The Prof continues his Analysis series (here) with a discussion of the role of propositions and speech acts in theology (here). Theologians draw on speech-act theory to emphasise the importance of what God does with his words. He does not merely speak. By speaking God does something, like make a promise or enter into a covenant. These are God's illocutions - his speech-acts. By the Spirit, these speech-acts are made effective as the Word is understood, promises believed, commands obeyed. This is the perlocutionary effect of God's speech-acts.
Kevin Vanhoozer draws on speech-act theory in his The Drama of Doctrine (WJK, 2005 - my review series here). He does this to show that God incorporates his people into the drama of redemption by his communicative action in Scripture. Paul Helm, although sometimes critical of Vanhoozer's approach (here), acknowledges that speech-acts have a role in Biblical revelation.
"the whole of divine revelation in Scripture is confessed by the Christian church to be God’s speech. We might think of the whole of Scripture as being enclosed within speech marks, with other sets of speech marks occurring within Scripture".
The Prof helpfully points out that Calvin understood speech-act theory before it was formally proposed by J. L. Austen in the 1960's. But Helm's concern is that theologians may emphasise speech-acts over the propositional content on Scripture. He quotes Luther's dictum, 'Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity’. This is certainly true. Revealed religion is propositional, "God is", "Christ died for our sins", "Jesus is risen". Without such propositions the heart would be ripped out of the Christian faith.
But does it follow that the task of theology is to abstract the Biblical proportions from the drama of redemption? This, perhaps is what Charles Hodge and Louis Berkhof tend to do in their approach to theology. Charles Hodge defined the task of systematic theology thus: "the exhibition of the facts of Scripture in their proper order and relation". John Frame is critical of this proposal, saying, "Hodge didn't have a very clear idea of why we need theology." For him, "Theology is the application of the Word by persons to the world and to all areas of human life." (See here). When used properly, speech-act theory helps us to consider what God is doing with his Word. This is not at the expense of propositions, but Biblical propositions must not be abstracted from the drama of redemption.
Paul Helm makes reference to my post, Dedramatising Omnipresence? (here). In that post, I criticise Berkhof's handling of omnipresence in his Systematic Theology. Berkhof gives a perfectly good definition of omnipresence, but his discussion of the subject is pretty abstract in tone. Psalm 139 is listed as a proof text, but the communicative action intended by the Psalm is missing. Yes God's omnipresence is,
"That perfection of the Divine Being by which he transcends all spatial limitations, and yet is present in every point of space with his whole Being".
It is right that systematic theology offers a definition omnipresence in such terms. But is that all it should do? Theology should try to capture something of what God was communicating through Psalm 139: that his presence is inescapable and that he holds us in his hand. What I am arguing for is an approach to systematic theology that safeguards the crucial importance of propositions and is sensitive to the communicative action of Scripture. It is not that the Hodge/Berkhof method is fundamentally wrong or misconceived, but is it sufficient?
Vanhoozer's theo-dramatic approach embraces the propositional content of Scripture. He quotes Colin Gunton with approval that to deny the propositional aspect of theology "is an attack on revealed religion." (Drama of Doctrine p. 91). Every speech-act includes a proposition whether that be a promise, a question or even a joke. But when propositions are removed from the communicative action of Scripture, they are dedramatised. The task of theology is to enable the people of God to participate fittingly in the drama of redemption, not simply to exhibit the facts of Scripture in an orderly way.
Paul Helm's article on propositions and speech-acts shows the danger of polarisation. If speech-act theory is used to undermine the propositional content of Scripture, then effect will be to "fuzzy" the gospel. But when used properly in theology, an emphasis on speech-acts may help to remind us of what God is doing with and by his written Word.