Copyright © 2003 Chauncey Everett Berry All Rights Reserved. the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Has Permission to Reprod
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright © 2003 Chauncey Everett Berry All rights reserved. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the Seminary, including, without limitation, preservation or instruction. REVISING EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL METHOD IN THE POSTMODERN CONTEXT: ST ANLEY J. GRENZ AND KEVIN J. V ANHOOZER AS TEST CASES A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Chauncey Everett Berry Box 1849 December 2003 UMI Number: 3120600 Copyright 2003 by Berry, Chauncey Everett All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3120600 Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, M148106-1346 APPROVAL SHEET REVISING EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL METHOD IN THE POSTMODERN CONTEXT: STANLEY J. GRENZ AND KEVIN J. VANHOOZER AS TEST CASES Chauncey Everett Berry Read and Approved by: Step eh J. Wellum (cHairperson)" (\ j \ ,f ~ iJ.' J 1l t1V It f)' II t' . _..H 'r-'(5\.H)L~ /\1 . Robert H. Stein Chad O. Brand Date _--'t<->c..t----L/--'--1--"-1----.:./_o_:?___ _ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................... ......... VI PREF ACE ........................................................... Vll Chapter 1. DEFINING EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL METHOD AND ITS CULTURAL DESPISERS ............................... I Postmodernism and Evangelical Theology ....................... 6 The Autonomy of the Mind: Charting Epistemology from the Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Century .............. 9 The Consummation of Modernism: The Post- modern Shift in the Twentieth-Century ..................... 19 Postmodern Wedges between Conservative and Postconservative Evangelicalism ................... ...... 26 Surveying the Contributions of Stanley 1. Grenz and Kevin 1. Vanhoozer. .. 45 2. CHARTING THE GRENZIAN COURSE TO A POST- CONSERVATIVE THEOLOGICAL METHOD ..................... 51 Grenz's Historical Analysis and Assessments of Conservative Theological Method. .. 55 The Modernizing of the Evangelical Heritage: Grenzian Criticisms of "Modernistic" Theological Mehodologies ............................. 63 Reformulating Evangelical Beliefs in Light of New Postmodern Perceptions ......................... 72 HI Chapter Page Grenz's Proposals Regarding a Postmodern Theological Method ....................................... 78 Grenz's Theological Method in Practice. .. 98 3. TRACING VANHOOZER'S VERSION OF POST- CONSERV A TIVE THEOLOGICAL METHOD . .. 107 The Postmodern Attack on Hermeneutics and Christian Theism ..................................... 111 Identifying Key Ambiguities of Conservative Evangelical Theological Method ............................ 120 Discovering the Ethics of Interpretation and the Dynamics of Biblical Language . .. 134 Restating the Nature of Doctrine and the Role of Reason in the Theological Task ........................... 154 Vanhoozer's Theological Method in Practice. .. 174 4. EVALUATING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF STANLEY J. GRENZ AND KEVIN J. VANHOOZER. .. 183 Assessing the Significant Similarities and Variances of Grenz's and Vanhoozer's Postconservatism ........................................ 185 Reflections and Concerns Regarding Grenz's Theological Method ...................................... 200 Reflections and Concerns Regarding Vanhoozer's Theological Method ...................................... 218 5. CLARIFYING POTENTIAL COMPONENTS FOR AN EV ANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL METHOD AMIDST A FRAGMENTING EVANGELICAL TRADITION ................................... 231 Leading a New Evangelical Movement or Altering the Evangelical Tradition: Clearing the Fog Regarding Postconservative Evangelicalism 234 IV Chapter Page Validating Certain Epistemic Categories in Light of Biblical Revelation. .. 243 Integrating Hermeneutics with the Dynamics of Doctrinal Development: A Proposal . .. 256 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................... 277 v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABQ American Baptist Quarterly ATJ Asbury Theological Journal BETS Bulletin ofthe Evangelical Theological Society BibSac Bibliotheca Sacra CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CSR Christian Scholar's Review CT Christianity Today CTJ Calvin Theological Journal EvQ Evangelical Quarterly GTJ Grace Theological Journal JAAR Journal of the American Academy ofReligion JETS Journal ofthe Evangelical Theological Society PTR Princeton Theological Review RefS Religious Studies RevExp Review and Expositor SBET Scottish Bulletin ofEvangelical Theology SBJT Southern Baptist Journal of Theology SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SR Studies in Religion VI TrinJ Trinity Journal TToday Theology Today TynBul Tyndale Bulletin WesTJ Wesleyan Theological Journal WTJ Westminster Theological Journal V1l PREFACE Despite the fact that this dissertation bears my name, it could not have been completed without the ongoing support of many others. First and foremost, the one who deserves all honor, glory, and praise is my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. His grace and strength have sustained me through all the challenges I have faced in the doctoral program. Through all my shortcomings, he indeed has proven to be faithful to me. Next, I must acknowledge the ongoing encouragement and acceptance I have received and continue to have from my family. With regard to my wife, words are insufficient to describe how priceless Tabitha has become in the years that the Lord has allowed me to be her husband. Throughout this program, I have tested her patience, drawn from her kindness, been sharpened by her character, and had the joy of sharing both a daughter, Elaina, and a son, Brian, with her. Likewise, my parents, Stan and Betty Taylor, and in-laws, Dick and Shirley Burch and Jerry Blaxton, have offered consistent prayers, loving words, and even financial aid in times of need. I also cannot thank my family without mentioning my loving grandparents, Leslie and Alma Lindsey, who both went to be with the Lord just prior to my move to Louisville. Alongside my family, I must take the time to note the support I have received from my spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ. I am grateful for the love and wisdom my home pastor, Greg Adams, as wen as his wife, Lisa, have offered in my years of spiritual growth. I also express my appreciation to my fellow brothers in the ministry, Guy Boyd, Ronnie Smith, and Darron Chapmon, for their ongoing encouragement. In addition, the people of Utica Baptist Church have been patient and understanding as I have worked through this project and I offer to them my heartfelt thanks. Vlll Finally, I am compelled to express my gratitude for the numerous professors who have offered their insights during my time at Southern Seminary. First, I am indebted to Dr. Craig Blaising and Dr. Bruce Ware for their guidance and instruction that I received during my initial years in the doctoral program. I am also thankful for Dr. Stephen Wellum, who graciously agreed to supervise the dissertation stage of my program. His patience and interaction with me have been crucial to the evolution of this thesis. Alongside Dr. Wellum's contributions, I wish to thank Dr. Robert Stein and Dr. Chad Brand for their willingness to participate on my doctoral committee as well as Dr. Michael Horton, who consented to be my external reader during his sabbatical at Westminster Theological Seminary. Finally, I thank Dr. Stanley Grenz and Dr. Kevin Vanhoozer for their work, which gave warrant to this dissertation, and their considerate replies to me during my research. Chauncey Everett Berry Utica, Kentucky December 2003 IX CHAPTER 1 DEFINING EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL METHOD AND ITS CULTURAL DESPISERS Although past expressions of evangelicalism have been distinguished by their adherence to the Christian gospel and Protestant tradition, many today are concluding that certain factors prevent its current status from being confined to one precise definition. I The response to this deduction is to ask why this is the case. Certainly, the dilemma is not caused by a lack of historical continuity. Many historians including George Marsden have traced the development of evangelicalism from its initial momentum during the evangelistic revivals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to its later affinity with and gradual departure from twentieth-century American fundamentalism. 2 Likewise, IFor example, almost a decade ago one observer suggested that evangelicalism was easier to describe than define. See Robert K. Johnston, "Varieties of American Evangelicalism," in Southern Baptists and American Evangelicals: The Conversation Continues, ed. David S. Dockery (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1993),47-49. In harmony with this assessment, one contemporary evangelical theologian asserts that today "the very word