FROM CANON TO CONCEPT:

'SAME' AND 'OTHER' IN THE

RELATION BETWEEN BIBLICAL AND
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY 1
.KEVIN J. VANHOOZER, NEW COLLEGE,
UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

Introduction
If a Protestant be allowed to have a Holy Grail, mine would
be the answer to the question, 'What does it mean to be
biblical?' I hope to repay the honour of your invitation to
deliver this year's Finlayson lecture by pursuing this worthy
question a bit further. You have heard in recent years about
metaphors and about biblical authority; my theme tonight
-from canon to concept - follows on from both these topics
by contending that biblical authority is best served by
attending to the literary forms of Scripture. I will argue that
the gulf currently separating biblical from systematic theology
can be bridged by better appreciating the contribution of the
diverse biblica,l genres, and that a focus on literary genre could
do much to telieve the ills currently plaguing both their
houses.
Almost everyone agrees that the relation of biblical and
systematic theology is a vital one. The number of compelling
treatments of this subject, however, is in inverse proportion to
its significance. I would like to stand on the shoulders of
giants, but there are not many. Calvin did not explicitly
address the question of the relation of biblical to systematic
theology, but his Institutes provide an exemplary model of the
practice which I will try theoretically to describe. By keeping
such examples in mind I hope, if not to stand on, at least to
peer over, the shoulders of giants.
My aim is to sketch, and it can only be a sketch, a method
for relating biblical to systematic theology which might also
respond to Bernard Ramm's call to Evangelicals to develop a

1 The Finlayson Memorial Lecture delivered at the annual conference

of the Scottish Evangelical Theology Society on Wednesday 13
April, 1994 at the Faith Mission Bible College, Edinburgh.
96
 FROM CANON TO CONCEPT

new paradigm for doing theology.2 I therefore offer my

remarks in the humble spirit of one who desires to continue,
to cite the title of Professor Finlayson's last work, 'the story
of theology'.

I. From Canon to Concept: The Problem

1. Canon and Concept
What is involved in the passage from biblical language and
literature to theological concepts and doctrines? What governs
the move from biblical to systematic theology? The question is
more easily asked than answered. It is widely acknowledged
that the Bible is the indispensable resource for Christian
theology. But here the consensus ends. With some
exceptions, biblical studies and theology have grown further
and further apart since the Enlightenment. Although many
authors believe that biblical theology is an essential bridge
between exegesis and theology, there is a great degree of
confusion over how biblical theology ought to be done and
over its relation to systematic theology.

i. The Crisis in Biblical Theology and Systematic

Theology
The crisis in modernity. Both biblical and systematic
theology are today in crisis, as is modernity itself.
'Postmodemity' has provoked a crisis in biblical criticism just
as the rise of the modem world bad earlier precipitated a crisis
in traditional biblical interpretation. So-called 'postmodem'
thinkers have lost their faith in rationality. Reason, rather than
giving us access to objective truth, has instead fallen prey to a
hermeneutics of suspicion which disputes its claim to
neutrality. Postmodemists regard reason as a form of rhetoric
that masks the self-interest of those who use it. Worse, reason
is a form of violence which suppresses the 'other'. The very
etymology of the word 'concept - 'to take to oneselr (Latin,
concipere) - indicates the totalitarian nature of rational
theories.
What is the alternative to reason? Postmodernists want all
voices, especially those which have been marginalized, to tell
their own stories rather than subsuming them in a

2 See Bernard Ramm, After Fundamentalism: The Future of

Evangelical Theology (San Francisco, 1983).
97
SCOTTISH BULLETIN OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

'metanarrative' - a grand story that purports to explain

everything else. In the postmodem world, every voice shall be
lifted up. Incidentally, this sentiment lies behind the furore
over required reading lists - canons - in the national
curriculum. The very idea of a canon means that some voices
will not be heard. There is little room for authoritative canons
in a world that celebrates particularity and pluralism.

The crisis in biblical, theology. Biblical theology is in

crisis too.3 The attempt to study the theology of the Bible
historically and descriptively has led not to the development of
biblical theology but to its demise. Biblical theology, by the
end- of the nineteenth century, had degenerated into mere
histories of the 'religion' of Israel and the early church. The
growing stress on the diversity between the varying strands of
the biblical tradition led to scepticism about the possibility of
producing a unified theology. Moreover, biblical theology
failed to agree on what method should be used or on the focus
of its task. Werner Jeanrond has recently expressed his worry
about the lack of integration of biblical and theological studies
in most faculties of theology. He asks: 'what is the discipline
of biblical studies good for these days?' 4 and calls for a
reform of the theological curriculum in order to facilitate
greater integration. Brevard Childs agrees: 'Clearly if there is
to be any future for biblical theology, the pressing need for the
next generation is to build strong links between the disciplines
of Bible and theology.' 5

The crisis in systematic theology. Finally, contem-

porary theology is in crisis, or better, methodological
disarray. In place of a unifying perspective, theology today is
characterized by multiple points of view, each representing

3 See Brevard Childs' Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia,

1970).
4 Werner G. Jeanrond, 'After Hermeneutics: The Relationship
between Theology and Biblical Studies', in F. Watson (ed.), The
Open Text: New Directions for Biblical Studies (London, 1993),
p. 85.
5 Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology ofthe Old and New Testame.nts:
Theological Reflections on the Christian Bible (London, 1992), p.
xvi.
98
 FROM CANON TO CONCEPT

some particularity (e.g., feminist, gay, liberation, process -

divisions cut not of denominational but of ideological cloth),
each following its own agenda. The postmodem theologian is
allergic to systems, which are identified with closed,
oppressive and totalitarian forms of thought.
To the extent that biblical studies is a historical and critical
discipline independent of doctrinal theology, it has become
harder for theologians to be 'biblical'. Biblical studies no
longer 'belongs' to theology. 6 And theology, insofar as it has
cut its ties with Scripture, has been effectively deregulated. It
is a matter of great concern that, in trying to determine what
we can say about and do in the name of God, contemporary
theologians all too often have recourse only to makeshift
criteria.
ii. The Canon in Biblical Theology
How can biblical theology help? J.P. Gabler's 1787 lecture
marks the beginning of a separate career for biblical
theology. 7 According to Gabler, biblical theology is a
descriptive discipline. Minimally, it describes the thought of
an author or a book or a particular theme in the context of its
historical development. Maximally, biblical theology describes
the relation of the belief system of Israel to that of the early
church. 'Biblical Theology occupies a position between
Exegesis and Systematic Theology in the encyclopaedia of
theological disciplines. It differs from Systematic Theology
not in being more Biblical ... but in that its principle of
organizing the Biblical material is historical rather than
logical. ' 8 Its descriptions are given in the authors' own terms
and categories. To use Krister Stendahl's now classic
distinction, biblical theology describes 'what it meant' and
systematic theology prescribes 'what it means'. But this way
of putting the relationship between biblical theology and
systematic theology only poses the problem: how does one

6 So James Barr, 'Does Biblical Study Still Belong to Theology?',

in Explo.rations in Theolo.gy 7 (London, 1980), pp. 18-29.
7 See John Sandys-Wunsch and Laurence Eldredge, 'J.P. Gabler and
the Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology',
Scottish Journal of Theology 33 (1980), pp. 133-58.
8 Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments
(Grand Rapids, 1948), p. 5.
99
SCO'ITISH BULLETIN OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

move from 'what it meant' to 'what it means'? Is 'what it

means' the same, other or similar to 'what it meant'?
With the rise of modem biblical scholarship, historical
research revealed more sharply the 'otherness' of the biblical
writers, that is, the differences between the various voices and
the distance between biblical and dogmatic theology. The use
of doctrinal categories to analyze and organize the texts
'temporarily provided bridges between the biblical canon and
theological concepts, but 'by the end of the century these
bridges were becoming insecure at both ends'. 9 Liberal
theologians came to believe that the dogmatic categories were
inadequate descriptions of Christian faith; biblical critics
judged these categories inadequate descriptions of biblical
religion. Biblical theology took on a new meaning: not 'the
theology which accords with the Scriptures' but rather 'the
theology contained in the Scriptures'. Sacra doctrina and sacra
pagina were prised apart.
Brevard Childs has called for a new approach which would
reinstate biblical theology as a bridge discipline between
biblical studies and systematic theology by focussing on the
Bible as canon~ Ideally, biblical theology should be the
integral element in a hermeneutical process which would relate
the descriptive to the dogmatic in a 'fusion of horizons'. I
agree with Childs that the proper object of biblical theology is
the canon. The church did not canonize J, E, D or P but rather
the final form of the biblical traditions. But I disagree with
Childs about the significance of the canonical form. For most
of church history, canon has been seen as a principle of
authority rather than of meaning. The function of canon, that
is, is to list the books that the believing community has
recognized as authoritative, not to serve as a context of
meaning.

iii. Concept and Systematic Theology

For Thomas Aquinas, systematic theology is the rational
exposition of divine revelation given in Scripture. He refers to
sacra doctrina and sacra pagina interchangeably. But how
large is a page, and what is on it? Is theology a science of the

9 Robert Morgan, 'Biblical Theology', in R. J. Coggins and J. L.

Houlden (eds), Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (London,
1990), p. 88.
100
 FROM CANON TO CONCEPT

sentence or of the text? The practice of making key sentences

into proof texts not only leads to bad exegesis but also betrays
an inadequate view of the nature of language. Aquinas is well
aware of the difficulty in moving from canon to concept: 'the
truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ diffusely, under
various modes of expression, and sometimes obscurely, so
that, in order to gather the truth of faith from Holy Writ, one
needs long study and practice'.10
Systematic theology has not taken sufficient account of the
Scripture's 'modes of expression' and the role they play in
communicating content. Just as philosophers long considered
metaphors and other figures of speech mere decorative
packaging, so theologians have often underestimated the
cognitive significance of larger literary forms. For many, the
literary modes of expression are just so much wrapping paper
to be torn off in one's haste to get the proposition inside the
package. There are better ways to move from canon to
concept.
Systematic theology is an inquiry into the basic concepts of
the Christian faith. Paul Ricoeur has some (uncharacter-
istically) harsh things to say about theologians who proceed to
concepts too quickly. They dilute the rich language and
literature of the Bible to a diluted set of arid propositions,
exchanging their birthright for a mess of pottage. Ricoeur is
only echoing Gregory of Nyssa: 'Concepts create idols. Only
wonder understands.'11 Must we be so hard on concepts?
According to the 'names model' of language, every word
names a things and concepts mirror the essence of things or
the relations between things. Since Wittgenstein, however, we
have learned that not every word refers to a thing and not
every sentence is used to mirror the world. Language can be
used to do many things besides refer to the world. So can
literature. And so can concepts. Some philosophers view
concepts not as mental representations but as mental skills or
capacities. One way to acquire these skills, I shall argue, is to
let oneself be instructed on the way language is used in
various language games or literary genres. I shall argue that
the canon contains a number of such 'games' wherein we

10 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae i ..9. ad. 1.

11 Gregory of Nyssa, cited in Jurgen Moltmann in The Church in the
Power of the Spirit (London, 1977), p. 73 n. 29.
101
SCOITISH BULLETIN OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

learn to use concepts such as 'God', 'sin', and 'salvation'

correctly.

iv. Form and Content

'From canon to concept'. This is about the relationship
between form and content in our thinking about God. My
thesis is straightforward: before we systematize what the Bible
says about God we must first attend to how the content of the
Bible is given in and through its literary forms.
In modern thought, until rather recently, linguistic and
literary form was thought to be of little consequence. Reason
was thought to have only one form - the theoretical, an
autonomous sphere of discourse inhabited by a set of
rationally founded abstract propositions. Myths and
metaphors were thought to be of aesthetic, though not
cognitive interest. Modernity, by and large, has accorded
normative status to scientific thinking (e.g., thinking in
concepts) rather than to mythopoetic (e.g., thinking in myths
and images).
This tendency towards abstraction reached its culmination in
Hegel's distinction between Begriff(concept) and Vorstellung
(representation). For Hegel, the Christian narratives fall short
of the clarity and certainty that philosophy requires. They have
to be aufgehoben ('elevated') into more adequate conceptual
forms. In principle, the concept retains the truth of the
representation: 'Hegel's intent is to be loyal to the content of
Christianity.' 12 In practice, the various representations of the
Christ event are swallowed up into Hegel's omnivorous
dialectic of Being, non-Being and Becoming.

2. 'Same' and 'Other'

Among the most important conceptual skills is knowing how
to draw distinctions and to make connections. In large part,
we acquire these skills when we learn the meaning of 'same'
and 'other'.

12 Colin Gunton, The Actuality of Atonement: A Study of

Metaphor, Rationality and the Christian Tradition (Edinburgh.
1988), p. 22.
102
 FROM CANON TO CONCEPT

i. Orthodoxy and Heresy

Edward Farley and Peter Hodgson argue that the Bible only
became 'canon' because of pressure from 'heretical'
opponents. 13 The 'heterodox' - the other to reason, the other
to 'us' - is a threat. The 'Scripture principle', that is, the
belief that the Bible is the final arbiter of theological
statements, developed to cope with the increasing diversity in
the Church. Doctrine responds to threats to Christian identity
or sameness and functions as a means of 'social demar-
cation' .14 Doctrine is an attempt to consolidate the 'Same'
over against the 'Other'. Walter Bauer argued that what is
now called 'heresy' in the New Testament was originally
considered orthodox but was subsequently defeated by
adherents to the Pauline tradition of Christianity. 15 James D.
G. Dunn concurs: in early Christianity there was no such
thing as orthodoxy - 'same' or 'right' opinion - but only
'different forms of Christianity competing for the loyalty of
believers' .16

ii. Unity and Diversity

Biblical theology v. systematic theology. The
problem of how to relate unity and diversity is as ugly a ditch
as was Lessing's ditch between history and faith. Indeed, the
ditch between unity and diversity is doubly difficult. On the
one hand, it refers to the diversity within the canon itself.
Finding the unity behind the diversity of the Scriptures is one
of biblical theology's most challenging tasks. On the other
hand, it refers to the methodological ditch, the divide between
different organizing principles (historical, logical) for the two
disciplines.
For many theologians, however, the ditch is not very deep.
The representatives of Protestant Orthodoxy did not let the

13 'Scripture and Tradition', in Peter C. Hodgson and Robert H. King

(eds, 2nd ed.), Christian Theology: An Introduction to its
Traditions and Tasks (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 67-70.
14 Alister McGrath, Genesis of Doctrine (Oxford, 1990}
15 Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity
(Philadelphia, 1971).
16 James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament:
An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (London,
1977), p. 3.
103
SCOTIISH BULLETIN OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

Aristotelian form of their theologies deter them from claiming

to be 'biblical'. Unfortunately, much systematic theology that
passes as 'biblical' enjoys only a ca_sual acqu_aintance with ~he
biblical texts. The method of provmg doctrines by adducmg
multiple proof-texts leaves much to be desired. One typically
begins with a doctrinal confession and then sets off trawling
through the Scriptures. One's exegetical 'catch' is then
dumped indiscriminately into parentheses irrespective of
where the parts were found. Biblical theology is hardly
possible in such an atmosphere.

Postmodernism v. systematic theology. Walter

Brueggemann speaks for many postmodem biblical scholars
when he urges that the proper subject of biblical studies 'is the
specific text, without any necessary relation to other texts or
any coherent pattern read out of or into the text' .1 7 This
approach is congenial to postmodems because it focuses on
'little' stories rather than the 'great story', or what I earlier
called 'metanarrative'. Brueggemann says that we too often
read the Bible with some systematic interpretive framework
that causes us to judge one text by another and often to
eliminate the 'lesser' text.
David Tracy thinks that modernity has became overly
dependent on a single form of thought - the propositional -
which it then forgot was a form. Nietzsche excelled in
exposing and exploding alleged truths as fictions which
thought too highly of themselves. The same urge lies behind
deconstructionist philosophers who accuse systematic forms
of thinking of violently repressing difference. On this view,
the drive towards sameness - orthodoxy - is always fascist.
The doctrine of original sin, at once central and
controversial, well illustrates the problem. Biblical scholars
note that Genesis 3 has been assigned a disproportionate role
in classical theology which the Old Testament does not reflect.
Moreover, it pertains to a mystery which stretches conceptual
understanding to the limit, namely, the origin of evil. Ricoeur
complains in his article "'Original Sin": A Study in Meaning'
(1960) that the doctrine suppresses essential dimensions of
biblical language (especially biblical symbols and metaphors)

17 Walter Brueggemann, The Bible and Postmodern Imagination:

Texts under Negotiation (London, 1993), p. 58.
104
 FROM CANON TO CONCEPT

in a pseudo-rationality. Theology makes an interpretive error

in moving from canonical images like 'fall' and 'error' to the
concept of original sin. And to complicate matters further, the
concept was born under the impulse of external threats: the
'others' of Gnosticism on the one hand and Pelagianism on
the other.
'Captivity was an image, a parable; hereditary sin tries to be
a concept. '1 8 Ricoeur is quite clear that the concept of original
sin is noi a biblical one. Indeed, he accuses the concept of
being 'false knowledge' which 'compresses into an
inconsistent notion a juridical category of debt and a biological
category of inheritance' .1 9 Augustine's formulation is an
inconsistent mix, like oil and water, of two universes of
discourse, those of law and that of biology. What Ricoeur
finds objectionable in the doctrine is its pretence to replace the
need for interpretation. Concepts, unlike symbols and
metaphors, do not create new meaning but wring the life out
of language. 20
Another French philosopher, Emmanuel Uvinas, calls the
history of Western thought 'Greek', and characterizes it as a
style of language that is conceptual rather than metaphorical
and a style of thinking which attempts to reduce the other to
the same. Such a reading of 2,000 years of intellectual history
is doubtless perfunctory, but Uvinas's charge is a sobering
one. Does reason ultimately reduce all knowledge of others to
knowledge of oneself! Are we only able to know What is
already in 'our system'?
Must all interpretation be repressive? Must even translation
be violent? Must otherness always be violated when one
searches for a deeper sameness? The diversity with which I
am here concerned is literary in nature. Is it possible to get

18 Paul Ricoeur, Conflict of Interpretations (Evanston, IL, 1974), p.

269.
19 Ibid., p. 270.
20 Ricoeur prefers to see the Fall as a 'rational symbol'. The
distinction is cut rather finely, but Ricoeur means to say by it
'that concepls do not have their own consistency but refer back to
expressions which are analogous, not because of a lack of rigor
but because of an excess of meaning' (Conflict of Interpretations,
p. 281). In other words, a rational symbol captures rather than
resolves the tension which inheres in the canon.
105
SCOITISH BULLETIN OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

theological sameness out of canonical otherness? We may well

ask why there are so many different forms of biblical literature
in the Bible in the first place. One of Ricoeur's remarks has
caught my imagination: 'Not just any theology is associated
with the narrative form.' For better or for worse, the Word
and reality of God come mediated to us in a variety of literary
forms. These differences need not imply disunity for, as
Aristotle commented, Being may be said in many ways. There
are, then, two errors to avoid in the attempt to build bridges
between biblical and systematic theology: reductionism (the
loss of 'otherness', of diverse forms) and relativism (the loss
of 'sameness', the unifying substance).

3. Bridging Biblical and Systematic Theology: a

Brief Typology of Approaches
Some bridges ought to be avoided. It is possible to exaggerate
either sameness or otherness. Traditional approaches tend to
reduce poetic forms (e.g., metaphors, narratives) to concept.
Contemporary approaches tend to revel in poetic forms and
refuse to let them settle down in concept. It may be helpful, at
this stage of our inquiry, to give a brief typology of the ways
in which biblical and systematic theology may be related.

i. 'Same'
Under the heading of the 'Same', we may mention approaches
that seek to 'translate' the Bible into theology. Some focus on
sameness of biblical content, others on sameness of form.

Content-oriented approaches. I want first to consider

two very different content-oriented approaches, represented
by Charles Hodge and Rudolf Bultmann. Hodge represents
what George Lindbeck calls 'propositional theology'.
Lindbeck charges this view with being literalistic, insofar as it
assumes that the truth of God can be read off of Scripture and
restated definitively in propositional form. Lindbeck's charge
of 'literalism' is inappropriate: such naive realism is neither a
necessary consequence nor a condition of cognitive
approaches to doctrine. The medieval Scholastics knew about
analogical God-talk. And Calvin made good use of rhetorical
analysis. As we have seen, non-literal forms of discourse
such as metaphor have cognitive content too.

106
 FROM CANON TO CONCEPT

Nevertheless, Lindbeck has a point. The proof-texting

method does tend to give authoritative status to the
propositional form. Ramm states that 'The goal of Reformed
theology was to systematize the revelation of God as one
unitary corpus of revelation. It considered that there was one
system of doctrine under the literary diversity and historical
records. ' 21 Hodge compares the Bible to a storehouse of data
and theology to scientific induction. The basic problem with
this method is that Hodge tends to treat all portions of
Scripture as if they were cut from the same logical cloth. In
treating all verses as though they were the same kind of fact,
Hodge betrays a tendency to reduce the diverse parts of the
canon to the same genre: didactic literature. Hodge, by failing
to appreciate the different uses to which biblical language and
literature are put, ultimately succumbs to a certain naivete
about what it means to be biblical in systematic theology. In
the last resort, a false picture of language holds him captive.
Bultmann represents a second content-oriented approach to
Scripture. He attends to the religious experience that lies
behind the text and is expressed through it. Bultmann
demythologizes the text in order to recover this experiential
core. Demythologizing is really a procedure which literally
'de-forms' the text. The literary form is merely an irritating
distraction that Bultmann must discard in order to obtain the
existential core. Interestingly, Robert Morgan believes that
Bultmann's New Testament theology 'has proved the
century's clearest attempt to combine the two related meanings
of biblical theology [theology that accords with the Bible and
theology contained in the Bible]'.22
These first two approaches represent conservative and
liberal theology respectively. However, they share something
important in common. Bultmann recast the New Testament
kerygma in the conceptual framework of existentialist, rather
than Scottish common-sense philosophy, as did Hodge. With
Charles Hodge, what counts is the propositional content. With
Bultmann, what counts is the existential self-understanding.
But in the final analysis, each considers the canonical material
to be only a means to an end.

21 Bernard Ramm, 'Unity of Doctrine' in his A Handbook of

Contemporary Theology (Grand Rapids, 1966), p. 133.
22 Morgan, 'Biblical Theology', p. 89.
107
scornsH BULLETIN OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

Form-oriented approaches. Today the situation is

reversed. Form is the new darling of the intelligentsia; the
medium is the message. Metaphor has become a kind of pop-
star in theological circles. In large part this has been a protest
movement against propositional theology. Sallie McFague
argues that the problem with concepts is that they 'literalize'
the metaphorical and thus 'idolize' one image or concept of
God. 23 She encourages theologians to develop new
metaphors which will do for our day what the biblical
metaphors did for theirs, namely, image God's loving
relationship to the world. According to McFague, the better
way of speaking about God today would be to say that God is
the 'lover' or 'friend' of the world.24 She is well aware,
however, that while these changes preserve the form of
theological discourse, they represent, with regard to the
content of theology, no less than a change from theism to
panentheism .
A number of contemporary theologies claim to be
'narrative'. What David Tracy has described as the 'second
coming' of Barth in theology is the result of the rediscovery of
the centrality of narrative in his thought. Hans Frei argues
persuasively that, while Barth begins the Church Dogmatics
with the form of doctrine, it is the narrative form that takes
over - so much so that in volume IV the first two parts are
structured according to the parable of the Prodigal Son, the
going of the Son in the far country and then the homecoming
of the Son. Barth's preoccupation with narrative means that
his primary q.uestion will be about God's identity, not God's
nature. Whde one welcomes the renewed interest of
theologians in the Bible, there is a danger that exclusive
attention to metaphor or narrative in particular results in a
'canon within the canon' and thus to a theological method that
is less than fully biblical.
Brevard Childs deserves special mention in this brief review
of attempts to preserve sameness of form, not least because in
his latest work he makes heroic efforts to relate biblical

23 Sallie McFague, Metaphorical Theology (Philadelphia, 1982), pp.

2, 38.
24 See the critique by David J. Bromwell, 'Sallie McFague's
"Metaphorical Theology"' in Journal of the American Academy of
Religion 61 (1993), pp. 485-503.
108
 FROM CANON TO CONCEPT

theology and systematic theology. For Childs, the process of

canonization is essentially the process by which the traditions
of Israel and the early church were made fit for future
theological service. The whole point of canonization according
to Childs was to enable the Scriptures to function as
theological, and not merely historical witnesses.25
Childs contends, rightly in my opinion, that the basic
problem of biblical theology - the relation of the two
Testaments - 'can Qnly be resolved by theological reflection
which moves from the description of the biblical witnesses to
the object toward which these witnesses point, that is, to their
subject matter, substance, or res' .26 For Childs, the goal of
biblical theology is 'to understand the various voices within
the whole Christian Bible, New and Old Testament alike, as a
witness to the. one Lord Jesus Christ, the selfsame divine
reality' .27 • To remain on the textual level, he says, is to miss
the key which unites dissident voices into a harmonious
whole. Of course, the contentious question is how we
penetrate to the subject matter, to the thing itself. But when it
comes to addressing explicitly the relation between biblical
and systematic theology, Childs unfortunately offers little
light: 'at this juncture probably little more precision in theory
is required other than to urge biblical scholars to be more
systematic, and systematic theologians to be more biblical,
and to get on with the task' .28 But this advice, though
sincerely meant, only throws us back to the beginning: what
does it mean to be biblical?

ii. 'Other'
Of course, many theologians consider the attempt to say the
'same' thin~ as the Bible to be totally misguided.
Deconstructtonists argue that translation is always
transmutation. Even verbatim quotations of Scripture fail to
preserve the content because the new context in which it is

25 'The material was shaped in order to provide means for its

continuing appropriation by its subsequent hearers .... This
shaping activity functioned much like a regula fidei' (Childs,
Biblical Theology, p. 71).
26 Childs, Biblical Theology, p. 80.
27 Ibid., p. 85.
28 Ibid., p. 89.
109
SCOTTISH BULLETIN OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

uttered alters the original meaning. On this view, all

interpretation is 'allegorizing', in the original sense of the
term: 'speaking one thing and signifying something other' ,29
Both of the above approaches overlook crucial
hermeneutical issues. Theologians who believe that they can
achieve sameness with the Bible risk hermeneutic pride. They
err in thinking that interpretation is an insignificant problem.
Language and literature are treated merely as something to be
got through as quickly as possible. Theologians who believe
the message of theology will always be other than Scripture,
on the other hand, manifest hermeneutic sloth. They err in
thinking that interpretation is an insuperable problem. On the
contrary, interpretation - like theology - is rather a matter of
work and prayer which approximates the text.

II. From Canon to Concept: The Proposal

1. Biblical Theology and Poetic Rationality
I turn now to constructive suggestions, beginning with
biblical theology.

i. Beyond Metaphor and Narrative

Metaphors are cognitive instruments for discovering the
reaI.3° They are imaginative creations-models..., which allow
us to perceive certain aspects of reality that would otherwise
go unnoticed. Metaphors, and the models they engender, are
thus 'reality-depicting'. The same is also true of narrative.
Both metaphors and narratives have come to be appreciated
for their irreducible cognitive functions.31
Attention to these forms of creative language has yielded
important gains, and important losses. We have come to see,

29 So Heraclitus in the fifth century B.C. See Andrew Louth,

'Allegorical Interpretation', Di.ctionary of Biblical Interpretation,
p. 12.
30 See, for instance, Max Black, Models and Metaphors (Ithaca, NY,
1962); Ian G. Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms (London,
1974); Janet Martin Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language
(Oxfoid, 1985).
31 For an excellent compilation of recent work on narrative and its
significance for theology, see Stanley Hauerwas and L. Gregory
Jones (eds), Why Narrative? Readings in Narrative Theology
(Grand Rapids, 1989).
110
 FROM CANON TO CONCEPT

for example, that narratives are able to 'tell time' in ways that
other discourses cannot. They can relate the identity of
persons as well as create a sense of communal identity. Never
again will we say 'It's just a story'. But in the wake of the
rehabilitation of narrative has come a loss: narrative has
become for many a virtual canon within the canon. What is
missing from metaphorical and narrative theology is an
appreciation of all the literary forms in the canon.

ii. Biblical Theology as Genre Analysis

The basic unit of meaning is an utterance or speech act. I am
here interested in describing only how speech acts larger than
the sentence cohere and communicate, in the diverse literary
'genres' or forms of discourse which constitute the canon. 32
'Discourse' refers to language at the level of the
communicative act. And I do want to say that in Scripture
there are many different kinds of communicative acts:
assertions, warnings, promises, questions, songs, proverbs,
commands, and so forth. Remembering this will provide the
needed correction to propositional and metaphorical theology
alike: the Bible does not merely give us atomistic propositions
about God, or free-floating metaphors, but ways of
processing and organizing propositions and metaphors into
meaningful wholes. The forms of biblical literature are the
bridge between canon and concept we seek.33
Genre is much more than a way of classifying forms of
literature. They are rather ways of viewing the world. A genre
is a form of thinking embodied in a form of literature. Each

32 See my 'The Semantics of Biblical Literature', in D. A. Carson

and John Woodbridge (eds), Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon
(Grand Rapids, 1986), pp. 53-104.
33 A similar proposal to mine on the role of biblical theology has
recently been made by Mary Gerhart: 'With generic analysis,
biblical theologians will understand themselves to mediate
between genres' ('Generic Competence in Biblical Hermeneutics',
Semeia 43 (1988), p. 60). Bernard Ramm also notes the
importance of literary forms for a treatment of biblical revelation,
but does not explore the matter at any great length: 'We can only
speak suggestively and representatively here, for this subject
requires nothing short of an independent treatise to do it justice'
(Special Revelation and the Word of God [Grand Rapids, 1961],
pp. 66-67).
111
SCOTTISH BULLETIN OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

genre represents a 'mode of cognition' and offers a distinct

perspective for conceiving God, humanity and the world. In
other words, every biblical genre has epistemological
significance. Biblical theology should be the study of the rules
and procedures that govern a particular biblical form. Unless
we understand the form of the whole, we are doomed to
misread, misunderstand and misuse the parts. Music provides
a good analogy. Appreciating music is much more than being
able to abstract the melody. Likewise, interpretation is much
more than extracting the message.
What biblical theology should describe is the way in which
biblical literary forms communicate content. This is similar to
what literary critics term 'poetics': the study of the ways in
which different kinds of literature make sense and represent
reality. Poetics is the study of the rules and conventions
'embodied' in different kinds of discourse. Now in the one
Bible we have many kinds of books. On my view biblical
theology becomes a 'poetics' of revelation. To some extent,
we engage in poetics already. We have to. Verbal meaning is
always 'genre-bound' ,34 'Every piece of writing is a kind of
something. ' 35 Reading is always reading as. One cannot
simply read the Bible; one reads the Bible as history, as
gospel, as apocalyptic, etc. What I am calling for is a
systematic study of the poetics of biblical literature. This
would be more than an exercise in classification.
How does one identify a genre? It is not enough to examine
the formal structure only. Two buildings might both present a
neo-classical facade, but one could be a hospital and the other
a church. One needs to go inside to find out which. So it is
with genre: one needs to examine both the shape and the
substance. To use Aristotle's categories, we might say that
genre is 'formed matter' or 'material [in this case verbal]
form'. The point is that we never have unformed or immediate
access to the matter.
We must therefore be on our guard against the 'substitution
theory' of genre. It is a mistake to think that one could entirely
replace a literary form with an equivalent descriptive

34 So B. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, 1967), p.

76.
35 John Gabel and Charles Wheeler, The Bible as .Uterature (Oxford,
1986), p. 16.
112
 FROM CANON TO CONCEPT

proposition. The most for which we can hope is a similar

statement. Our interpretations will never supplant the original
text. To think that they could be is to commit what literary
critics term the 'heresy of paraphrase'.
In suggesting that biblical theology and systematic theology
should attend more than they have to the Bible's literary
genres, I am not advocating a merely literary approach to
Scripture. Genres, like metaphors, can be reality-depicting. I
am trying rather to avoid two extremes: 'Biblicism may fail to
see the literary character of Scripture and treat Scripture like a
code book of theological ordinances. Criticism may be so
preoccupied with the literary aspects of Scripture that it fails to
see the substance of which literature happens to be the
vehicle. ' 36 God's Word comes to us embedded in a variety of
literary genres.
To repeat, genres are ways of seeing the world, verbalized
habits of vision. For example, Hebrew narrative marks the
beginning of historiography and of a concept of linear rather
than cyclical time. Apocalyptic pertains to the end of history;
wisdom literature sees the natural and social world as ordered,
thus permitting organized knowledge of it. And Gospel
narrates 'eucatastrophe' - historical events with cataclysmic
beneficial effects.
The Bible continues to be the theologian's spectacles, but
these spectacles are multi-focal, not bi-focal; we must pay
attention not only to the two Testaments, but to the multiplicity
of literary forms. The intelligibility of New Testament
concepts, for example, depends not only on their being rooted
in a particular form of life, as Wittgenstein maintains, but in a
particular form of literature. Anthony Thiselton's study of
biblical uses of the word 'true' is instructive in this regard. He
finds that 'true' is used in various language games and not
only in the language game of history that refers to past
events. 3 7 In the Psalms, for example, 'true' means
'trustworthy' ('all the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth',
Ps. 25:10). He thus cautions against speaking about 'the'
biblical concept of truth. The task for biblical theology, then,

36 Ramm, Special Revelation, p. 68.

37 Anthony Thiselton, 'Truth (Aletheia)' in C. Brown (ed.), The New
International Dictionary of New Testament Theology m (Exeter,
1978), pp. 874-902.
113
SCOTTISH BULl...ETIN OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

is to describe the rules for the various language games found

in Scripture.
Let us examine the apocalyptic 'game' in more detail.
According to one definition, apocalyptic is a genre of
revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a
revelation, mediated by an other-worldly being to a human
recipient, discloses by means of symbolism a transcendent
reality which works eschatological salvation. Its particular
function is to interpret present reality in the light of the future
and thus to influence the behaviour and understanding of the
reader today. Must we not say that apocalyptic literature
makes an indispensable cognitive contribution to theology?
Recall Ricoeur's adage that not just any theology can be
wedded to the narrative form. The same may be said of
apocalyptic. Indeed, without apocalyptic literature, the
Christian faith would not be the same. Without apocalyptic,
what could we hope? It is, of course, possible either to neglect
this genre or to exaggerate it. Church history provides us with
examples of both. Nineteenth-century liberals virtually lost
apocalyptic altogether in their preoccupation with ethics;
present-day dispensationalists, at the other extreme, make it a
virtual canon within the canon, interpreting all other genres in
light of apocalyptic. Wolfhart Pannenberg may be cited as a
more balanced example of one who has taken the Apocalyptic
Principle to the very heart of his systematics. His trademark
emphasis on the resurrection as anticipating the end of
universal history is the structuring principle of his conceptual
framework, and it is inspired by biblical apocalyptic.38

2. Systematic Theology as Conceptual Mimesis

Biblical theology, to summarize, seeks to interpret the
canonical forms on their own generic terms. Systematic
theology is the attempt to catch up and preserve the meaning
of the various canonical discourses in a conceptual framework
that will be intelligible for people today. As such, systematic
theology is a kind of conceptual 'mimesis'. 'Mimesis' is a
literary critical term which means 'creative interpretation'. In
his Poetics Aristotle defines poetry as a 'creative imitation' of

38 See Philip D. Clayton, 'Anticipation and Theological Method', in

Carl Braaten and Philip D. Clayton (eds), The Theology of
Wolfhart Pannenberg (Minneapolis, 1988), pp. 129-36.
114
 FROM CANON TO CONCEPT

human actions. The poem represents reality in a new medium.

But this is precisely the task of systematic theology as well: to
're-present' the various kinds of sense and reference found in
the canonical genres in a coherent conceptual framework.
Mimesis is a creative imitation of reality. 'Imitation' is not
mere copying. Words do not simply mirror nature. Our
interpretations must be creative because this is the only
alternative to what McGrath calls 'a theology of repetition'
which merely parrots what the Bible says. Merely to repeat the
words of the Bible is an abdication of the theologian's
responsibility, namely, to say what it means for today. The
only serious alternative to a theology of repetition 'lay in
transposing the scriptural narrative conceptually, generating
new images and idioms by an attempt to recast this narrative in
a different (yet not totally unrelated) mode of discourse' .39 It
is the positivist who believes that one can go directly from
·observation to truth, from biblical verse to doctrine, by
ignoring interpretation and the critical use of models. The
worry, of course, is that interpretation imports and imposes
foreign concepts upon the Bible. But this is precisely why I
have suggested that we attend first and foremost to the Bible's
own literary genres as themselves providing the resources,
and hints, of further conceptual development.
As creative interpretation, systematic theology neither
translates nor transmutes the biblical message. Rather,
systematic theology 'transmits' the biblical message by
'transferring' it to another register of discourse: the
conceptual. Theology is creative - there is a transfer of
meaning, a metaphorical moment; and it is 'imitative' - the
aim and intent is to communicate the same, though we only
have it under the 'similar'. We may therefore say of
systematic theology what George Steiner says of good
reading: it is to be a 'creative echo' of the text.
Calvin's Institutes are exemplary in this regard. Calvin saw
theology as a means of entering into a profitable reading of
Scripture. According to John Leith, 'Calvinist theology
reduces itself (almost!) to a hermeneutic.'40 Childs concurs:
'the purpose of his Institutes was not to offer a propositional

39 McGrath, Genesis of Doctrine, p. 64.

40 John Leith, 'John Calvin - Theologian of the Bible',
Interpretation 25 (1971), p. 332. ·
115
SCOTTISH BULLETIN OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

summary of the Christian faith, but to instruct in the nature of

scripture's proper scope precisely in order to be able to
discern the true subject matter of scripture among its full range
of notes'. 41

i. Interpretation the work of concepts

If the goal of systematic theology is conceptual mimesis, the
means is textual interpretation. In Ricoeur's celebrated phrase,
'The symbol gives rise to thought.' But not only symbol:
metaphor, narrative, indeed every biblical genre, gives rise to
thought. Each genre refers and predicates. This opens up ·the
possibility for conceptual thought to identify what is being
referred to and to clarify its ontological status, that is, to say
what kind of being it is or has. Insofar as we want not merely
to know where images come from but what they mean, we
must have recourse to concepts. Concepts clarify what is
being signified (i.e., referred to, predicated of) in discourse. 42
My quest - to be biblical - has become a semantic safari,
something like a lion hunt, or at least like the children's game
of that name. As the hunters march, they encounter different
obstacles, but the refrain is always the same: 'can't go round
it, can't go over it, have to go through it'. Indeed, we are tied
to these texts. The various genres are like different kinds of
terrain. There are the rocky mountain heights of lyric poetry,
the sloughs of existential wisdom, the great plains of narrative
history, the thickets of Pauline argumentation, and so forth.
Biblical theology is a kind of cartography; it draws up the
detailed ordinance surveys. Systematic theology puts the
various regional plans together in order to obtain a map of
everything. The aim in both disciplines is to help the reader to
negotiate the text and navigate the world.
Ricoeur's image of the role of concepts in interpretation is
that of a universe of discourse in which the different forms are
kept in motion in relation to each other by 'an interplay of

41 Childs, Biblical Theology, pp. 725-6.

42 Ricoeur insists on the distinction between poetic and
philosophical discourse: 'the speculative fulfils the semantic
exigencies put to it by the metaphorical only when it establishes a
break marking the irreducible difference between the two modes of
discourse' (The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of
the Creation of Meaning in Language [London, 1978], p. 296).
116
 FROM CANON TO CONCEPT

attractions and repulsions that ceaselessly promote the

interaction and intersection of domains whose organizing
nuclei are off-centred in relation to one another'. 43 There are
various kinds of forces, weak and strong, as there are at the
sub-atomic level in physics. Each genre exerts a centrifugal
force, refusing to be pinned down in a closed and frozen
system.
Conceptual discourse pulls biblical language towards clarity
and univocity; biblical discourse pulls conceptual language
towards complexity and plurivocity. Neither discourse should
destroy the other. The task of systematic theology is to 'knit
together' the various genres of the Bible into a tensile unity
that would bold the genres together in a dynamic equilibrium.
Interpretation is a mode of discourse 'that functions at the
intersection of two domains, metaphorical and speculative' .44
Speculative discourse acts as a 'vigilant watchman overseeing
the ordered extensions of meaning'. 45 The project of a unified
field theory of biblical literature, however, is still beyond us.

ii. The Discourse of Theology: Canonical and

Conceptual
Interpretation is midwife to textual understanding. The implicit
understanding 'in' the text needs to be delivered to the reader.
Interpretation is a question of transmitting, by means of
conceptual elaboration, a richness of meaning that is already
there in the text. Biblical theology focuses on the diverse
kinds of imaginative presentation of Ideas (narrative,
apocalyptic, lyric, etc.). Systematic theology uses concepts
which attempt to catch the meaning generated by the dialogue
between biblical forms. The narrative of the Fall and
subsequent decline of humanity in Genesis 4-11, for example,
must be read in light of the penitential Psalms of David, the
prophetic prosecutors of the covenant and the explicit teaching
of Paul about the universality of sin. When thought together,
these literary forms generate the deep grammatical concept of
original sin.
It is important to treat the biblical texts in a way that does
justice to their genre, but it need not follow that systematic

43 Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor, p. 302.

44 Ibid., p. 303.
45 Ibid., p. 261.
117
SCOTilSH BULLETIN OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

theology must use the same forms as it goes about its business
of conceptual inquiry. Concepts are useful for asking
questions both about the meaning of what is happening within
one literary form and about the connection between literary
forms. Concepts are our tools for drawing distinctions and for
making connections. With regard to the narrative form,
McGrath states that 'the narrative is assimilated to concepts,
and the concepts are accommodated to narrative' .46 He also
notes that one does not 'deduce' from narrative, though one
may 'infer'. Calvin's testimony on this point is unsurpassed.
He argues that the church has used 'foreign' concepts like
'Trinity' in order to unmask false teaching. 'Thus men of old
stirred up by various struggles over depraved dogmas, were
compelled to set forth with consummate clarity what they felt,
lest they leave any devious shift to the impious, who cloaked
their errors in layers of verbiage. •47 We should not therefore
be squeamish about using concepts if they serve to clarify the
subject.
When theologians work with concepts, the same rules
which govern rational thinking in other disciplines apply
(e.g., clarity, consistency, coherence, comprehensiveness,
correlation with truth found elsewhere). The challenge is to
balance the sameness and otherness of Scripture. No one
genre should be allowed to preclude the others. The
'conversation' between the various forms should not be
unduly stifled by elevating one form above another. Rather,
systematic theology shows how the differing views of the
world projected by the different parts of the canon fit together.
Here theology is no longer queen, controlling the ranks and
dominating the other pieces in the game of theological studies.
To stay with the metaphor of the chessboard: theology is, on
my view, more like the bishop who cuts diagonally and thinks
laterally across the disciplinary and generic ranks.

iii. The 'Similar'

If Being can be said in many ways, why not Christ? Is this
not an implication of the 'four-part harmony' of the Gospels?
As Childs puts it: 'The oneness of scripture's scope is not a
rival to the multiple voices within the canon, but a constant

46 McGrath, Genesis of Doctrine, p. 61.

47 Institutes 1:13:4.
118
 FROM CANON TO CONCEPT

pointed, much like a ship's compass, fixing on a single

goal. ' 48 The task is to see the same in and through and within
the different. But this is, as Aristotle knew well, to see the
similar. 49 Systematic theology strives for this kind of
sameness, the sameness of the 'similar', by making the
rationality inherent in forms of literature (first approximated
by biblical theology) more explicit. The relation between
biblical theology and systematic theology is thus analogous to
Calvin's conception of the relation between Old and New
Testaments, in which the latter renders the former more
explicit - and for that reason, more 'glorious'.
Theology never totally escapes from the tension between
canon and concept. But this tension can be healthy and
productive. Being finite and temporal is constitutive of the
human condition; we know only in part. Interpretation is our
common human lot: our privilege, and our responsibility.
Theologians must resist eating fruit from the tree of absolute
knowledge. We must avoid the lust of the mind. Absolute
knowledge is, forbidden us, at least at present. And it is just as
well: if we knew absolutely, we would become proud and
complacent. Between absolute knowledge and relativism,
however, there lies the alternative of poetic and interpretive
rationality. There is in Scripture a determinate and dynamic
structure of meaning that both gives and calls for thought.
How then should we understand the relation of biblical
theology and systematic theology? I have rejected the
substitution-theory of literary genre, where concepts simply
take the place of canon, as inadequate and unbiblical. When
theological concepts are abstracted from the canonical context
which generated them, they tend to lose their meaning. I have
suggested that we view biblical theology as a poetics of
biblical revelation whose task is to articulate the way in which
each biblical genre makes sense and reference. Its speciality
lies in understanding the respective rationalities of the various
biblical genres. Biblical theology describes the respective
'grammars' of biblical literature. Systematic theology is a

48 Childs, Biblical Theology, p. 725.

49 'If the imaginatio is the kingdom of "the similar'', the intellectio
is that of "the same". In the horizon opened up by the speculative,
"same" grounds "similar" and not the inverse' (Ricoeur, Rule of
Metaphor, p. 301).
119
SCOTTISH BULLETIN OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

'second-level' form of discourse, a 'depth grammar' which

relates the canonical language games with one another on a
deeper, conceptual, level. Systematic theology is logical
discourse about the logics of biblical discourse. But that does
not mean that it is only talk about talk. No, its goal is to clarify
the sense and reference of the various parts of the canon, to
coordinate these different perspectives on reality with one
another and to bring them to bear on ourselves and our world.
Systematic theology and biblical theology must be allowed
to put questions and respond to each other. The two kinds of
discourse should not be confused, for each has its individual
integrity and role. But they are more likely to talk to rather
than past each other if they attend to the role which the literary
forms of the Bible play in mediating the content. Biblical
theology seeks the particular communicative rationality of a
genre, that is, the rules which govern its language game and
the kind of validity claims it makes. Systematic theology
relates the various rationalities to one another in their quest to
render the same reality. There are many ways of viewing God
and the world imbedded in the forms of canonical literature;
theology's task is to make them and their interrelations more
explicit. 50 Systematic theology is the discourse that tries to
perceive the 'same' in and through the 'other', without ever
absorbing the 'other' into the 'same'.
Systematic theology should not become a substitute either
for biblical theology or for the Bible itself. I think this was
Ricoeur's worry about the doctrine of original sin, that as an
explanation rather an expression of human evil, it exhausted
the meaning of the text and made it unnecessary to return to
the resources of the canon.
This is not the flace to formulate a full-orbed doctrine of
original sin. But would like to indicate the way in which
attention to literary genres contributes to our understanding of
the phenomenon of sin in general. God's law allows us to
recognize instances of sin. The narratives, especially the
highly condensed account of early human history in Genesis

50 'Conceptual inquiry is a critical reflection on the conceptual skills

we command intuitively, with the purpose of tracing the
systematic relations between them' (Vincent Brummer, Theology
and Philosophical Inquiry: An Introduction [London, 1981], p.
78).
120
 FROM CANON TO CONCEPT

4-11, show the rapid spread and universality of sin that spoils
human relationships. The Psalms give us insight into the
psychological dimensions of sin, for instance the sense of
shame and the sense of guilt. They also remind us of the
vertical dimension of sin: sin is ultimately against God. The
prophets show that nations and peoples can be judged by
God's Word as well as individuals, and that God is less
interested in external conformity to the law than in heartfelt
obedience. The wisdom literature shows sin as foolishness,
for nothing is more fruitless than trying to deny the very
created order which sustains one's being. Apocalyptic
literature depicts sin as a supramundane power that will be
ultimately defeated only by God. Lastly, the epistles expose
sin as a power and corruption that has been defeated by Christ
and which no longer has a hold over those who are in Christ.
The canonical forms say more together than they do
separately, and systematic theology ignores any one of them
to its peril.

iv. Objections
Is this not simply a 'literary' approach? It would be
if it ignored the question of extra-biblical reference and reality,
but it does not. I have argued that genres are large-scale works
of the imagination which are virtual world-views. And I
emphasize world. Language can refer to reality in ways other
than that of historical correspondence. Being may be said in
many ways.
The books in the Bible may be more than works of
literature, but they are certainly not less. My main emphasis,
however, has not been on the Bible as literature so much as
the Bible as made up of different genres, different forms of
structured discourse. Many of the genres in the Bible are not
'literary' per se but rather represent the ordinary forms of
discourse of their day (e.g., proverbs, epistles). Moreover,
the concept of truth itself is a skill that pertains to how we
render the world in words. To speak truly is to render some
aspect of reality in some way. Truth is a matter of 'rendering'
reality in thought, word and deed (see below).

121
SCOTilSH BULLETIN OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

If each canonical, genre is a separate language game

with its own kind of rationality, and if no one
language game is superior, how can systematic
theology avoid (epistemological) relativism?
Systematic theology must avoid both a relativism that fails to
coordinate the biblical discourses and a reductionism that fails
to preserve the forms of biblical discourses. One must neither
eliminate nor exaggerate the significance of the literary form.
Systematic theology must preserve a certain degree of
sameness and otherness if it is to be biblical. It does so by
initiating a dialogue between the various canonical forms and
between canonical forms and contemporary forms of thought.
The theologian must coordinate the various biblical genres and
show how they intersect and interrelate, while resisting the
temptation to ignore their generic differences and make them
identical, as happened in the old proof-texting method.
George Steiner likens reading a text to meeting a stranger.
The stranger is a guest to whom we owe hospitality and
courtesy. And yet, even when we become intimate our
knowledge will remain partial; and this is as it should be. For
if we could fully assimilate the text, it would have nothing
more to say to us. Our understanding will always only be
approximate. And it is precisely this distance between canon
and concept that guarantees the freedom, this 'otherness' of
the text, and thus its ability to call us and our theology into
question. There would be no need to keep reforming if we
were fully informed I

Is theology a scienc.e on this view? The data with

which theology works is not isolated proof texts. It is not
simply a matter of inducting more of the same kind of facts.
Theology guards the diverse forms of rationality inherent in
the Bible's forms of speech and literary genres. Theology is a
'reconstructive science' whose aim is to render theoretically
explicit the intuitive, pre-theoretical know-how underlying the
diverse literary and linguistic competencies of Scripture.Sl

51 I am here following Jurgen Habermas's understanding of a

'reconstructive science', as found in his essay 'Philosophy as
Stand-in or Interpreter', in Kenneth Baynes, James Bohman and
Thomas McCarthy (eds), After Philosophy: End or
Transformation? (London, 1987), pp. 296-315.
122
 FROM CANON TO CONCEPT

3. Conclusion: 'Rendering' God

i. From Canon to Community
God's Word may be said in many ways. Our highest calling
as theologians is to 'render' God. Our English word 'render'
comes from the Latin reddere 'to give back'. Rendering -with
its connotations of translating, giving back what is due,
representing, causing to be - is a wonderfully suggestive
metaphor for describing the task of theology. Theology's task
is to 'render' conceptually the divine reality to which the
biblical texts refer and about which they make predications.
This task requires one to pay special attention to the ways in
which the canonical forms 'render' reality. Theology too
renders reality, namely, the reality of the Word of God, in
word, thought and deed. To this point I have referred only to
theology's theoretical rendering of the various forms of
biblical literature, to 'concept'. But our 'imitation of Christ'
has a practical aspect as well: canon gives rise to community.
I would be remiss not to mention some implications of the
Bible's canonical diversity for practical theology. Scripture's
literary genres generate not only ways of seeing but also ways
of being in the world. Indeed, the way we live is perhaps the
most important form of our biblical interpretation. For
behaviour, as T. S. Eliot remarked, is also belief.
Not only ideas, but ways of human living are inscribed in
the biblical texts. Theology must render these too. Theology is
a science concerned with knowledge and a practice concerned
with wisdom: both scientia and sapientia. A literary form
generates a way of thought and life, a way of envisaging the
world and existing in it. Indeed, is not the main purpose of
having recourse to concepts to render reality clearer in order
that we may fit in the world as we ought? Herein is wisdom:
to live in the created order as we ought, and in our flourishing
to glorify God. We need therefore to amend Ricoeur's
formula: not just any community is associated with narrative,
not to mention apocalyptic, gospel, law, and so forth. The life
and thought of the Christian community is shaped and
sustained by just those literary forms which comprise the
biblical canon.

123
SCOTTISH BULLETIN OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

ii. Reforming Theology

In our continuing attempt to render God, and ourselves before
God, we will from time to time need to reform our ways of
speaking, thinking and living. My remarks on the task before
systematic theology give a new sense to the adjective
'Reformed'. To render is to reform, and this in two ways.
First, theoretically, by rendering the content embodied in the
canonical forms of biblical literature in the conceptual forms of
systematic theology. Second, practically, by rendering these
forms of biblical witness in our lives. The Christian
community renders the Word in the power of the Spirit. Our
thoughts and our lives ought always to be re-formed by the
visions generated by the various forms of the biblical witness.
In the words of Auguste Lecerf: 'The canonical authority of
Scripture is the condition of faith and liberty. A faith which
does not based itself upon God is not faith; a liberty which
does not find its charter in the Word of God is not more than
an illusion of the mind .... 'Where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is freedom' (2 Cor. 3:17) and there only.'52,
The moral is clear: we must attend to the particular literary
forms of the canon in order to do theology, and to live,
according to the Scriptures. In so doing, we sharpen our
concepts and shape our community. This is the way to render
reality as revealed by God's Word. This is the way to 'sound'
the canon to the glory of God.

52 Auguste Lecerf, An Introduction to Reformed Theology (London,

1949), p. 369.
124