Journal: Southeastern Theological Review
Volume: STR 04:1 (Summer 2013)
Article: God, Plurality, And Theological Method: A Response To Kevin Vanhoozer’s "Remythologizing Theology"
Author: John R. Franke

STR 4:1 (Summer 2013) p. 41

God, Plurality, And Theological Method:
A Response To Kevin Vanhoozer’s
Remythologizing Theology

John R. Franke

Yellowstone Theological Institute

Introduction

In many ways Remythogizing Theology (hereafter RT) is a continuation of the methodological proposal Kevin Vanhoozer offers in The Drama of Doctrine. By that I mean that RT remains a work that is heavily, and from my perspective, decisively devoted to methodological considerations. To be sure, RT does offer some material constructions concerning the doctrine of God, but the focus is in many respects still on the formal theological proposal Vanhoozer has put forward. This is not necessarily a criticism, in the contemporary climate of academic theology it seems well neigh impossible to escape from the demands of method, particularly when a complex and detailed methodological proposal has been put forward and serves as the backdrop for subsequent work. RT is a richly detailed, complex, and sophisticated work in which the conclusions concerning the doctrine of God are leveraged in the service of methodological issues. This is no bad thing, since theological method ought to be determined by the subject matter of theological inquiry rather than allowing methodological considerations to control the subsequent doctrinal articulations. However, Vanhoozer’s abiding interest in philosophical issues leads to a strong accent on methodological concerns throughout the book.

I mention this because in the response I offer here I will focus primarily on some general issues related to the theological method that result from Vanhoozer’s doctrine of God as they are developed in RT rather than attempting a detailed engagement with the constructive details concerning the doctrine of God. I suppose the biggest question I find myself asking concerns the notion of God as a communicative agent as the formal and material principle of theology. It is not that I think Vanhoozer is wrong in identifying God as a communicative agent, both within God’s eternal communal life as well as in God’s economic relations with creation. I do not. In fact I am in thorough agreement with him on this point. God is a communicative agent. What I have concerns about is the exclusive way in which the notion of God as communicative agent seems to function in the theological method and construction of theology offered in this volume. Vanhoozer asserts: “The central wager in the present project is that both the transcendence and immanence of God are best viewed in terms of communicative agency rather than motional causality” (RT, p. 24). Emerging from this perspective is the

STR 4:1 (Summer 2013) p. 42

notion that the building blocks of theology should be in...