1
Aug

Paul Helm on The Drama of Doctrine

   Posted by: Josiah Nolan   in Theology

Paul Helm weighs in on Kevin Vanhoozers largely acclaimed tome The Drama of Doctrine; insisting that the theodrama is not as cut and dry as Vanhoozers makes it out to be, Helm says,

How does theology or, more pointedly, how does God himself get into theodrama? Not because he enters it as one of the players, for were he do so we would need to know from somewhere who this strange actor is. (Generalising, this is the problem of how biblical theology keeps its body and soul together without living off the earnings of systematic theology.) He gets into the drama (or more exactly, the narrative), only at points where the drama is suspended and the players receive a ‘creedal’ statement from their Creator or Author. The occurrence of those cited by Fretheim, and many more, are not part of the action of the biblical narrative. They interrupt it, and at the same time they control it. They are in the drama but not of it. They are statements, assertions, (i.e. speech-acts) which intrude into the narrative, interpreting it, and so telling us who the God of the narrative is.

Helms indictment is rather interesting because he accuses Vanhoozer of actually being more modernistic than he lets on.

It’s self-evidently modernist work, not of course by being an immediate product of the Enlightenment, but one which is nevertheless conducted in the spirit of the Enlightenment. For it does not seek to build on the past, not even to build on a re-jigged past, but to start over again. Fancy that. After two thousand years, starting all over again.

and again,

Kevin makes space for himself – clears the stage, so to say - by distancing his ideas from those of cognitivists (in the shape of Hodge) and expressivists (in the shape of Lindbeck). He tell us that he sits somewhere in the middle, borrowing from each. Yet the idea of such a division, or polarity, between expressivism and cognitivism, is itself a modern phenomenon, to be dated no earlier than the reaction to the logical positivism of the mid-20th century.

To be sure Helms critique is rather harsh, but it will be interesting to see how the responses develop…

This entry was posted on Friday, August 1st, 2008 at 11:26 am and is filed under Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One comment

Erick Underwood
 1 

1×8l1debqvssr7ra

November 13th, 2008 at 3:30 am

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URL
Comment