WORD MADE FLESH, FLESH MADE WORD: BEYOND THE PROTESTANT INTERPRETATION PROBLEM By Lauren Smelser White Dissertation SuBmitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Religion at Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Religion May 11, 2018 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Bruce Morrill, Ph.D. Paul DeHart, Ph.D. Ellen Armour, Ph.D. William Franke, Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WritinG this dissertation has Been a key exercise in my learninG to trust, and expose to critique, my somewhat unorthodox manner of “doinG theoloGy.” I have often perceived that manner as “unorthodox,” not simply in virtue of my interdisciplinary interests or my theologizing from a contested location as a female memBer of the Church(es) of Christ community. More fundamentally, I have perceived my theoloGical work as irreGular in a less flashy sense, one of not quite fittinG with various styles and interest-groups at play in the academy. That fact is perhaps attested in this dissertation itself, which is not Boundary-overturning in its conventions or aims (which might have, ironically, situated it in closer company with extant suBversive “types”), and yet it rather unconventionally asks the reader to share the author’s interest in a theo-practical problem rather than examining a prominent doctrine, figure, theme, or movement. I have perceived this fact as somethinG of a risk to my endeavors’ final importance to wider audiences. And yet I have pursued this approach Because I know no way to take joy in my work other than to root it in the questions that harry the heart, and I have found no way to offer my work to God than to take joy in it. Just as importantly, I have also pursued my sliGhtly unorthodox way because I have been emBoldened and enaBled to do so by sinGular members of my intersectinG communities. I am greatly indeBted to Ted Smith and Jaco Hamman, and all memBers of the T&P steerinG committee—among whom my area professor, DouG Meeks, has Been particularly influential—in their visions for merGinG theoloGy and practice. They have affirmed my off-beat interests as fully belonging to the ever-morphinG discourses of theological studies, and they have secured Bountiful material means and discursive spaces whereBy I have Been aBle to explore them with attention to theory and praxis. This experience has both widened my ranGe of active possiBilities and enhanced the conGruence of my private life and puBlic imaGe. To each member of my dissertation committee, Brue, Paul, Ellen, and William: I am also greatly indeBted to you for the roles you have played in my formation. Each of you has seen potential in me and has taken extra pains to draw it out, has uniquely sharpened my capacity for critical and creative ii enGaGement with theoloGical and philosophical discourse, has inspired in me a love for ongoing inquiry, and—most importantly—has shown me the theological shape of a scholar’s life. Yours are among the voices I hear most prominently as I enGaGe in readinG and writinG, and the Gift of that imprint upon my thinkinG is inestimable. And a special word to Bruce, my first reader: you cannot know how profound your impact has Been upon me—not only in the aforementioned ways, and not only as my endlessly available and insightful advisor, But also through the ways that you have invited me into your remarkaBle life and have Been invested in my own. I am forever Grateful. To my closest student-colleaGues and conversation partners at VanderBilt—especially Yolanda Norton, Peter Kline, Casey SiGmon, Sean Hayden, Dorothy Dean, and Sarah Sanderson-DouGhty—you are the people who have most enerGized me in this journey. In the deliGhts of your company, I have had eschatoloGical experience of divinity intersectinG materiality, and I have found resolve to live in keepinG with standards I did not know Before I knew you. To those scholar-leaders in my ecclesial community who have most encouraGed me alonG this way—especially Lee Camp, Josh Strahan, John Mark Hicks, Caleb Clanton, Richard HuGhes, Matt Hearn, and Leonard Allen: You inspire my labor towards the Goal that all men may Be so determined to hear women’s complex voices, not only in our fellowship, But in every place. Thank you. To my extraordinary parents, I am deeply Grateful for the innumeraBle sacrifices you made to facilitate my education as a young woman. Thank you for implanting in me a love for Scripture and, far more importantly, a love for Christ. To my children, my beloved Everette and Abel, thank you for teaching me uncharted depths of joy and grace in vulneraBle relation to other persons. You have tauGht me the maternal nature of God. And finally, to my husBand, Jason: in your full-hearted Belief in my voice, your endless laBors to enaBle my work to occur, your fearlessness as a feminist, and your dogGed commitment to discipleship—you, above all, have enlivened me to inhabit this journey as followinG the call of divine desire, and have continually surprised me with the interruptive presence of the Holy Spirit. I love you. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PaGe ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... ii Chapter I. IdentifyinG the “Protestant Interpretation ProBlem”: Sola Scriptura Hermeneutics from Luther to Barth ............................................................................................ 1 The OriGinal Context for and Tenets of Sola Scriptura .............................................................................. 4 Modernity and the Rise of the Hermeneutic Question ............................................................................ 20 Karl Barth’s Iteration of Sola Scriptura .......................................................................................................... 28 Barth’s Actualistic Vision of Revelation… ........................................................................................... 36 Barth’s Actualistic Formula: An Irrational Approach to Revelation? ..................................... 42 Barth’s Non-Foundational Account of Religious Experience ..................................................... 44 II. Protestant Alternatives in Wolfhart PannenBerG and Hans Frei: New AnGles of the Interpretation ProBlem .......................................................................................................... 58 PannenberG: TheoloGian of Critical History ................................................................................................. 61 PannenberG’s Approach to Scriptural Revelation: A Solution to the PIP? ........................... 71 PannenberG’s OversiGht: Discounting Extra-Rational Sources of UnderstandinG ............ 76 Hans Frei: TheoloGian of Christ’s Narrative Identity ............................................................................... 79 Frei’s Approach to Scriptural Interpretation: A Solution to the PIP? ..................................... 91 Frei’s Oversight: Suspending Illocutionary Concerns ................................................................... 93 ReadinG PannenBerG and Frei as Correctives to One Another: Another Impasse ....................... 95 Conclusion: LookinG to “HiGh(er) Church” Resources .......................................................................... 105 III. Balthasar’s Contemplative Option: The Allures and Hazards of a “Christophorous” Hermeneutic ................................................................. 107 Balthasar’s Key InsiGht: Humanity’s Self-Expropriation in Theodramatic Revelation .......... 111 Balthasar’s ParadiGm, Applied: A (Theo)Dramatic Eschewal of Christoform AmBiGuity ..... 125 Feminist Engagements with Balthasar’s Kenosis: A Self Expressed in Translucence? .......... 138 IV. Incarnational UnfoldinG throuGh PneumatoloGical Incorporation: Balthasar’s Linear Model and Coakley’s “Spirit-Led” Alternative ........................................................... 156 ContrastinG Balthasar’s and Coakley’s Doctrines of the Incorporative Spirit ............................ 158 Balthasar’s (Super)Feminine Spirit and the Production of Marian-Petrine Union ....... 160 Turning to Coakley’s Non-Linear Model: A “More Apocalyptic” Option ................. 170 Coakley’s Théologie Totale: Out of “Stuckness” in the KnowinG SuBject, and Beyond the PIP? .................................................. 188 Looking Ahead: Towards a Transfigured Marian Profile .................................................................... 198 iv V. Word Made Flesh, Flesh Made Word: Discourse as Sacramental Site of Revelatory Encounter ............................................................................ 210 The Utterly Receptive Reader: A MisGuided Hermeneutic Ideal ..................................................... 215 Sola Scriptura from Luther to Barth: The Delusion of Operative (Only) Grace? ............ 215 PannenberG and Frei: The Delusion of a Stabilized Revelatory Object? ............................ 220 Balthasar and Coakley: The Delusion of a “Translucent” Contemplative SuBject? ....... 226 Flesh Made Word through the Body’s Grace: Towards an Alternative Hermeneutic Framework ................................................................................ 233 The Sacrament as DialoGical Occasion: Resourcing Louis-Marie Chauvet ........................ 236 The DialoGical Sacrament as Nuptial Occasion: Resourcing the Body’s Grace ................ 242 A TransfiGured