THE DOCTRINE OF REVELATION: A the ecumenical Christian community is a NARRATIVE INTERPRETATION,by resource in the interpretation of Scripture, Gabriel Fackre. Grand Rapids: Eerd- (6) culture is not the primary framework for mans, 1997. Pp. x + 230. understanding Christian truth, and (7) ex- trabiblical experience should be used “ecle- Fackre, a theologian at Andover Newton ctically” on an ad hoc (and not normative) Theological School and a leading voice in basis. the “post-liberal” approach to theology, re- Fackre develops his view of the doctrine thinks the doctrine of revelation with fruit- of revelation around the rather traditional ful consequences by critically engaging the themes of “general revelation,” “special thinking of Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Karl revelation,” and “revelation as reception.” Rahner, and Carl Henry on revelation. He However, he develops these themes compa- seeks a theology of revelation that returns to rably to a “baby systematics.” He analyzes the centrality of biblical narrative which the concept of general revelation by devel- had been “eclipsed” by modern and post- modern premises which “collide with its as- oping the themes of creation, the fall, and sertion of overarching coherences” (3). He the “covenant with Noah.” He analyzes spe- follows the lead of the late Hans Frei and cial revelation by means of investigating the George Lindbeck of Yale by seeing theology “covenant with Israel,” Jesus Christ as “in- as articulating the “grammar” of the Chris- carnate action,” and the inspiration of tian faith, a “cultural-linguistic” enterprise. scripture. And, he analyzes “revelation as In this perspective, Scripture should be read reception” by means of presenting the as a “history-like” narrative similar to church as “ecclesial illumination,” salvation nineteenth-century realistic novels “in as “personal illumination,” and consum- which the identity of characters emerges in mation as “eschatological illumination.” their interaction with the common ventures Since he sees himself not only as a “post- of life” (4). Unlike modernity, the first goal liberal,” but also as an ecumenical, evan- of theology should not be apologetics but an gelical, and “catholic” thinker, he interprets interpretation of the “storied world of the God the Trinity as the source of the divine canon, read typologically, with special ref- self-disclosure. For Fackre, “revelation is erence to the micro-narrative within it” (4). narrative-specific, the story of the triune Hence, he claims that “narrative, testimony God’s self-disclosure, the gift of the knowl- to the biblical tale of an inextinguishable edge of God given in the history of God with Light, and in touch with twentieth-century human beings to human beings” (15). sensibilities, provides here the interpretive Given the Barthian heritage of the Yale the- framework” (3). As a post-liberal theolo- ology, it is surprising and refreshing that gian, Fackre affirms seven crucial aspects to under the category of the “covenant with the doctrine of revelation: (1) we like Karl Noah,” emphasizing God’s favor to all hu- Barth can interpret the world anew from the mankind, Fackre finds some common “strange new world of the Bible,” (2) the ground with Paul Tillich’s theology. Fackre overarching biblical narrative will render argues that we must question any intrasys- the identity of the Christian God manifest, tematic rationality that would appeal only (3) Jesus Christ is the interpretive key to the to one’s own “web of faith,” or community whole scriptural narrative, (4) the place of of common commitment or social location. Israel in God’s purposes is ineradicable, (5) Ironically, then, arguments for the internal 314 Copyright © 2000 by Word & World, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN. All rights reserved. Word & World rationality of one’s faith perspective made appreciate the subtleties of his work while in the public domain presuppose what they pastors and professional church workers deny—a rationality that goes beyond self- will appreciate the readability. Fackre defined boundaries. Fackre uses Tillich’s pushes Yale thinking by engaging it with thinking against post-modern “sophisms” “correlationalist theologies” and in so do- that would affirm a reason that belongs only ing strengthens the viability of this method. within the group as if they were not at- Mark C. Mattes tempting to relate their truth-claims to cri- Grand View College teria that is public. Des Moines, Iowa Given his understanding of Tillich, Fackre reads Barth so as to develop as many points of contact as possible between the SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, 2 vols., by distinctive Christian narrative and wider Robert W. Jenson. New York: Oxford, culture. While the wider culture is not given 1997-1999. Pp. x+244; vi+380. $49.95 a normative voice for Christian truth, it cer- and 55.00 (cloth). tainly offers analogies of Christian teaching, Where most dogmatics cause slumber, according to the later Barth. Again, on the Robert Jenson’s two volumes of systematics basis of the “Noachic covenant,” there is a plays a loud reveille. As others champion common grace that sustains the world. length and obscurity, this systematics in- However, the common faith that is com- vigorates with its lively elaboration of detail, mensurate with this “grace of preservation” breadth of material, and clarity of task. does not save souls (145). That alone is the Readers of Systematic Theology will profit unique task of the gospel. from the long-standing work and contribu- A theory of revelation cannot avoid deal- tion of Robert Jenson. ing with the issue of how the Bible is a reve- The titles of the two volumes state Jen- latory text. Hence, Fackre addresses Carl son’s assignment: The Triune God and The Henry’s “moderate form” of biblical iner- Works of God. Both are rigorously trinitar- rancy (159). With Henry, Fackre affirms ian. In all instances, Jenson solves theological that there is some illumination in the en- problems and liturgical tasks in trinitarian tirety of the Bible (168). However, he chal- fashion. Such thoroughgoing and consistent lenges the fundamentalist assumption that work is welcome among the aimless wander- there is an unqualified inerrancy in all parts ing of so much theological writing. and all the subject matter of the Scriptures. A wide range of discussion and careful fo- This assumption, according to Fackre, con- cus emerges from a concern for the one fuses the “present Dawn with the final Day” church. Jenson writes the systematics in “an- (170). Instead, witness to Jesus Christ is the ticipation of the one church” (I:viii). This criteria by which to discern God’s word systematics distinguishes itself from many within the words of Scripture. Fackre’s af- other attempts, which solve ecumenical firmation with Karl Rahner that the fullness problems in advance, or simply ignore them of truth is linked to the wholeness of the and extend the division of the one church. church (199) through the agency of the For these tasks, Jenson understands Holy Spirit within the church (200) dis- Christian theology to “recognize and ad- tances his thinking from an unwholesome here” to the biblical God (I:90). He does this biblicism and situates it in conversation in terms of distinguishing the God of Israel with the catholic tradition. from other putative gods and claims for Fackre’s theology of revelation is a wel- eternity. Religion is the cultivation of eter- come addition to the growing number of nities and salvation in any religion depends works dedicated to engaging orthodox upon the identity of that god or savior Christian theology with contemporary (I:54-55). In that, his main prolegomena thinking. The professional theologian will are an expanded form of Luther’s explana- 316 Word & World tion of the First Commandment in the form the dramatis dei personae (I:75). In the Large Catechism: “What is it to have a God?” center of this narrative stands “the Son.” The question of the existence of any gods is This particular actor includes Jesus and Is- itself trivial. Instead, the question is: “Which rael: “totus Christus...meaning the risen is the true God?” Christ including and included in his com- In answering these questions, Jenson munity” (I:77, 81). This actor would have carefully exposits the Scriptures. His sum- little significance without the Father who mary is that the biblical God identifies sends him, or the Spirit who raises him from himself in the exodus of Israel and the res- the dead (I:83, 86). Together, they are the urrection of Jesus. These are the blatantly life of the triune God. temporal marks that identify that God. Jenson holds that the resurrection has Where other gods tried to keep Israel in the centrality that crucifixion normally Egypt, Israel’s God brought her to freedom. does (I:179, 194). This goes along with his Compared to most other systematic criticism of western theology’s Father-Son statements of the last century, these vol- binity (I:146). God is Spirit, a much under- umes do not have lengthy prolegomena. developed part of Western doctrine (I:87). Jenson does not have an interest in saving He commends the observance of the his readers from confusing beginnings, he Triduum Sacrum to comprehend the events just has a proclivity to get to the chase. His of Holy Thursday to Easter (I: 190) as well as study of such prolegomena shows that if a fuller observation of Pentecost (I:190, they are not themselves part of Christian 146). teaching, the “prolegomena sooner or later turn against the logomena” (I:9). The role that the cross plays in the risen Jesus’ life does not create discontinuity. The Beyond beginnings, Jenson is clear that abandonment of Jesus instead belongs to theology involves two other activities: prayer the relation he shares with the Father and proclamation.