1. Introduction
2. Report of Content
3. Preface/Introduction
4. Part One:  The Drama
5. Part Two:  The Script
6. Part Three:  The Dramaturge
7. Part Four:  The Performance
8. Commentary
9. Conclusion

Introduction

The Drama of Doctrine, written by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, is an exhaustive work on the place of doctrine in the community of faith.  Vanhoozer seeks to explore doctrine through the drama of stage performance.  He uses the analogy that the Kingdom of God (which he refers to as a theo-drama) is a play.  He explains the various aspects of theater in relation to theology.  It is an interesting approach and admirable work of faith.
 

Preface/Introduction

Vanhoozer begins with a preface to his work. He states:  The present book sets forth a post conservative, canonical-linguistic theology and a directive theory of doctrine that roots theology more firmly in Scripture while preserving Lindbeck’s emphasis on practice (XIII).  Vanhoozer’s concern is to prove that doctrine has its place in the modern Church.  He believes that the Church has lost sight of doctrine’s role in an effort to gain or hold on to members.  Doctrine is not the flavor of the month with Christians today and Vanhoozer wishes to prove the fault of the Church to pander to the superficial interest of the people.

In his introduction, Vanhoozer discusses the way of truth and life.  He explains the drama of the Kingdom.  The first act of the play is creation.  The second act is the story of Israel and their relationship with God.  The third act is the life and death of Christ.  The fourth act is the resurrection and the consummation of God’s relationship with Israel.  The fifth and final act is the time between the resurrection and the second coming of Christ.  Doctrine’s role in this time is to help the faithful discover the appropriate response to their faith.  Doctrine is the result of “faith seeking understanding.”  Vanhoozer purports that the sources for divine revelation is Biblical Propositions, the person of Christ, Christian piety, and Church practice.  He also purports that divine revelation has several sources:  reason, tradition, and experience.  However, its primary source is scripture.  Vanhoozer states that theology has five tasks:  celebrating, coping, criticizing, communicating, and continuing.  Theology is not something that we merely talk about, it is what we do.  He argues that what we do depends on how we respond to scripture.  He believes that scripture is more than a handbook.  It is the account of God’s relationship with man.  The Church is the place that Christians apply the truths of scripture.  He makes the point that the Church is the crucible of theology.  Ultimately, theology should be catholic and evangelical and the two should be orthodox.

The Drama

The theo-drama is described in this section of the book.  In it, Vanhoozer brings God, scripture, doctrine, and the church to center stage and describes their roles.  The theo-drama is about what God is saying and doing.  God’s major statement is in His incarnation, Jesus Christ.  Evangelical theology teaches this is God’s only account of self revelation.  This drama is the greatest drama ever staged (39).  Vanhoozer discusses the economy of the Gospel and the Economic Trinity as a result of God's action in the Gospel period.  He states that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus were God’s plan of salvation for man as a result of his fall from grace.  It was devised with intention and thought and not an arbitrary event.  The Trinity was an explanation of how God revealed Himself to humankind.  Scripture is both the report of what God has said and what He has done.  The theo-drama is not only God’s action but humankind’s reaction to God.  This is shown in the Exodus, Exile, building of the temple, and Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.

Theology is man’s reaction to God.  The role of the theologian is to respond to God through His revelation in Jesus Christ in such a way that others are able to understand God correctly.  Vanhoozer believes that the current crisis in the Church is deciding how theologians will respond to this role.  Will we find ways to articulate the correct gospel message to people who seek faith?  Will theologians prepare students to be relevant in today’s world?  Will theology continue to prepare theologians to carry out the mission of the gospel?  Vanhoozer states that theologians should interpret the scripture according to “the rule of faith” currently accepted, opinion is not necessarily the orthodox opinion.  The first principle is God’s communicative action (63).  God’s acts of communication are recorded in scripture.  Therefore, the Bible is the authoritative Word of God.  However, Vanhoozer points out that scripture is not to be worshiped.  Vanhoozer uses God’s act of salvation on the cross as the ultimate example of God’s communicative action recorded in scripture.  He goes on to say that the theo-drama becomes the mission of God.  God identifies a task to be achieved, this is identified as a mission.  Then God sends someone to achieve this task, at all cost.  The mission of the modern theologian, according to Vanhoozer, is the communication of God’s word.  This is done in translation and tradition such as the sacraments.

The nature of doctrine is that it directs the church to respond to the mission of God in an orthodox manner.  Therefore, is it accountable to the truths of the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon.  There are three benefits of doctrine.  One, doctrine breathes new life into our imaginations.  Two, it awakens our daily life to the urgency of the Gospel.  Three, the metaphor of theatrical direction develops our appreciation of biblical authority.  There is no other drama but the theo-drama.  This is a fact that all true doctrine will report.  Vanhoozer discusses epic, lyric, and dramatic narrative.  He dislikes the epic because it does not encourage action.  Lyric theology calls for action based on the experience of the theologian.  However, its foundation is weak because it is based on the experience of the theologian and not God.  Vanhoozer describes dramatic narrative as doctrine that allows for the scripture account.  However, it is unable to make claims of anything outside of the scriptures account.  Vanhoozer describes these three forms of postmodern liberal theology and doctrine in general as useless unless they can somehow serve the end of Christian piety and Christian practice (100).  He feels that drama is the preferred form of doctrine because it combines the inner subjectivity of lyric with the external objectivity of epic.  It allows for continued performance of the story of God.  In the drama, God is the playwright, Jesus is the lead actor, and the Holy Spirit is the director.  Drama also allows the continued participation of these positions as well as that of humankind.  However, Vanhoozer points out that drama is only useful if the script is founded in scripture.

The Script

The script for the play is the Bible.  Vanhoozer points to Philip’s encounter with the Ethiopian Eunuch as the affirmation that the Bible is the sole source of authority.  There are four things at work in this encounter:  spirit, tradition, Church, and scripture.  Scripture is the supreme authority for theology, according to Vanhoozer, because the Church needs to know what practices are parts of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and for this there is no other authority.  Scripture also constitutes the Church.  The Canon is the only document which has the status of divine covenantal discourse.  The Canon is the only source which records the covenants between God and man.  The Canon is the solution to the problems of where to locate authority in the Church and how to preserve the identity of the gospel.  Vanhoozer discusses why critics say that Canon fails and why it succeeds.  Those that object to Canon say whose Canon and which books?  Canon can be seen as someone’s ideology and criterion.  Then Vanhoozer list the reasons that the Canon is superior.  This is the position that he supports.  He states that the Canon gives direction and the Canon has always had a place in the Church.  In the Gospel, the Canon gives proclamation, witness, and teaching.  Vanhoozer states that teaching is of particular importance because of the direction it gives the church today.  The Canon has always been present in the Church.  Therefore, the Church has always had its sacred books to rely on for direction.

Whereas scripture is the script of the theo-drama, tradition is the performance.  Tradition is the “hands on,” “how to” of script given to us in the Bible.  Vanhoozer applauds the current use of tradition in the Church because it is biblical, traditional, inevitable, philosophical, fashionable, and spiritual.  While Vanhoozer acknowledges the importance of tradition, he makes certain distinctions.  Pointing out that, when it comes to tradition, the first question asked is whose tradition and which church?  Almost all traditions accept the early traditions of the patristic fathers.  However, protestants break from the Roman Catholic Church with Martin Luther and then again in their own current tradition.  Unlike scripture authority, invention and fallibility come into question.  Vanhoozer discusses the performance of tradition from three perspectives:  Postmodern, Postliberal, and Ecclesial.  The fault of the Postmodern is that it takes the view that a finished work is unfinished.  Postliberal’s tend is toward fideism, idealism, and non-realism.  The Ecclesial performance is Vanhoozer’s preferred approach as it is based in the Bible. The canonical script is authoritative because it gives the true testimony to the triune God and it gives continuing direction to the Church.  In his chapter on tradition Vanhoozer describes two performances.  Performance I is that of the canonical linguistic approach which is faithful to God.  Performance II is faithful to its particular community.

Vanhoozer then turns to the performance that involves Jesus, the Spirit, and the Church.  He examines it in relationship to the Bible, tradition, and the Spirit’s role in the theo-drama.  Vanhoozer discusses Jesus’ role in the performance and the interaction between Him and the Spirit.  Jesus is the lead actor in the drama.  The Father and the Spirit minister to humankind through the Son.  The Son makes the Spirit available to humankind.  The Spirit ministers to Jesus.  We receive Jesus through the scripture.  Jesus interprets Himself through the scripture and the Apostles interpret Jesus through a witness that becomes scripture.  The Spirit is advocate and witness, executor, and brings the testimony from the canonical script to life.  Vanhoozer reports that the Spirit is none other than the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son.  He enables Christ, He enables the Church, and He enables the scripture.  Therefore, true signs of the Spirit cannot be contradictory to any of these.  The Church inspired through the Spirit can discern the Spirit by use of the Bible.  It does this through the “rule of faith,” the rule of Canon, and the use of Canon as a ministerial authority.

Vanhoozer then sets out to prove his claim that the Canon is a form of practice.  It is both language arts and literary practices.  Theology itself is canonical practice from the biblical authors to the modern day theologian.  Human behavior within the Christian community is often a response to the instruction of the Bible.  He points to Christ’s canonical practices interpreting scripture and prayer.  He points to the Spirit’s canonical practices, inspiration, and suffering divine authorship.  Vanhoozer discusses the role of sola scriptura in theology.  He states that for him, sola scriptura does not mean scripture only, scripture without tradition, or scripture without the Church.  Sola scriptura in the context of this book is reading the Bible as a unified book in which the divine author takes up a plurality of human words and literary forms as a means of instructing and engaging his covenant people (236).

The Dramaturge

In this section Vanhoozer turns to the theological method in relation to the gospel, drama of redemption, and canonical script.

The Dramaturge of the theo-drama is the Theologian.  He is the assistant to the main director, the Holy Spirit.  To do this he must incorporate scientia and sapientia.  Vanhoozer describes scientia as exegesis and sapientia as the carrying on of exegesis.  It is the responsibility of the Dramaturge to be certain that theology meets the criterion for Christo-dramatic fittingness.  According to Vanhoozer theology meets the criteria for fittingness when it is Christ-centered.  This is to say that theology should be concerned with the fit between humankind and Jesus Christ.  This occurs in two areas, the canonical text and the contemporary context.

In his chapter on Canonical-Linguistic theology Vanhoozer discusses Postpropositionalist theology.  This involves scientia, or as discussed before, biblical exegesis, and propositions that reach beyond the Bible without changing the message.  Propositionalist theology views the Bible as revelation, revelation as teaching, teaching as propositional, and propositions as statements susceptible of truth or falsity (267).  The main criticism of this type of theology is that its scope is too small.  Again Canonical-Linguistic theology is discussed.  Canonical-Linguistic theology reflects the fact that scripture is told through many different witnesses to God and God as witness to Himself.  It is written in many different genres and it is very diverse.  The question Vanhoozer raises for theology is does it go beyond the Canon?  And if so, is it orthodox?  Postconservative theology recognizes the cognitive uniqueness and indispensability of the imagination (280).  Vanhoozer believes that Postconsevative is superior in its approach to form and content because it does not favor one genre over another.  Truth in theology is critical to its value.  Vanhoozer discusses several types of truth yet holds that the one truth is what God has done in Jesus Christ.  Finally, Vanhoozer turns to Postfoundationalist theology.  It is both canonical and cultural linguistic.  Canonical linguistic theology is postfoundationlist in that it is a map which is coherent to scripture, corresponds to the world, and is coordinated in Christ.  Theologians gain knowledge of God through the theo-drama.  The creation account is how God’s relationship to man should be, it becomes distorted in the fall, is restored in redemption, and perfected in consummation.  As Vanhoozer states in his conclusion canonical linguistic theology is a matter of faith seeking understanding (305).

In his second chapter on canonical-linguistic theology, Vanhoozer discusses prosaic theology.  As he states, theology “should be in the world but not of it.”  However, it must contextualize the scripture to the current day.  Contextual theology is not a form of cultural relativism, cultural determinism, cultural absolutism, or cultural colonialism.  Contextual theology is a process of contextualizing the scripture.  This process views scripture as transcultural.  This is a process of processing the precepts, principles, and paradigms of scripture.  It is a matter of contextualizing the gospel in a given culture at a given time.  This does not mean changing the gospel for a given culture at a given time.  It is rather the process of stating the same gospel in such a way that every culture can understand and relate to its meaning.  This has resulted in 1611 translations of the Bible.  This requires practical judgment or phronesis.  Vanhoozer discusses at length the necessity of using good judgment in all areas of theology and scripture interpretation.  Vanhoozer turns his discussion to Canon and theology in the last pages of this section, stating clearly that these two things must remain faithful to the original teaching of the faith and at the same time remain relevant to the world in which we live.

The Performance

In the final section of this book, Vanhoozer deals with the performance of the things he has discussed.  Biblical script without ecclesial performance is empty; ecclesial performance without biblical script is blind (362).  Thus Vanhoozer sets out to prove his theory.

Vanhoozer states that the first task of a theologian is to “know thy self.”  We are to be certain of who we truly are and avoid the temptation to play the hypocrite.  This involves acting the part.  The worst enemy of the Church is the one who exploits the Church.  Doctrine cannot make theologians different people but it can make us better people.  Theologians must consume a diet of doctrine.  This is part of becoming spiritually fit.  Another part of becoming spiritually fit is to form habits that are conducive to fitness.  This involves prayer, hospitality, worship, and meditation.  Vanhoozer then turns to a discussion based on the notion that Christians are “people of the cross.”  For Vanhoozer the doctrine of atonement and the central focus of the cross are crucial to Christian understanding.  He engages in a great deal of discussion that explains this reality for the Christian theologian.  He believes it is the theologians role to embrace the cross and become Christ-like (or grow up in Christ) in order to achieve the task of Christian theology.

Chapter 12 states that it is also the role of the church to become Christ-like.  This takes place in a number of ways.  There is deadly theater, holy theater, and vital theater.  Vanhoozer borrows this analogy from Peter Brooks.  Brooks describes these kinds of theater as dull, ritualistic, and engaging.  Vanhoozer further describes the Church as being the theater of sacrament, celebration, and ministry.  These are aspects of the Church that should be present.  Vanhoozer sees the Church as an interactive theater.  This involves a cooperate rendering of the truth which is to proclaim the Kingdom of Christ and to live the truth according to this call.  The Church is to avoid heresy.  Vanhoozer calls it the worst kind of improv.  Vanhoozer’s definition of heresy is to proclaim some other truth than Jesus Christ.  The theologian not only has the responsibility to avoid it but also to expose it.  This chapter closes with discussion on the church performing atonement.  This includes the martyrdom or suffering that all Christians experience, which at the least includes the public death of a sinner.  Another act for the Church is to put on the spectacles of love.  When we accept our forgiveness we are able to forgive others.  When the Church takes off these spectacles which allow us to see faith, hope, and love, the Church simply becomes a spectacle.  He closes with a plea to the amateur actor which by his definition is someone who acts simply because he loves it.  The church is then amateur theater.

His conclusion is in effect his final chapter.  In it Vanhoozer discusses the role of the pastor/director, creed, and confession.  As it was the role of the Church/actor in the previous chapter to perform the theater, it is the role of the pastor, bishop, elder, and deacon, etc. to direct the theater. In so doing, amateur theater can become master piece theater.  This involves the interpretation of creed and confession.  The creeds were set forth in a series of seven councils for the Catholic Church.  Confessions are set forth by denominations.  They, too, must be Catholic.  It is the role of the Pastor to understand, interpret, and communicate these from the top down and from the bottom up.  These, in effect, complete the task of theology from audition to encore.

Commentary

Vanhoozer begins his work with the preface that theology has lost its place in the Church.  In my particular denomination I find this to be true.  The First United Methodist Church that I belong to has not had a pastor that has made any great attempt to explain the doctrine on a lay person’s level.  People for the most part do not have an interest in doctrine.  My friends of other denominations do not appear to have knowledge of their doctrines.  As a lay person, it is often difficult to know what we are signing up for when we join the Church or what you were signed up for when your parents dedicated you to the Church.

Vanhoozer introduces his book with its view of scripture.  Scripture has become the doctrine of most Christians today because theology does not play a significant role in the life of an average congregation.  Although it is his desire that congregations know their doctrine, he is most concerned with doctrine knowing its scripture.  This has become a problem in modern theology.  This has been the case for the past three centuries.  The period of enlightenment has caused theology to consider other sources, primarily reason and experience, in its quest of “faith seeking understanding.”  Theology's abandonment of scripture is quite likely the reason for the Church's abandonment of theology.  Vanhoozer's description of scripture as a theo-drama with five acts is actually quite good.  It explains the overall story of God in a way that is easy to understand.  He correctly states that theology has several tasks of continuing the work that is inspired and commanded in scripture to the people still seeking faith.  I appreciate his view that theology should be catholic and evangelical and that the source for these activities should be scripture.

Vanhoozer uses the analogy of the theo-drama to describe the interaction between God, scripture, doctrine, and the Church.  I strongly agreed with Vanhoozer’s opinion that knowledge of God is revealed in Jesus Christ.  Like Luther, Vanhoozer understands that God’s act of saving grace in the cross and resurrection is also God’s self-revelation and witness to humankind.  This is the story of God and his children through the incarnate life of God in Jesus Christ.  I agree that it was God’s plan to redeem mankind through the life of Jesus Christ.  The theo-drama of this account is recorded in scripture.

Vanhoozer then turns to humankind’s reaction to God.  This is theology “faith seeking understanding.”  While we understand clearly what happens in scripture, there are still questions.  Theology is our attempt to answer these questions.  Interestingly-enough we are still asking the same question over and over throughout 2000 years of Christian history.  How we will respond to these questions is what Vanhoozer defines as the current crisis in the Church.  This is not only the current crisis in the Church, it has always been the crisis in the Church.  Will we answer the questions of the faith correctly?  The answer is also the same:  some will, some will not.  As we ask and answer these questions, we must also stay relevant to the current situation in the world today, both locally and Catholically.  I think though the real question is will our generation remain relevant to God?  If not, we will cease to be relevant in the world.  The tool Vanhoozer suggest is the “rule of faith.”  This was also purposed by Augustine.  That is, will our interpretation of scripture reflect the spirit of scripture and thus remain relevant?  This re-enactment of history is necessary because the world changes and although the question are repetitive, the circumstances are not.  Again, I agree with Vanhoozer that we should interpret according to scripture.  I also agree that we should not worship the scripture but use it as our guide.  Scripture is our compass.  While everything else changes, scripture never does and therefore our directions are always discernable.

Good doctrine should direct the Church to the mission of God in an orthodox manner.  This means that it should be accountable not only to scripture but to the Nicene Creed.  Unlike scripture, doctrine changes constantly.  I agree with Vanhoozer’s description that good doctrine breathes new life into the Church, that it alerts us to the urgency of the gospel message, and that it should develop our appreciation of biblical authority.  Vanhoozer’s discussion of postmodern liberal theology is difficult to discern because the description of the epic, lyric, and dramatic narrative are too general to develop concrete ideas.  However, in this vague description he is true to the idea that all doctrine must ultimately rely on scripture.  This is a definite description that budding theologians like me can depend upon for direction.

When discussing the script, Vanhoozer states that the only script is the Bible.  Again the Bible is our compass.  The argument that scripture is the only document that has the words spoken by God and Jesus (God incarnate), as well as his argument that scripture confirms scripture Acts 8, and Jesus’ quotes and reading of scripture are very strong arguments for the superiority of scripture as a source.  The argument by those who oppose scripture as a source, which claims there are several Canons from which to use, is weak.  This is a weak argument because the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches do not disagree that the various books of the Apocrypha are relevant.  The Roman Church itself believes that these books are inferior to the Canon.  They merely include them for what they are, Apocryphal.  Canon is also not simply ideology or criterion, it is God’s ideology and criterion.

Vanhoozer discusses tradition as performance.  He is of the opinion that tradition, like scripture is, a valued source to theologians.  However, it is susceptible to more criticism.  Tradition involves a great deal of interpretation.  The more interpretation is involved, the more likely error is to occur.  Vanhoozer makes valid points as he discusses the evolution of tradition from the Patristic Fathers through the Reformation to current day.  Unlike scripture, each denomination or non-denomination has their own tradition.  He discusses Postmodern and Postliberal tradition which Vanhoozer believes are faulted because they are self-centered rather than Christ-centered.  That is, they tend to be motivated by the needs of the community rather than the will of God.  He feels the Ecclesial tradition is grounded in scripture and is a reliable form of tradition.  I agree that tradition grounded in scripture is superior; however, regardless of the method, all tradition is susceptible to failure if it fails to use its compass, scripture.  Ecclesial tradition can be guilty of this as well.  It can also be outdated to a younger generation, where as many of the traditions practiced by Postmodern and Postliberals are relative and meaningful.

Vanhoozer discusses Jesus as the lead actor.  This is a correct analogy.  The Christian faith centers on the person and Spirit of Jesus.  He also discusses the Spirit of God and of Jesus.  This Spirit is none other than the Holy Spirit.  In the analogy of the theo-drama, the climax, rescue of the human race, and resolution all take place in Jesus.  Vanhoozer’s analogy in this area is correct.  It is Jesus that defines God and Jesus that defines man.  If we believe in our faith, this truth is truth for all of humanity.  The Spirit's role at this stage is also that of best supporting actor.  Vanhoozer will discuss another dimension of Spirit in a later paragraph but for now, He is the great assistant to the Christ.

Vanhoozer then turns to his claim of sola scriptura.  Vanhoozer is not a Biblicist.  He does not believe that sola scriptura means that scripture is the only source of theology.  He believes that it is the primary source.  He states that scripture cannot come to life without tradition and without the church.  Again, I agree with his place of scripture in theology.  I agree because scripture is the only witness to known revelations of God.  It is the story and explanation of those people that we credit with having had true experience with God the Father, as is the case with Moses, Abraham, and Adam, or with Jesus the Son as the Apostles did.  Since the time of Christ, humanity has only witnessed God through the Spirit.  Therefore, scripture holds the distinction of being holy text.  Although it was man, presumably through the power of the Holy Spirit, that selected those texts that would be considered Canon, it was selected on the criteria that those who told the story were the actual witness to God the Father and Jesus the Son.  On this point Vanhoozer and I agree.

Vanhoozer turns to the theologian, or as he calls him, the dramaturge.  The dramaturge, apparently of European stage, is the assistant to the director.  The director, according to Vanhoozer, is none other than the Holy Spirit.  The director and dramaturge work hand-in-hand in the production of the theo-drama.  This is an interesting analogy.  It can also be an accurate one.  However, it concerns me greatly that there are those who consider themselves Christian theologians that are not Christian.  In the analogy of Vanhoozer, they cannot be, nor would they claim to be, in the employ of the Holy Spirit.  This should be the area of gravest concern to theology.  These people cannot stand up to the requirements of the theologian as stated by Irenaeus of Leon or Vincent of Lerhins.  Yet they have a certain amount of authority among those who seek faith.  The teachings of such theologians is a threat not to God but to those generations of man who will be influenced by them.  It is good to be considerate of others but it is foolish to be polite when those you love reach for poison.

It is no surprise at this point that Vanhoozer proclaims Canonical-Linguistic theology as supreme.  He is post conservative himself.  Therefore, he prefers that theology that subscribes to that position.  I am also of this distinction.  However, there is value in theology's ability to consider every view of the faithful and have open discussion in an effort to reach that description of the triune God that is orthodox.  His final claim is that there is one truth, which is that Jesus is the Christ, the standard that determines if theologians will give the same quality of gold that they have been given.

In his second chapter on Canonical-Linguistic theology, Vanhoozer makes several points that are fundamental to theology.  These points include the belief that theology should be in the world but not of it, theology should apply good judgment, and theology should contextualize the faith to the current generation and culture.  As the scripture instructs, all of the faith should not be of this world.  That is, we should live according to the expectation of the Kingdom of Heaven, not our earthly kingdoms.  At the same time, theology should apply good judgment.  This appears to be Vanhoozer’s statement in regard to the source of reason to theology.  This is somewhat dissatisfactory.  It is a good point, but it deserves more space in the book than has been given.  This is true because it is an accepted source of theology and because it is a source that could be easily be misused.  Many people believe that they have the ability or skill of good reason.  However, this personal belief about one’s self or among their peers is not sufficient.  In a book of this magnitude and quality, criteria should be discussed as well as application of this source.

Contextualization of the faith is a very critical task of theology.  This has been done when the faith has been introduced to every new culture across the globe.  It was first done by Justin Martyr and the Greeks, then the Gallic, Hawaiians, and etc.  Vanhoozer’s instance that the message should remain the same even though the presentation may be altered to allow for the understanding of the converts is well taken.  The art of combining these two tasks is critical to every theologian, pastor, minister, and missionary that will carry the faith to a new generation or place across the earth.

In the final section of his book Vanhoozer turns to the performance, the application of theology through the Church.  Vanhoozer discusses the role of the theologian and the Bishop (leaders of the church).

Vanhoozer is absolutely correct in his account of the performance of the theo-drama.  Theologians should be careful to train the clergy and teach the faith.  They have the greatest responsibility of all humanity.  That is to facilitate the knowledge of God to the people.  It is at this level that they must adhere to the standards of Vincent and Irenaeus.  They have been given gold, they should give gold in return.  As Vanhoozer would say, they should give the ancient constitution of the Church (scripture) in its true form to the faithful.  They should not substitute it with their own opinions, ideas, or beliefs.  In order to do this, Vanhoozer states that theologians should remain spiritually fit.  This requires a diet of doctrine and the activity of the faithful prayer, hospitality, worship and meditation.  That is, theologians should be people of faith if they are to be fit to do the work of theology.

Vanhoozer discusses the role of theology in the Church.  The Church is not the denomination of a particular church or the denominations of the churches.  The Church is the body of Christ/the people of faith.  According to Vanhoozer, the Church must be faithful to the Spirit of God.  It must avoid the traps of being irrelevant, nonresponsive, or dull.  This requires proclaiming the truth of scripture in such a way as to capture the imagination of the people of faith.  Vanhoozer’s assertion here is correct.  Too often the Church dies or becomes irrelevant to the community around them simply because they fail to evangelize, they fail to live or proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Worse than this is that some churches will make the fatal error of following those theologians with a different gospel.  Vanhoozer’s statement that the Church must practice theology in and through the spectacles of love is well taken because it is the love that God sees us through the suffering servant of Jesus Christ.

In his conclusion Vanhoozer discusses the role of clergy, creed, and confession.  Vanhoozer compares the role of clergy to that of assistant director.  The main director is the Holy Spirit.  Vanhoozer discusses, and others before him, the fact that all creeds should remain faithful to the original creeds of Nicaea and Chalcedon.  This is no doubt true.  Confessions which are unique to each church should remain faithful to the scripture.  Individual churches of a denomination should be who they say that they are.  They should remain faithful to the confessions that they have adopted.  The role of the theologian is to educate.  This is also the role of the clergy.  They are no less subject to the same requirements of Irenaeus and Vincent than the theologian.  If a theologian gives them a false doctrine they must reject it.  It is their responsibility in education to separate the wheat from the chaff and use that which is true to scripture.  As Vanhoozer suggest, it is the role of the theologian to carry this message to all people everywhere regardless of whom they may be or how receptive they are to the message.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is my considered opinion that Vanhoozer has completed a great work, a Magnum Opus, in this book.  His commitment to scripture, or sola scriptura as defined by him, is admirable.  It is as well a work that is totally committed to the original witness of faith which Vanhoozer believes should be the work of theology.  He is respectful to those who would disagree with him and generous with crediting what he considers to be merit in their approach to theology.  The only disappointment I find in this work is its lack of discussion on reason and experience.  As I have stated before, his discussion on reason can be found in his discussion of good judgment.  Likewise, his discussion on experience can be found in his random statements concerning the interaction between the Holy Spirit and clergy, theologian, scripture, church etc.  However, considering the general acceptance of these sources in the field of theology, any book on theology should include a well-organized, thought-processed chapter on experience and reason as well.  Aside from this criticism, this book was indeed a joy to embrace.  It is an exhaustive work on scripture for both author and student, yet it is a lesson well received.

John Williams

Doctrine cannot make theologians different people but it can make us better people and in so doing reflect the glory of God seen in the face of Jesus Christ. (373)