Vanhoozer and Congar

Some evangelicals have found the Catholic ressourcement project so appealing that there appears to be little interest left in maintaining the confessional distinctive of sola Scriptura. Much of this tendency can be explained perhaps as a necessary corrective to what is still the dominant evangelical mindset that rejects any real authoritative place for ecclesial tradition. However, perhaps of more interest are the evangelical theologies which seek to affirm both the Reformed doctrine of Scripture and a renewed emphasis on the embodied, or performative, Christian tradition. Kevin Vanhoozer’s recent book The Drama of Doctrine is one such effort. His project, while less historically-driven than other examples, is similar in many ways to Congar’s ressourcement theology. Vanhoozer’s stated aim is to reaffirm that “doctrine provides direction for the disciple’s (and the church’s) faithful speech and action, direction for embodying the way, the truth, and the life in new situations.” Recognizing the perceived alienation of Word from practice in certain evangelical circles, Vanhoozer wishes to navigate between the poles of post-fundamentalist propositionalism and the cultural-linguistic thought of the post-liberal school, which he believes places doctrine under the directives of the community. In place of these two paradigms, Vanhoozer proposes that the principle of sola Scriptura can serve as our “sapiential criterion,” from which the Christian tradition derives directives for its performance of ecclesial and individual life. Mere intellectual assent to Scriptural principles is not enough; Christians must engage in a “live performance” of the biblical “script.”

While Vanhoozer is surprisingly mute about Congar’s contribution, the parallels are fairly striking. Both Vanhoozer and Congar are responding to a perceived weakness in their respective theological communities concerning the relation of written authority and the unwritten Christian tradition. Each propose a paradigmatic corrective: the traditum for Congar; the necessary performance of doctrine for Vanhoozer. Further, both emphasize a certain unity of word and deed, going beyond mere intellectual assent toward the necessity of a fully embodied expression of the Christian faith.

For all these similarities, there are several key differences between Congar and Vanhoozer. Notably, the paradigmatic starting point for Congar and Vanhoozer reflects their respective confessional traditions: Congar framed the discussion with tradition, and Vanhoozer with the canon of Scripture. Perhaps more importantly, there is fundamental disagreement over whether it is tradition or Scripture that can – theoretically – stand on its own. Congar stressed the primacy of the oral transmission of the faith before the existence of the biblical text. The “Gospel before the gospel” is the foundation of both written traditions and the Scriptural canon. The New Testaments texts, Congar points out, were largely ad hoc responses to specific historical situations. While still affirming their normative authority, Congar argues that Scripture is a consequence of the tradition, rather than its foundation.

Vanhoozer, however, underscores the primacy of the biblical text. In direct contradistinction to Congar, he states that “the church was never without Scripture.” His claim is not merely a historical one, but theological: “It is not the church’s use but the triune God’s use of Scripture that makes it canon.” Both Congar and Vanhoozer would affirm the need for the church to live in accordance with Scriptural teaching. The basic difference concerns what is the primal authenticator of Christian practice and belief.