'The Confessional Presbyterian 'Reviews & 'Responses 'Reviews & 'Responses 'The Confessional Presbyterian

The imprecatory Psalms, invoking God's judgment on en- is more than that-it is a distortion of the classic doctrine of Review: Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology: systematic theology by attending to God's self-communica-
emies, are appropriate on the lips of David and the martyrs the trinity. It introduces into God a division, not a distinc- Divine Aclion, Passion, and Authorship (Cambridge: Cam- tion in the history and literature oflsrael and the church and
in heaven. However, they are entirely out of place on the tion. As Dorot] ea Wendebourg comments, it results in the bridge University Press, 2010) xix, 539 pages. $131. ISBN above all in the person and history of Jesus Christ" (30). It
lips of Christians today, guided as we are not by the ethics persons of the trinity having no soteriological functions. The 9780521470124. Reviewed by James E. Dolezal (Ph.D.), is a theological enterprise that begins with the Word of God
of intrusion but by the ethics of common grace. Therefore, classic doctrine affirmed that the three persons, each and to- Research Fellow at The Craig Center for the Study of the rather than the word of man.
moderns are wrong for dismissing such episodes as immoral, gether are the one God. By introducing a new level in God, Westminster Standards, Westminster Theological Seminary, Part I. Vanhoozer is concerned in chapter 1 to show that
and fundamentalists are wrong for invoking them as if they the trinitarian settlement is undermined. It is the defeat of Philadelphia. God ads and reveals himself in history by speaking. Thus, in
were in effect during this intermission between Christ's two trinitarian theology. 2 order to understand God's being ("He who is"), it is argued,
advents. (961-962) Remythologizing Theology (RD is Kevin Vanhoozer's delivery one must first understand God as a dialogical agent ("He
So while Horton is orthodox in his doctrine of the Trinity, his on a promise made more than a decade ago to write an ex- who speaks"). The categories of being are derived from God's
This argument fails in at least two respects. First, it fails to ac- acceptance of this essence/energies distinction could poten- tended treatise on the doctrine of God. Up to this point, he speech-ads in Scripture, that is, from "theodrama" Vanhoozer
count for the use of imprecatory Psalms against Satan and all tially do damage down the road. Moreover, the acceptance of acknowledges, his many previous volumes have been chiefly writes, "A theodramatic metaphysics begins with the speech
his host. Surely, they are not out of place on the lips of Chris- this distinction figures into his analysis and positive evalua- concerned with theological methodology (e.g., First Theology, and ads of God, inquiring what God must be to have said and
tians today in that regard. Second, it fails to account for the tion of the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis or deifica- IVP, 2002; The Drama of Doctrine, Westminster John Knox done that" (79). It is the author's conviction that traditional
varied ways in which God can eliminate his enemies. Saul of tion. He argues that theosis refers to humans being united to Press, 2005). Now he endeavors to show what sort of theol- substance metaphysics is not sufficient to explain God's be-
Tarsus is the most compelling example. God destroyed this God's energies, but not to his essence. ogy his method yields. Vanhoozer's overarching aim is toset ing and so must be displaced by a new metaphysics derived
enemy and raised up an apostle. Furthermore, it is questionable whether Reformation and forth "a communicative ontology (i.e., a set of concepts with from a consideration of God's ads and speech in history. In
Most discomforting of all, however, is Horton's flirtation post-Reformation theologians accepted or employed this dis- which to speak of God-in-communicative-action)" and to chapter 2 Vanhoozer examines various ways in which Western
with Eastern Orthodoxy. He first introduced us to the essence/ tinction. For instance, Polanus stated that "God's essential sketch "the contours of a theodramatic metaphysics (i.e., a theologians have sought to relate the biblical data to a theol-
energies distinction in Covenant and Salvation, and here in attributes are really his very essence:' He stated further that biblically derived set of concepts with which to speak of the ogy of God's being. This is a fairly straightforward survey
The Christian Faith it is found in every locus. The distinc- "there is nothing in God which is not either essence or per- whole of created reality)" (xv). Specifically, he intends to ac- ranging from classical theism (which the author exonerates
tion is between God's essence (his hidden and inaccessible son" (Syntagma 2.7). God's attributes belong to his essence. complish this by focusing on "the nature of the relationship from overly-simplistic accusations of Hellenization) to recent
being) and his energies (his revealed and gracious works). We know of God's attributes since God has revealed them to established by the dialogical interaction between God and versions of panentheism. In chapter 3 Vanhoozer criticizes the
This distinction originated with the Cappadocian fathers, but us. Clearly then, we do not know God merely according to humanity and its implications for the doctrine of God" (xvii). "new orthodoxy" of"kenotic-perichoretic relational ontology"
became especially associated with Gregory Palamas. Horton his energies or outward works. Furthermore, some of his at- The volume's nine chapters are divided into three distinct which teaches that God's very being is caused and conditioned
argues that this distinction has been widely accepted and tributes are actively directed outwards towards others, so this sections: (I) "God" in Scripture and theology (chs. 1-3); (II) by his relationship to the world. "The way forward;' Van-
employed especially by Reformation (e.g., Calvin) and post- distinction necessarily falls apart. While one can commend Communicative theism and the triune God (chs. 4-5); and hoozer concludes, "beyond relational theism or panentheism
Reformation theologians (e.g., Turretin). However, he fails to Horton for attempting to be catholic in his approach, the in- (III) God and the World: authorial action and interaction and back to something more like classical theism, is to think
inform readers that this distinction has been controversial in troduction of the essence/energies distinction seems to bring (chs. 6-9). I will first set out an overview of the volume and through God's love and being, in terms of neither impersonal
the history of theology. It has been critiqued extensively by a foreign and incompatible element into Reformed theology. then consider some of its outstanding virtues and deficiencies. causality nor personal mutuality alone but rather in terms of
western theologians, especially Roman Catholics, because Finally, there are various typos and other formatting and communicative and self-communicative action" (176-177).
of its subtle compromise of the simplicity of God. From the editing errors scattered throughout. Hopefully a future edi- Overview Part II. Vanhoozer begins in chapter 4 to set down some
Presbyterian side, Robert Letham has critiqued this distinc- tion can remedy these. It is of first importance that one understands what Vanhoozer of his positive proposals, perhaps best summed up in the
tion too, and his words are worth quoting at length here: means by "remythologizing" Certainly the term is meant to be chapter's title: God's being is in communicating. "To remy-
Conclusion provocative and create interest. The author devotes his entire thologize theology (and metaphysics in general);' he explains,
Gregory Palamas' development of the distinction between the This volume is not going to be a replacement at seminaries introduction to explaining his terminology and its implica- "is to put our discourse of what is under the discipline of the
unknowable essence (being) of God and his energies has won for Berkhof's Systematic Theology, nor is it really intended tions for Christian theologizing. He carefully distinguishes biblical accounts of God's speaking and acting" (181-182). In
widespread approval. However, this drives a wedge between to be. Parts of it are more accessible than others (and it does between "myths;' which are merely human stories meant to order to achieve this he weaves various strands of classical
the immanent and economic trinities, between God in himself include a helpful glossary and annotated bibliography), but explain or illustrate some universal, cosmic, or divine real- theism (notably, Aquinas's insistence that God is pure ad)
and God as he has revealed himself. This threatens our knowl- generally this is not "theology for the masses:' It will prob- ity, and mythes, which is a story "that concerns doers (agents) together with certain elements of Karl Barth's understanding
edge of God with a profound agnosticism, since we have no ably be most useful for higher level theology courses and as and the done-to (sufferers)" (5). It is a return to the divinely- of God's being as rooted in his self-communication in Christ
way of knowing whether God is as he has revealed himself in supplementary reading to sharpen the theological acumen authored biblical mythos (i.e., the Bible as God's own spoken (198-222). Between Aquinas and Barth, it is clearly Barth
Jesus Christ. It also defies rational discourse, since we cannot of pastors and scholars. record of redemptive history) that Vanhoozer advocates over whom Vanhoozer finds most useful. "As Thomas corrects Ar-
say anything about who God is. The acme of the Christian The Christian Faith is an expansive and thorough system- against Rudolph Bultmann's "soft" demythologizing (which istotle by attending to the implicit metaphysics of the Exodus
life becomes mystical contemplation rather than jides quarens atic theology. Even with (or maybe even because of) his idio- still believes that the human "myth" of Scripture points to (and the doctrine of creation ex nihilo ):' he writes, "so Barth
intelledum (faith seeking understanding) ... TI1e point here is syncrasies, Horton makes a good conversation partner. There a God beyond the text) and Ludwig Feuerbach's "hard" de- corrects Aquinas by attending to the implicit metaphysics of
that this is not merely a development frOJTI the Cappadocians, is a lot here with which one can engage, and undoubtedly this mythologizing (which insists that the "myth" of Scripture the Incarnation and resurrection" (217). He advises "returning
whose work led to the resolution of the trinitarian crisis. It book will be discussed for many years to come. It could be points only back to man as the myth-maker); neither of these to Aquinas via Barth" (217). In chapter 5 the author turns from
Horton's magnum opus, but given his prodigious writing that thoroughly modern approaches does justice to the Bible as his discussion of God's being in relation to the world to the
2. Robert Letham, Through Weftern Eyes, Eastern Orthodoxy: A
may be a premature judgment.« God's own self-revelation in history. Remythologizing, then, "communicative agency of the three divine persons" (241). His
Reformed Perspective (Fearn, Ross-shire: Mentor/Christian Focus,
2007 ), 283-284. "is a proposal for integrating exegesis, biblical theology, and basic thrust is to argue that God who is light, life, and love

166 'Volume 7 (2011)

in se communicates that light, life, and love ad extra to the "Author' approximates God's self-designation: 'I am who Jurgen Moltmann proposes that the cross "means that his sound and perceptive criticism, he is ultimately unable
world. The God who shows his being via communication in I am' means 'I am my own author: or 'I author, therefore I Christ's death is an inter-trinitarian event in which the Father to disentangle himself from the relationalist program. In this
history is the one who communicates essentially, within his am: or perhaps simply 'I, author: In any case authorship is suffers the death of his Son" (109). In view of certain modern connection, we turn now to observe a few of the volume's
eternal three-personed existence. Thus, Vanhoozer concludes, the remythologized equivalent for expressing the so-called tragedies, such as Auschwitz, Moltmann refuses to allow that noteworthy defects.
dialogical communication is the very being and essence of sovereignty-aseity conviction" (485). God is sovereign over human suffering; the only acceptable
God: "the economic Trinity is, or rather communicates, the Remythologizing Theology is a mixed bag of classical Re- God of love is one who is a fellow-suffer with humanity. But Deficiencies-Overly-Reftridive Thesis
immanent Trinity" (294). formed affirmations blended together with elements of Bar- Vanhoozer thinks the outlay of this relational turn is too While Vanhoozer's emphasis upon the priority of God's self-
Part III. Chapter 6 examines God's action and interaction thianism and panentheism. As such, it invites a number of costly: "One wonders whether the cost of affirming suffering revelation is most welcome, his insistence upon prioritizing
with the world, what Vanhoozer calls God's dialogical au- criticisms from a classical Reformed perspective. Before offering love is to abandon the notion of God's sovereign love, and divine speech-ads and theodrama places undue constraints
thorship. "My thesis;' he writes, "is that triune authorship is such criticisms I will set out two of the volume's strong points. whether the cost of affirming God's real relation to the world upon the multitude of ways in which God's communicates
best viewed in terms of communicative rather than strategic is to deny his real independence from it" (111-112). As for inter- himself to creatures. It also undermines our ability to say
action, and that communicative action is best understood in Virtues trinitarian suffering, he observes that "the thrust of the new anything about the way God is apart from his relation to
conjunction with [Mikhail] Bakhtin's dialogical conception Two notable virtues of RT deserve consideration: (1) Van- orthodoxy is to inflate the economic Trinity precisely in order creation. In this scheme all that we can know about God's
of authorship" (317). Chapter 7 enlarges upon the authorship boozer's emphasis upon the primacy of divine revelation for to call into question the aseity and impassibility of God" (112). being and essence is derived from our consideration of him
thesis by exploring its potential effects upon such traditional the theological enterprise; and (2) his many sound criticisms The author also evaluates the recent emphasis upon com- as one verbally communicating with creatures. Vanhoozers
concerns as God's sovereignty, human freedom, evil, and leveled against various modern relational theologies. munity, in which humans are thought to commune with God methodological parameters are clear: "[T)his work derives a
prayer. A central component of the chapter is Vanhoozer's in the way that God communes within himself as a Trinity, doctrine of God's being from an analysis of God's speaking"
insistence that the older paradigm of "instrumental" causa- The Primacy of Divine Revelation namely, by perichoresis. The orthodox sense of perichoresis (n). But certainly God is more than a talker and more than
tion be replaced by a model of "communicative" causation. Throughout RT Vanhoozer alerts readers to the danger of states that the three persons of the Godhead interpenetrate Creator. Much of his self-revelation is non-verbal and tells us
He applies this to the question of God's agency in effectual "Feuerbachian slips" (17-23). It was the view of Feuerbach and indwell one another. Social Trinitarians, such as Molt- something of what God is in himself, apart from his creation
calling and concludes that God effects internal change through that the primary speaker in theology is man. Indeed, he in- mann and Catherine LaCugna, want to expand that notion of of the world and historic-redemptive dealings with humans.
perlocutionary force that works in and through the person- sisted that man is the only speaker and all theology is really mutual indwelling to include, not just the immanent Trinity, By restricting the relevant data for all theologizing to
hood of the one called, rather than by a mechanical force that anthropology, man projecting himself in a myth about God. but the world as well. LaCugna's thoughtis that perichoresis God's dialogical speech-ads in history, one cannot but feel
operates upon or against the person (372). In chapters 8 and Vanhoozer warns, "The temptation to project one's own inter- is the model for human community, including human-to-hu- that Vanhoozer is rigging the rules of inquiry in order to
9 Vanhoozer applies his remythologizing method to divine ests, values, and categories onto God is a dangerous toxin in man, human-to-God, and God-to-human. Vanhoozer rightly yield the personalist brand of theology that he is bent on
suffering and compassion respectively. He plainly rejects the the bloodstream of theology" (388). The author reckons this to objects that this makes God dependent upon the world for discovering. After his solid declaration that only God can
notion of divine passibility that depicts God as being acted be one of the great failures in many recent theological systems his very identity. make God known, he immediately reduces this revelatory
upon passively by agents beyond his control. Interestingly, such as panentheism, open theism, social trinitarianism, and The author offers a lengthy evaluation and critique of what activity to God's speech: "we could know nothing of God or
though, he is agreeable in some sense to the notion of divine other such relational theologies. These systems presuppose he calls "kenotic-perichoretic relational ontology:' This re- his purposes at all if God were not a speech agent, for only
suffering so long as God is the one controlling it, the one au- humans and their particular concerns (e.g., about relation- lational perspective on God's being understands his love to speaking disambiguates behavior" (24). But this is not quite
thoring it. So, for example, he can write, "The incarnation and ality, friendship, suffering, and love) should direct and shape entail a mutual ontological indwelling with the world and right. The Bible itself testifies that all men, whether or not they
cross alike indicate that God is the one who freely pours out theological discourse. Vanhoozer counters with sound advice: sees his supposed suffering "as a necessary consequence of have been made privy to God's speech-ads, know God from
his own life for others" Moreover, "If the cross is indeed the "Those who deign to ,'peak of God, whether metaphysically or his kenotic relatedness" (140). Vanhoozer's rejection of this the things that are made. Additional speech is not needed
paradigm instance of divine suffering, then we must conclude not, could avoid many problems if they learned not to speak thesis is orthodox and to the point: "The problem with the to disambiguate the message of creation about God's invis-
that God never suffers because he is overtaken by worldly until spoken to" (182). God sets the agenda for theology in his perichoretic analogy is that the God-world relation is funda- ible attributes, eternal power and divine nature (Rom. 1:21).
events, but only because he uses them for his own authorial own self-disclosure. "Only God can make God known" (24). mentally not like the inter-trinitarian communion, for God These are plainly revealed by God in the natural world itself.
purposes" (430 ). This conviction grounds the author's call for a return to the and creation are not on the same plane of being" (158-159). Is it true that we could know nothing of God without some
As for God's compassion, Vanhoozer frames his discus- primacy of divine revelation in our theologizing. He continues his criticism of the implicit univocism of rela- additional speech? The apostle Paul seems to say otherwise.
sion with the question: "Is God unmoved (Anselm), moved tional ontology, writing: "God's eternal communicative activ- The same goes for the moral witness and revelation of God
(relational theists and panentheists), or self-moved (Barth) Criticism of Modern Relational Theologies ity in se must be distinguished from his activity ad extra. The by way of conscience (Rom. 2:14-15). The consequence of
by human suffering?" (434) He takes the Barthian explana- Another related strong suit of RT is Vanhoozer's criticism of kenotic-perichoretic relational view, by contrast, presupposes Vanhoozer's proposal is that it seems to obviate the func-
tion to be most faithful to the divine metaphysics he derives the modern turn toward relationality as the guiding principle a single drama of suffering love that features the interplay tion and effectiveness of natural revelation, to say nothing
from the biblical narrative. As with suffering, his main con- in theology. He remarks, "The concept of relationality is noto- of finite and infinite freedom, encompassing the world and of the natural theology that redeemed minds may articulate
cern is to say that God is free and in control of his feelings of riously ambiguous ... covering a multitude of conceptual sins" God alike" (242). by contemplation of that natural revelation. Vanhoozer calls
compassion and empathy: "It is a commanding compassion, (139). Besides its inherent ambiguity, Vanhoozer discovers Reformed readers will undoubtedly appreciate Vanhoozers for a theology that looks only to God in the "historically and
first, because it is self-moved" (446). In Vanhoozer's hands, that modern notions of relationality are shot through with the emphasis upon divine revelation and his repeated affirmations canonically concrete" (182). But the canon itself explicitly
divine impassibility and immobility do not strictly mean that assumption that God and man are univocally related: "From of the Creator-creature distinction. Unfortunately, the author states that men know God from extra-canonical sources of
God cannot suffer and is somehow immobile; rather, those a 'classical' vantage point ... the main problem with the new fails consistently to apply his orthodox principles to his own revelation. RT seems to advocate a form of biblicism that
doctrines simply mean that no one other than God himself relational ontotheology is not its forgetting of the question proposals. In fad, at times he seems to allow the relationalists even the Bible will not allow. In fine, it undermines natural
can author his suffering and movement. In his conclusion of being but its forgetting of the Creator-creature distinction" to set the theological agenda and thus answers their arguments revelation and those many things we truly know and say about
Vanhoozer affirms that God is ontologically self-authored: (149). Consider a few examples. with his own version of a divine relational ontology. For all God based upon that form of revelation. It also undercuts the

168 'Volume 7 (2011)

importance of those aspects of the biblical record that reveal also elevates it from its historic ministerial role (as philosophy communicatively in and through the sinner's nature and per- sovereignty. What motivates the author to make such a move?
God's non-verbal attributes. serving theology) to a magisterial role (theology itself). sonhood, not on or against it in some instrumental sense. The Is this explanation within orthodox bounds?
Second, and more importantly, by transforming meta phys- · author dislikes Calvin's explanation that the Spirit "causes the Vanhoozer understands the cross of Christ to be "the para-
Metaphysics ics into a proper branch of theology Vanhoozer seems to open preached Word to dwell in their hearts" (372; citing Institutes digm instance of divine suffering" (430). Thus, he writes,
Another significant shortcoming of RT is its whole under- the door for the very ontological univocism that he rightly III.24.8). He is concerned that such strong instrumental ac- "what Jesus communicates in his passion is nothing less than
standing of the place and function of metaphysics. Vanhoozer decries elsewhere in his volume. Predicating according to a tion on God's part "overrides human nature and freedom" the 'ways of God; that is, the nature of God's being-in-self-
proposes remaking metaphysics into a special branch of the- single set of metaphysical and ontological categories for God (372-373). He wants to ensure that God's operation in calling communicative-action" (430). Surely it is appropriate to say
ology based upon God's actions in redemptive history: "the and creatures requires one to speak univocally about God "in no way bypasses human volition and cognition'' (373). This that the cross reveals something of God's nature, such as his
book relocates metaphysics from its traditional home in an- and the world. In fad, it is the older metaphysics of Thomas is accomplished, according to Vanhoozer, by the "communica- love, for instance. But does not Vanhoozer go too far when
cient Athens to Jerusalem in order to bring reflection about Aquinas and the Reformed scholastics that better preserves tive force" of God's "sovereign summons to participate in the he further suggests that the suffering of the cross reveals the
God's being closer to the gospel and its theodramatic con- the Creator-creature distinction. This is because, for them, light and life of the triune God" (373). God causes a change suffering of God qua God? He first goes wrong by applying the
text" (25). Further on he states, ''A theodramatic metaphysic metaphysics does not study God as its proper object but as the in the sinner's heart and mind "precisely by bringing about doctrine of kenosis to the whole Godhead rather than strictly
provides categories for understanding what God has said sufficient reason for and first cause of being-in-general. Thus, understanding' (373). Speech-ads, not instrumental ads of to the person of the Son. What's more, he seems to conceive
and done to renew all things in Christ through the Spirit." their "metaphysical" talk about Godis not properly metaphysi- God's Spirit, are the proper way to understand God's causal this divine "self-emptying" as something that occurs properly
He denominates this, "the metaphysics of the gospel" (79). cal; they simply reason from the fad of being-in-general to activity in the effectual call. What are we to make of this thesis? in the divine nature rather than strictly in a divine person
Rather than study being-in-general (i.e., being as it is com- God as the ultimate cause ( via causalitatis) and exemplar ( via While not entirely without merit, this account suffers (430). TI1is seems dangerously close to heterodoxy. According
mon among creatures), as the older conception of metaphys- eminentiae) of being, the one for whom all the limitations from the author's insistence that one must choose between to Vanhoozer, God allows his divine nature to be onticly acted
ics proposes, Vanhoozer defines the discipline much more of categorical being must be denied ( via remotion is and via communicative and instrumental causality. This is a false upon and changed in the course of his historic-redemptive
broadly (and vaguely) as "the study of reality beyond mere negationis). Vanhoozer's metaphysical innovations abandon antithesis. Why could not God's communicative action be dealings. This seems to violate a host of classical Reformed
appearances" (8). TI1e purpose of such an enlarged conception the carefully nuanced Creator-creature distinction found in identical with, or at least concomitant with, his instrumental convictions including divine immutability, simplicity, and
is so that God can be included as one of the proper objects Thomas and the Reformed by placing all within a single order action (presuming that instrumental does not necessarily aseity, to name a few.
of metaphysical inquiry. Vanhoozer believes it to be a singu- of categorical being. The irony is that in attempting to be more mean mechanical)? It seems that in reality Vanhoozer does The author reassures us that all is well since he still retains
lar failing of the older metaphysics that its categories failed biblical in his metaphysical talk about God he actually appears allow some measure of divine instrumental causality, even if the doctrine of God's sovereignty. But we must ask: What sort
to explain genuinely God's essence as well as such redemp- to become less so by letting univocism in the back door. unwittingly. Consider the following: "TI1e effectual call is the of sovereignty is this? Apparently, it is a self-sovereignty in
tive phenomena as Christ's incarnation and resurrection. By Third, if a single set of metaphysical categories can explain Spirit's ministering the word in such a way that hearers freely which God exercises free control over his own nature. In short,
deriving the principles and categories of metaphysics from both God's creative and historic-redemptive activity as well and willingly answer God by responding with faith" (374-375). Vanhoozer's conception of divine sovereignty is nothing but a
the inspired redemptive "drama" it is thought one can arrive as the common being and ordinary experiences of creatures, Whatever he means by "in such a way;' it is precisely this "way" recapitulation of Karl Barth's doctrine of divine freedom. Just
at a single set of "categories for all that is" (183). Prima facie it would seem that the uniqueness of God's creative action that apparently causes an unwilling sinner to become a freely as Barth insists that God freely brings about his very being
it may appear that the author rescues metaphysics from the and redemptive miracles is thereby undermined. One should willing and believing sinner. The sinner himself is dead in his and essence, Vanhoozer holds that God's sovereignty enables
older abstractive tendencies apparent in both the medieval expect, for instance, that the biological, physical, and math- trespasses and sins, volitionally and noetically depraved and him to "author" himself and "move" himself. God may even
and Reformed scholastics. But Vanhoozer's reconception of ematical sciences could potentially explain such phenomena hostile toward God, and is not sufficiently free in that condi- write himself into the theodrama as a sufferer. One wonders,
metaphysical categories as derived from redemptive history as creation ex nihilo, the incarnation, and the resurrection. tion to respond to God's sovereign summons. God must ad though, what other roles God might author for himself. Ifhe
is not unproblematic. After all, it is from these miraculous dramatic events that first to make the sinner willing through the power of his word is sovereign over his own nature could he, for instance, cause
First, there is the theoretical question of the propriety of Vanhoozer insists we must derive the categories for "all that and Spirit. TI1is is entirely God's doing. Vanhoozer's anti- himself to be ignorant, weak, corporeal, temporal, mutable, fi-
redefining the purpose and scope of a lower science in order is:' Those events themselves must be classifiable within the instrumentalist characterization of the effectual call subverts nite, and so on? Are there any limits to God's self-sovereignty?
to remake it into a properly theological pursuit. Yet this is exact same system by which we classify all other (ordinary) the sole priority of God's operation in the production of saving I submit that this notion that God is sovereign over his own
what Vanhoozer does to metaphysics. He simply declares that phenomena, thus divesting them of their truly miraculous faith in his elect, Moreover, as a model for God's relationship nature and essence is entirely wrongheaded. The doctrine of
its proper object is no longer to be restricted to the common- and extraordinary character, to the world more generally it suggests some sort of ontologi- divine sovereignty is properly understood as God's control
ness of being discovered among creatures, but must now be cal synergism between God and his creation. Indeed, this is over things ad extra. God's nature grounds his sovereignty
extended to consider God, creatures, and God's redemptive Effectual Calling exactly what one discovers in Vanhoozer's discussion of God's in relation to things outside himself; sovereignty does not
actions on behalf of creatures. But why not do this with other Vanhoozer's account of God's effectual call in salvation high- impassibility and compassion. control or cause the divine nature itself in any sense. In the
lower sciences? Why not insist upon a mathematics, chem- lights his aversion to traditional causal explanations of God's end Vanhoozer's revised understanding of divine impassibility
istry, or biology of the gospel? Should we expect to derive activity in the world. The effectual call, we are told, "provides Divine Impassibility is much more Barthian than classically Reformed. Moreover,
the proper principles and limits for those disciplines from a lens for understanding how the eternal God ads in time, As noted above in the overview, Vanhoozer upholds divine inasmuch as God becomes something in the theodrama that
redemptive history as well? Probably Vanhoozer would say and thus for how God relates to the world more generally" impassibility insofar as the doctrine teaches that God is not he was not before, it seems that Vanhoozer's God is ontologi-
we should not. So why insist upon doing it with metaphysics? (371). Specifically, the author notes that God's causal work in passively moved by the coercive will and power of creatures. cally correlative to creation and dependent upon it in some
It may be that Vanhoozer simply rejects the traditional (pre- effectual calling is a "communicative action" and the result is But he does not believe that God is impassible in an absolute sense in order to realize the being and nature that he has
Enlightenment) claims that metaphysics is a legitimate lower a "properly communicative causal effect" (371). In itself this sense. Indeed, as he explains it, God does suffer as God by vir- authored for himself.
science, in which case making it more properly theological stress on communicative causality seems perfectly admis- tue of his own free choice. God authors his own suffering. This
would appear entirely harmless. It bears pointing out, though, sible. But for Vanhoozer communicative causality is sharply argument effectively transforms divine impassibility from a Conclusion
that in relocating metaphysics within theology Vanhoozer doctrine about the divine nature into a doctrine about divine The deficiencies of this volume ultimately overwhelm its
contrasted to instrumental causality. The effectual call works

'Volume 7 (2011). 171

virtues. The reader frequently gets the sense that the ortho- my proposal. The book is the lasl in the series Cambridge
doxy granted by the right hand is taken away by the left. Van- Studies in Christian Doctrine. The series required me to lo-
hoozer seems to follow not only Barth's doctrine of God, but cate and make sense of traditional Christian doctrines in
also his dialecticism. Though we are warned against univo- a contemporary context. That was my mandate. It helps to
cism, his proposal for a single set of metaphysical categories know the historical context in order rightly to interpret the
slips it back in; though we are warned against relational the- text. Knowing the context also helps to explain why I did not
ologies, the author incorporates God's actions in the world simply repeat what other Reformed theologians have said,
into the very definition of his being (297); though divine im- but tried instead to translate it.
passibility is affirmed, we are further informed that God vol- My aim in Remythologizing Theology and, indeed, as in
untarily allows his very Godhead to undergo suffering; though everything I write, is to stand on the shoulders of Calvin and
God's total sovereignty in salvation is confessed, we are also other Reformed giants, including the seventeenth-century
notified that humans are never passive in regeneration. The Scholastics, not to desecrate their graves. The question con-
list of self-contradictions could easily be multiplied. All in cerns how best to honor their legacy and heritage. Rote repeti-
all, Remythologizing Theology is too prolix, repetitive, vague, tion is one way, but it is not the only one, nor is it necessarily
and from a traditional Reformed perspective, too Barthian the most effective.
to meet effectively the modern challenges of the various re- Dolezal is not blind to certain "virtues" in the book. He
lational theologies. mentions two (the emphasis on the primacy of special rev-
elation and the criticism of modern relational theologies). I
Response: "On the Scope and Scopus of 'Always Reforming; only wish he had kept these in mind throughout, since he
A Response to James Dolezal:' By Kevin Vanhoozer. could have used these "clearer" passages to interpret those he
found less clear. Instead, he reads me as consistently failing
Is the meaning of a text more a function of its author's in- to remember in Parts Two and Three the important things
tended meaning or of its reader's - in this case reviewer's - I said in Part One. Enough with the authorial whining! It is
response? I would say the former, and I think James Dolezal time to confront the particular criticisms.
would agree. How then should we explain the fact that his First, Dolezal laments my decision to give priority to the
reader response disappointingly fails to coincide with my biblical accounts of God speaking to human beings. This is
authorial intention? There are two possibilities: either I have what he refers to as my "overly-restrictive thesis" (some might
miscommunicated, or Dolezal could do with a refresher call it "focus"). It's true that I want the Bible's presentation
course in grammatical-hisl:orical interpretation. The truth, of God to govern my doctrine of God. I am wary of "per-
however, may lie somewhere in the middle (proof positive, fect being" theology, because it too often smuggles culturally
Dolezal would no doubt say, that I am indeed a dialectical, conditioned values in through the back door. Consider, for
self-contradicting theologian!). example, the very idea of perfection. Aristotle thought that
It was my intent to write a work of Reformed theology that perfection implied immutability; Charles Hartshorne came
would critically address several trends in contemporary theol- to the opposite conclusion and parsed perfection in terms of
ogy and provide a "retooling" (not displacement) of classical God's universal relatedness. My concern is to make sure that
theism and its implied metaphysic. I am Reformed because, Scripture (what I call mythos, the dramatic plot) rather than
among other things, I affirm sola scriptura, divine sovereignty some other source governs our theological understanding.
(not least in the matter of grac.e), the soteriological centrality We know what God's love is, for example, because of what
of union with Christ, the Lordship of Jesus Christ over all areas God says and does in the history of Israel, culminating with
of life, the importance of keeping word and Spirit together, his definitive word and deed: the person and history of Iesus
the fecundity of"covenant" as a unifying principle of biblical Christ (Jn. 15:13).
theology, and the importance of continually reforming the Remythologizing Theology is not a full-fledged doctrine
church's doctrine and practice according to the word of God of God. It is rather an attempt to work out the ontological
written "for us:' I view myself not as an innovator but rather implications of the Bible's depiction of God as a speaker: a
as a translator, one who seeks new language with which to communicative agent who says and does things with words.
preserve what has been said in the past for the present. And, while it is true that I do focus on God's verbal commu-
The new conceptual tools I set forth in the book are ones of nication (as does Scripture!), I also believe that God com-
which I hope Calvin would have approved. He would certainly municates his light, life, and love more broadly, not only in
not have approved of "a mixed bag of classical Reformed af- word but also in deed: "God communicates indirectly in the
firmations blended together with elements of Barthianism book of Nature and more directly through his living Word,
and panentheisrn," so of course I dispute this description of Jesus Christ" (p. 475).

172 'Volume 7 (2011)