Why speech-acts when discussing Scripture?

Why did I spend a year researching the potential benefits of a pompous sounding yet very down-to-earth and commonsensical theory in the philosophy of language called “speech act theory” for formulating a doctrine of Scripture? Why did I write an MTh dissertation on it (well, not on it per se, but how it has been employed by Kevin Vanhoozer and Tim Ward)?

There are, of course, many things to be said, but for now here’s a great and succint rationale given by Timothy Ward in an interview.

Guy Davies: Why do you think that speech-act theory is so valuable when it comes to formulating a doctrine of Scripture?

TW: Speech-act theory asserts that to speak is to act, and that language-use is a variety of interpersonal action. That model of language accords remarkably well with what Scripture has to say about language and about itself, when spoken either by God or by us. The particular cutting edge of this is that many understandings of the nature of Scripture, whether liberal or evangelical, have gone astray in forgetting this basic point. Classic examples would be when we are expected to choose between revelation as either propositional or effective/active, or when the question of biblical inerrancy becomes the thing that excites us most about Scripture.

Publicitate

Thoughts on Carson

I’m currently reading D. A. Carson’s „Christ and Culture Revisited”. I must say I am impressed with the clarity of his writing, with his irenic yet firm style of engaging opposing views. I reckon he is charitable in representing views with which he disagrees. He has a surgical precision in exposing inconsistencies, unmasking straw men. He also manifests a commendable dogged determination to bring theological thought toward an increased faithfulness to Scripture.

I appreciate his laudably balanced treatment of Niebuhr’s Christ and culture models and I agree with his conclusion that biblical theology and the great turning points of redemptive history constitute the best framework for discerning the best possible outlook of and engagement with culture from a Christian perspective at specific times and places.

When it comes to postmodernism I am inclined to agree with Carson’s insistence on epistemology. Although he has been chided (especially after his “Becoming conversant with the emerging church”) for almost reducing postmodernism to its epistemology, I agree that its epistemological basis is fundamental, and therefore postmodernism must be engaged primarily at this level.

His critique of Jamie K. Smith’s “Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?” is poignant, and I think, fair.

Un imperativ pentru Emil Hurezeanu (cu nesfârşită dezamăgire)

Emil Hurezeanu, vorbeşte ACUM sau taci pentru totdeauna! Ieşi ACUM în lumină ori vei rămâne îngropat în molozul sordid al ‘Realităţii’!

Dă mai departe, dacă Emil Hurezeanu a fost/este pentru tine un reper, o voce echilibrată ce merită să fie ascultată în politica românească!