Critical Analysis
The central concern of Dr. Morrison’s book, Has God Said, is the refutation of the dualistic understanding of God’s Word and Scripture. He frames all divisions of God’s Word from Scripture in the context of God’s relationship to creation. Theologians either transcendentalize God to the point that He is no longer in real contact with the world, or they make God so immanent that He becomes one with creation. Under the transcendental view, God’s Word becomes a contentless, non-linguistic, platonic, meta-thought and Scripture is seen as a human book that at best refers to God’s Word on occasion. The immanental view, or panentheism, equates God’s Word with creation, blurring the line between general and special revelation. Thus, Scripture is considered part of God’s Word, but natural theology carries the fuller revelation of God.
In order to expose the underlying philosophies of the division of God’s Word and Scripture, Morrison examines the division’s historical origin. Prior to the enlightenment, the identity principle that Scripture is identical with the Word of God was firmly held and taught in the church. However, enlightenment thinkers like Spinoza, Semler, and Gabler all embraced a rationalist view of knowledge that a priori ruled out revelation as a viable source of truth. With the dethronement of Scripture, these philosophers sought truth in self-evident first principles, philosophy, and historical analysis. Morrison’s focus throughout his historical treatment is to demonstrate how these philosophers have attacked the identity principle and how their theories have affected the contemporary study of the Bible in Christian academia. While he did not present a positive argument for maintaining the identity thesis, Morrison did expose that all of the philosophers’ bifurcation was due to presuppositional concerns rather than a consideration of data.
Next, Morrison traces the influence of the Newtonian and Kantian separations through modern theologians. Newton separated God from the world through reliance on the laws of nature as the fundamental sustaining forces of the universe. Kant’s separation was epistemological, dividing knowledge into phenomenal (perception through immediate experience) and noumenal (essence). Kant believed the latter to be unknowable by human reason and investigation. Schleiermacher attempted to craft a theology that held to the Kantian/Newtonian separation, but remained distinctly Christian. Unfortunately, as Morrison points out, the only place he had to turn was to the inner religious experience of the individual. Thus, for Schleiermacher, the Word of God was only accessible through subjective human piety. Bultmann also rejected the Scripture of the Word of God, but he turned to an amorphous, subjective “kerygma” that can present itself in the Bible, preaching, or virtually any other “proclamation.” Tillich also took a human centered view of theology and the Word of God, by attempting to ground access to the Word of God in symbols. In his view, mankind is separated from its ultimate ground of being. Ultimate being breaks through to mankind through symbols that nonverbally capture the essence of God. Thus, in Tillich’s view, God cannot communicate with people as both He and His Word are impersonal.
After demonstrating the flaws in modern theological frameworks, Morrison analyzes two contemporary theologians’ responses to the Word/Scripture rift. First, he examines Work’s definition of Scripture as icon. Under this view, the Word of God remains a nonverbal entity that is unreachable by mankind in its native form. However, just as ancient iconographers were able to create religious icons of Jesus, so were the apostles and biblical authors able to create icons of the eternal Word of God. While this does elevate Scripture to a higher level than many of the other theologians, it does nothing to dispel the Scripture/Word dichotomy and does not address the issue of truth in propositions, thus it is an inadequate model for bibliology.
Morrison also analyzes Kevin Vanhoozer’s bibliological model, Speech-Act Theory, and finds that it resolves the Word/Scripture dichotomy while also addressing the issue of how God interacts with His creation. Vanhoozer’s position maintains that the Word of God is identical to Scripture, but also that God’s activity in Scripture has not ended. He argues that the text of Scripture was overseen and carried out by God the Father. The Logos-Son was responsible for the illocution of Scripture. This is the speech-act whereby God intends to accomplish one of five main tasks through His words. Whereas these first two aspects of Scripture are complete, the perlocution (effect the speech has on a hearer) is continuing to this day through the Holy Spirit.
One of the key derivatives of Vanhoozer’s theory is the concept of the embodiment of God’s Word. The ontological Word is embodied in Jesus Christ, who is the sum of the fulfillment of all of God’s covenants with mankind. Vanhoozer sees Scripture as a story of the embodiment of God’s word in the lives of those who belong to the body of Christ. Morrison does not see the embodiment paradigm as going against the identity thesis. Unlike incarnational theories of the Word of God, Vanhoozer distinguishes the “embodiment” of the Word from the Word itself. Incarnational theories attempt to address issues of identity, whereas Vanhoozer’s theory is only addressing purpose.
Next, Morrison addresses the question of whether or not modern critical approaches can be utilized to better understand God’s Word or whether they presuppositionally devalue and mar the text. The majority of the theories emphasize and analyze one particular aspect of the text (e.g. sources, literary forms, textual variances), and are useful as long as the identity principle is held as the guiding principle of investigation. However, if any of these approaches are used axiomatically, they will run afoul of dichotomizing Scripture and Word. The only critical method that was denounced was deconstructionism, because it destroys any possibility of language having concrete univocal meaning.
Finally, Morrison diverges into a discussion on the viability of modern Roman Catholic theories on the Scripture/Word debate. Morrison’s analysis of Trent through Vatican I demonstrates that dualistic thinking has crept into Catholic theology, especially as it pertains to the incarnational model that influenced theologians up to Vatican II. Morrison then evaluates the bibliological models of four preeminent, contemporary Catholic theologians. Karl Rahner’s model borders on panentheism as he argues that revelation is a personal internal experience of God that can be found in virtually all religions. As such he denies verbal inspiration and holds to a bifurcation of Word and Scripture. Raymond Brown utilizes a modified incarnational model whereby the emphasis is taken off of the truthfulness and historicity of Scripture and placed on matters of salvation. Avery Dulles maintains a stance similar to Tillich in that Scripture serves as a symbol of “divine deeds.” Morrison rightly points out that his view robs the Word of God of meaningful content. Finally, Morrison critiques Richard Swinburne’s view as holding a humanized, errant, and deficient view of Scripture.
Critical Evaluation
Morrison did an exceptional job of setting forth the identity principle and then critiquing deficient views of bibliology. In particular, his treatments of Kant and Spinoza were not only easy to understand, but argumentatively compelling. There are only a few areas where a critique may prove valuable.
First, though Morrison presents a comprehensive case for the acceptance of Speech-Act Theory, there are a few details that would benefit from further investigation before embracing the theory in its entirety. One, the concept of the “embodiment of God’s Word” is used to draw an analogy between the fulfillment of the covenant in Christ and the church’s reception of the New Covenant. This language could be construed in a panentheistic manner which could cause a bifurcation of Word and Scripture. As it stands, Vanhoozer limits this embodiment to the perlocutionary aspects of language, but even so, does this not mean that on some level the Word of God is truly in creation? More analysis would need to be done to determine if his theory holds to the identity thesis. Two, Morrison’s examination of Speech-Act theory is rightly constrained to the question of the identity thesis; however, before this theory should be accepted, an analysis of its effect on language should also be conducted. Three, the inclusion of illocutionary acts into language may place an unnecessary barrier between the exegete and true meaning of the text. For example, if one cannot rely on the text and other external data alone to determine its meaning, then one must also have an internal understanding of the mind of God. Though Speech-Act theorists may attempt to circumvent this issue by stating that illocution is present in the text, to some extent what the speaker intends to do with a piece of text will best be understood by direct access to his or her mind. This could undermine meaning in Scripture.
Second, though Morrison’s assessment of critical tools is to be commended, it could be fine-tuned in the following ways to prevent eisegesis and bad hermeneutics. One, he could offer a framework for understanding the usefulness of these methods from epistemological and authority perspectives. For example, to what degree should any of these analyses have on the meaning of the plain reading of the text? Or, should these analyses be used to call traditional understandings of verses into question? Two, Morrison could also address the ease with which these methods can be separated from the presuppositions and philosophies that often accompany them. Yes, most of them can be separated, but to what degree? Utilization of some theories may not be worth the risk.
Critical Analysis
The second half of Dr. Morrison’s book, Has God Said, focuses on the restoration of the identity principle of Scripture through the writings of modern theologians. Morrison’s first objective is to rescue Karl Barth’s theology of the Word of God from Barthian interpreters. Barth’s view on Scripture must be interpreted through his larger theological framework of “God’s being is in becoming” (loc. 3611). Revelation, under Barth, is this event of becoming and is identical to God. Thus, God’s being remains static and immutable while at the same time God, in a totally free choice, has chosen to reveal Himself. The Word of God is the divine disclosure of God, is the Logos, and is Jesus Christ.
As Morrison points out, this understanding of the Word of God initially seems to rule out Scripture as also being the Word of God. However, by placing being prior to becoming, Barth insures that Scripture is indeed the written Word of God with its authority firmly rooted in itself, because the Holy Spirit divinely inspired and utilized human words to communicate to mankind. Thus, for Barth, Scripture was from its origination the written Word of God, never ceases to be the written Word of God, and becomes the Word of God to people when they accept it for what it already is. In the act of becoming, Barth is not attempting to delegitimize the Word’s authority over those who reject it. Rather, he is trying to emphasize the difficult to describe but very real way the contents of the Word of God become manifest in the life of the believer.
Unfortunately, most who interpret Barth argue that he preached a dualistic version of Scripture and the Word of God. For example, both Mueller and Weber state that Scripture is simply a human witness or testimony to the Word of God. Thus, Mueller makes the case that Scripture can become the Word of God if and only if God is speaking through it. This form of Barthian theology requires Scripture to become what it is not through the power of the Holy Spirit at an individualistic level. Arnold Come furthers this idea by stating that true “revelation occurs through Scripture” while leaving Scripture itself unchanged both ontologically and in terms of authority (loc. 3767). Torrance’s contribution to Barthian theology is the depiction of the Word of God as contentless and incapable of being manifest through language.
Next, Morrison utilizes Barth’s advances in bibliology coupled with modern evangelical scholars to demonstrate that Scripture is the written Word of God. After his analysis of evangelical theologians, Morrison asserts that God is indeed a speech agent and uses human language as part of his self-disclosure. Morrison argues that the primary reason people have rejected divine revelation through human language is due to a priori and presuppositional assertions from eastern philosophy and Neoplatonism. Second, he points out that non-contentful understandings of the Word of God are incapable of interacting with Scripture in any way. For the Word of God to be objective, it requires that in some sense God’s word is propositional. Finally, Morrison argues that God’s act of authoring Scripture does not actually limit or modify His divine attributes. In order to solve this problem, he utilizes Kevin Vanhoozer’s speech act theory. Properly applied, this theory allows Scripture to have dual authorship through two different illocutionary acts, one divine and one human. Additionally, it preserves inspiration of Scripture while also allowing for God to “appropriate” human language (loc. 4828).
In the final chapter of the book, Morrison develops his fully fledged “Christocentric, multileveled, interactive model of Scripture as the written Word of God” (loc. 5065). The most unique contribution Morrison brings to his model is Einstein’s levels of objective truth. This framework provides for objective truth to be accessible to humanity. At the top level is God’s being itself. It is the fullness of who He is experienced directly by Himself in the divine Godhead and Trinity. At the second level is the acts or act of God which includes first and foremost the act of the incarnation of the Word of God in flesh. The third level is the level of interpretation and is defined as the Holy Spirit inspired “historical divine prophetic-apostolic interpretation” given as Holy Scripture (loc. 5380). It is at this third level that revelation becomes most focused, emphasizing God’s redemptive plan and expressing it through human constructs like culture and language. This third level avoids subjectivity by being grounded in the triunity of God and by being the transcendental and historical communication of revelation through divine speech acts.
Additionally, Morrison provides an assessment of Calvin’s understanding of scriptural authority. His first point is that divine authority is not given to individual people nor is it a type of authority that rests within a group of people. Rather, it is given to the ministry of the Word itself. Thus, when people walk, act, and live according to the ministry of the Word they walk with the authority of God. In the same way, deviation from the Word removes a person’s ability to rest in divine authority. Second, Morrison discusses how church legislative authority does not rest with individual leaders or offices, rather it rests with the Word of God. In this way, church leaders are simply executors of the Word and themselves governed by the Word. Finally, Morrison tackles a topic of extreme importance: does the church or the Word control the blessings and promises of God? He, like Calvin, argues persuasively that the church cannot make up its own rules for things like forgiveness of sins, reception of eternal life, and salvation. Instead, these things must always be governed by the Word of God rather than tradition, church councils, or leaders. Church hierarchy can only affirm what is in the Word, not create new boundaries.
In the appendix, Morrison tackles the place of tradition in the church and how misconceptions of sola scriptura coupled with hyper individualism in modern America. First, Morrison argues that the early church did not have a strong delineation between the use and authority of Scripture and tradition because it had not yet faced significant heresy. As heretical movements increased in size and number, the early church fathers and theologians through the first five centuries of Christianity sought both a canonized scripture and an “authoritative rule of faith” that served as an authoritative interpretation of Scripture on key doctrines (loc. 6054). Though this has been lost in many American churches, Morrison rightly argues that though Scripture remains first in terms of authority, all churches should also hold to the “rule of faith” developed during the first five centuries of Christianity.
Critical Evaluation
Morrison’s vindication of Barth’s theology concerning the Word of God was one of the most important sections of the book. The way in which he laid out Barth’s actual theology against Barthian theology assisted later on when he proceeded to make a case for a return to the identity principle. However, there are sections where it is difficult to discern if Dr. Morrison is correcting Barth or only interpreting Barth against Barth’s full theological system. For example, Morrison quotes Barth as saying that Scripture “is God’s Word in so far as God lets it be His Word, so far as God speaks through it” (loc. 3930). Morrison then states that these types of statements are found throughout Church Dogmatics, but that they only form part of the picture. What is not clear is whether or not Barth was double minded on the issue of Scripture or whether Barth understood Scripture properly on the big picture level, but legitimately missed the mark on occasion in the details. It would be interesting to hear Dr. Morrison’s thoughts on Barth’s own internal consistency.
Second, Morrison’s theological model of the written Word of God is both traditional and unique, employing the thoughts of theologians and philosophers alike. His utilization of Einstein’s multileveled model of objective reality is fascinating and sits well with his conclusions; however, it would have been helpful to have included more critiques of the multileveled approach to ascertain its viability as it undergoes further analysis. Additionally, the utilization of a paradigm invented by a secular source is not an issue (genetic fallacy); however, an assessment of the potential pitfalls of utilizing secular sources would be helpful to garner trust in the reader.
Finally, the appendix was a breath of fresh air and a much-needed
rejoinder to the current evangelical trend of rejecting or ignoring church
history and tradition. The insights provided in the early church portion demonstrate
that the church has already definitively dealt with many of the heresies that
are being promulgated today. His examples on how to implement tradition into
evangelical churches was helpful, but it would have been nice to have included more
practical examples involving contemporary schisms and how they could have been
resolved by a proper understanding of tradition.
ff
Commentaires