people, and sinful people will create victims. I believe that the sense of these passages are that marriage is very important, more important than convenience to be sure, but not more important than people. It seems that Paul does not adhere to "letter of the law" of Deut 24, Ezra 10 or of Malachi 2. I believe that the spirit of these passages indicate that when a hard-hearted spouse deserts the marriage the other spouse ought to work and hope for reconciliation until reconciliation is out of the question, and then the remaining spouse is free to move on, even to remarry. In my mind, there are cases of abuse that could be considered desertion and on those grounds divorce is on the table.
I forgot to answer this. Yes, Vanhoozer has made ample use of Tom Wright's 5 Acts. Because Vanhoozer does make use of the Act of the Church as one of unfolding canonical revelation, he does go beyond the Bible biblically, and in some ways his view is very similar to Webb's and distant from both Kaiser and Doriani. Perhaps what divides Vanhoozer from Kaiser and Doriani is that both of them tend to think what they are doing in "applying" the Bible is what the Bible actually is saying, while Vanhoozer tends toward the unfolding of what is infolded in Scripture.
A way to say this is that Vanhoozer "theologizes" on the basis of the Bible but in conversation with the great tradition.
A reservation I have about the theo-drama paradigm, similar to Webb's trajectory, is that it seems possible to abuse the notion, to make the text submit to my idea of what the drama should be and ignoring the clear intention of some text or another because it doesn't fit my picture of what the drama is supposed to be. This doesn't invalidate the idea but it does call for caution and intentional consideration, I think.
Are there major differences between Vanhoozer's ideas and dispensationalism?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.