What do you think?
Rate this book
Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture
Theology and the Mirror of Scripture (Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture) (Studies in Christian Doctrine & Scripture) by Daniel J Treier & Kevin J Vanhoozer
Evangelicalism has long been a hotly disputed label, and what counts as evangelical theology is often anyone's guess. Is evangelicalism a static bounded set defined by clear doctrinal limits, or is it a dynamic centered set without a discernible circumference? In this inaugural volume in the Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture, Kevin Vanhoozer and Daniel Treier present evangelical theology as an "anchored" set, rooted in the Trinity. In response to increasing evangelical fragmentation, Theology and the Mirror of Scripture offers a clarion call to reconceive evangelical theology theologically by reflecting on the God of the gospel as mirrored in Scripture. Such "mere" evangelical theology will be an exercise in Christian wisdom for the purpose of building up the fellowship of saints.
Paperback
First published December 6, 2015
11 people are currently reading
114 people want to read
About the author
Kevin J. Vanhoozer
68 books186 followersKevin J. Vanhoozer is currently Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. From 1990-98 he was Senior Lecturer in Theology and Religious Studies at New College, University of Edinburgh. Vanhoozer received a BA from Westmont College, an M.Div from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, England having studied under Nicholas Lash.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
March 15, 2024
Vanhoozer and Treier’s Theology and the Mirror of Scripture is a dense book which seeks to set forth a definitional account for evangelicalism. The goal for the book is to enable professing evangelicals to determine what it means practically to adhere to evangelical theology, and how they ought to practice their evangelical convictions, faithfully mirroring Scripture. The methodology for this goal entails the authors seeking to “provide a theological interpretation of the label [evangelical] that, without applying to all insiders equally, may account for the debates, address the way forward and even appeal to outsiders.”
Throughout the book, the authors propose a number of fascinating and insightful perspectives. Of particular note is the book’s emphasis on the centrality of the gospel in evangelical theology. The authors insist that the gospel is the anchor that the evangelical church ought to aspire to remain rooted in. This theme permeates the book, and is a helpful reminder of the heart of evangelical theology. I was left somewhat uncertain, however, as to what amount of drifting was allowed within evangelical theology before the rope to the gospel anchor would snap (to continue with the authors’ metaphor). In this sense, the authors’ emphasis on the use of wisdom, discernment and judgement in the “aspiration” of evangelical theology (rather than the “achievement”) potentially left the parameters of the gospel and evangelicalism a little uncertain.
Overall, however, the book was a great read, albeit very dense!
Throughout the book, the authors propose a number of fascinating and insightful perspectives. Of particular note is the book’s emphasis on the centrality of the gospel in evangelical theology. The authors insist that the gospel is the anchor that the evangelical church ought to aspire to remain rooted in. This theme permeates the book, and is a helpful reminder of the heart of evangelical theology. I was left somewhat uncertain, however, as to what amount of drifting was allowed within evangelical theology before the rope to the gospel anchor would snap (to continue with the authors’ metaphor). In this sense, the authors’ emphasis on the use of wisdom, discernment and judgement in the “aspiration” of evangelical theology (rather than the “achievement”) potentially left the parameters of the gospel and evangelicalism a little uncertain.
Overall, however, the book was a great read, albeit very dense!
August 26, 2022
A visionary account of where Evangelical Theology should go, culminating in Theological Interpretation. Which could be also understood as inter-disciplinary work. Why must this be done? So we may pursue wisdom, which is the end of all Theology being virtuous, and scholarly, and in an academic and church community.
94% Theology is a Mirror
94% Theology is a Mirror
December 1, 2021
A promising path forward for the word "evangelical." It is a theological vision anchored in the God of the Gospel and the gospel of God revealed to the church through Scripture: "a theological ontology and epistemology reflecting reality in Christ" (131). The second half of the book offers very helpful reflections on theological interpretation of Scripture, wisdom, and intellectual practices within evangelical academic theology, showing how our theological practice ought to reflect God and the gospel.
February 25, 2018
In 21st century America evangelicalism appears to be waning overall, moreover to be internally fragmenting. In an attempt to salvage a perhaps now bygone era, Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Daniel J. Treier struggle mightily to articulate a evangelicalist position that will include all evangelicals, while maintaining a semblance of traditional theological appropriateness. While they may have succeeded in drawing the line precisely, yet broadly encompassing, they have failed in their project because the nicety of expression is too sharply attenuated to be emotively persuasive. As a logical proposition, the book is too tedious and polysyllabic (yes I know words, not books are polysyllabic, but you get the point), not to mention overburdened with continuous literary, philosophical and theological allusions, some of which only the ThD's among us (of which this reader is not one) may grasp.
Jesus came to unite John 17.23, but he also came to divide, Luke 12.51. As the true Church, the bride of Christ, elect from before the foundation of the world, we are radically united with each other and with Christ, the head, the husband, the Second Adam. But with respect to the world and the tares within the church physical, we are divided, "a great gulf fixed" between us. The evangelical consensus can in the long run only extend to the limits of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Paul and Barnabas continued to proclaim the gospel, but separately. Later they apparently reconciled. Yet they would have considered themselves, as best we can now tell, as within the same Church missionary outreach, the Way.
Politics poisons the Church, where party trumps doctrine and holiness. Non-judgmentalism sweeps away all doctrines, except itself, leaving the community of faith not a Church, but just people hanging out together sharing the commonality of the personal, singular experience in Christ (or just because the group serves a social or emotional function in the attendees). The evangelical consensus may have run its course. I for one will miss it, but Christ, his Word and his true Church have not failed. The good news will continue under the unstoppable power of God and authority of Christ, Matthew 28.18, even if the actual Church members carrying out the Great Commission speak Mandarin, Hindi, Pashto and Arabic.
Vanhoozer and Treier, both academics, try mightily to validate, at least partially, positions that in earlier times would most likely have just been rejected, or just passed by. This is not to say they agree with the underlying theology, but that they are trying to find common ground for a broadly based evangeicalism. Page 180, n.53, in its entirety:
While 19th century Christian triumphalism may have been more emotion than good theology, it at least did not seem to carry the postmodernized implied despair evidenced above, and not really deflected by the "willingness to go on ... with confidence and courage." Our courage and confidence in the long run can only be sustained outside of ourselves, by the power of the Spirit, who lives in us, Christ the hope [elpis, expectation] of glory. Obeisance to current verbal norms and philosophical stances may give the impression of a broader consensus, but setting forth the truth plainly is the correct path, even if we end up being deemed foolish by the Greeks. The price of consensus may be too high.
A final note on an already too lengthy review regards a interesting comment on academics made by two academics. Page 197 (emphasis added): "The exhortation to be of the same mind (of Christ) seems to be in tension with academic life, which thrives on disagreement and novel developments." Academics may be correctly described here, but even if so, their conduct and theology must nonetheless accord with the Word, not the Academy. I close with a few Biblicist proof texts:
Irony: Saint Augustine of Hippo, Against the Academics , Ancient Christian Writers (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1978).
Jesus came to unite John 17.23, but he also came to divide, Luke 12.51. As the true Church, the bride of Christ, elect from before the foundation of the world, we are radically united with each other and with Christ, the head, the husband, the Second Adam. But with respect to the world and the tares within the church physical, we are divided, "a great gulf fixed" between us. The evangelical consensus can in the long run only extend to the limits of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Paul and Barnabas continued to proclaim the gospel, but separately. Later they apparently reconciled. Yet they would have considered themselves, as best we can now tell, as within the same Church missionary outreach, the Way.
Politics poisons the Church, where party trumps doctrine and holiness. Non-judgmentalism sweeps away all doctrines, except itself, leaving the community of faith not a Church, but just people hanging out together sharing the commonality of the personal, singular experience in Christ (or just because the group serves a social or emotional function in the attendees). The evangelical consensus may have run its course. I for one will miss it, but Christ, his Word and his true Church have not failed. The good news will continue under the unstoppable power of God and authority of Christ, Matthew 28.18, even if the actual Church members carrying out the Great Commission speak Mandarin, Hindi, Pashto and Arabic.
Vanhoozer and Treier, both academics, try mightily to validate, at least partially, positions that in earlier times would most likely have just been rejected, or just passed by. This is not to say they agree with the underlying theology, but that they are trying to find common ground for a broadly based evangeicalism. Page 180, n.53, in its entirety:
In an indelicately worded essay, Randal Rauser poignantly raises this concern, applying it to the work of Grenz and Franke among others (see "Theology as a Bull Session," in Crisp and Rea, Analytic Theology, pp. 70-84). If Rauser is right about what we must attempt, Rowan Williams nevertheless reminds us about the spirit of the attempt: "The continuing labour of adjustment to what is believed to be the context in which life continues shows its obedience to and seriousness about an abiding and mind-independent reality in its willingness to go on testing what is said—intellectually, spiritually, and in terms of practice in general—with confidence and courage. It is a courage that includes the willingness to say of this or that formulation, "This is our *181 best verbal "strategy" for responding to the current of God's action, and we may not be able to imagine any better; but we are not claiming that what is on offer is a simple descriptive summary.' Or, in slightly different terminology, exactly how such theological formulation refers is not something we can scrutinize; but the way in which the language operates, its points of strain or self-criticism, tells us that we cannot set aside the intention to refer, to tell a truth not reducible to an account of our own feeling or speculative play" ("Theology Among the Humanities," in The Vocation of Theology Today: A Festschrift for David Ford, ed. Tom Greggs, Rachel Muers and Simeon Zahl [Kugene, OR: Cascade, 2013], pp. 178-90, quoting p. 188).
While 19th century Christian triumphalism may have been more emotion than good theology, it at least did not seem to carry the postmodernized implied despair evidenced above, and not really deflected by the "willingness to go on ... with confidence and courage." Our courage and confidence in the long run can only be sustained outside of ourselves, by the power of the Spirit, who lives in us, Christ the hope [elpis, expectation] of glory. Obeisance to current verbal norms and philosophical stances may give the impression of a broader consensus, but setting forth the truth plainly is the correct path, even if we end up being deemed foolish by the Greeks. The price of consensus may be too high.
A final note on an already too lengthy review regards a interesting comment on academics made by two academics. Page 197 (emphasis added): "The exhortation to be of the same mind (of Christ) seems to be in tension with academic life, which thrives on disagreement and novel developments." Academics may be correctly described here, but even if so, their conduct and theology must nonetheless accord with the Word, not the Academy. I close with a few Biblicist proof texts:
John 17.22 I have given them the glory that you gave me,w that they may be one as we are one—23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
Philippians 2.1 If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Ecclesiastes 1.9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. 11 There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow.
Ecclesiastes 12.11 The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails—given by one shepherd.b 12 Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.
Irony: Saint Augustine of Hippo, Against the Academics , Ancient Christian Writers (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1978).
November 18, 2016
Книга с много богато и нюансирано съдържание. За съжаление поне за мен изказът й е доста сложен, което направи нейното четене и осмисляне сложно (на моменти дори мъчително). Това отне доста голяма част от удоволствието на четенето, а мисля и от ползата от него.
July 21, 2025
This book was helpful but I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy unless they were a nerd like my roommate Dan
January 31, 2016
Maybe the hinge is binding because there’s something wrong with the door altogether, or maybe there’s nothing more than a bit of rust and grime that have begun to encumber the door from opening and closing properly. Whatever it is, my truck door is giving me fits! It catches, groans and pops every time I open and close it. In many ways, evangelicalism is in a bind and catching. It doesn’t appear to be “working” correctly any longer. That’s why Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and Daniel J. Trier, Blanchard Professor of Theology at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, have penned their new 301 page paperback, “Theology and the Mirror of Scripture: A Mere Evangelical Account”. This is the first volume in a new IVP Academic series titled, “Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture”.
“Theology and the Mirror of Scripture” seeks to outline and arrange a way to pursue a mere evangelical approach to theology, Christian practice, Scripture and church. By mere Vanhoozer and Trier do not mean a minimal or negligible evangelicalism. Instead, the authors are seeking “for the greatest common denominator, that which ought to unify (…),” to define those things that are of “first importance” (12). They desire evangelicals to be people of something bigger, to recognize that “no one denomination or theological system exhausts everything there is to be said (…),” and so we should “speak the truth, and perhaps nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth (…). To speak the whole truth, we need the whole (catholic) church” (119).
Nevertheless the authors recognize that they are up against a high wall that will be hard to mount. They identify four challenges that potentially block the way of building a mere evangelicalism. First there is now “more robust academic engagement” between evangelical scholars and other academic disciplines, which brings around “puzzling difficulties” for trying to discern if changing views are “theologically faithful or unfaithful, identity-altering or indifferent” (24). Next, evangelicals have become increasingly aware of the “Great Christian Tradition” as well as other sub-traditions and internal variety (24-5). Further, there is a growing interest in, and perception of, global Christianity, along with the various ways the Gospel is worked into, through and out of the countless cultural contexts (25). Finally, “interfaces with emergent Christianity and culture” all of which are pushing hard against any “traditional concept of evangelical identity” (25-6). These four challenging changes “exacerbate the dilemma of distinguishing uniquely “evangelical theology” from “theology done by evangelicals” (26). The wall to be scaled is high, and there are serious obstacles that will make even getting to the wall problematic.
With these adversities and vicissitudes clearly before them, the authors craft out a basic set of involved approaches. As they note, the “the purpose of evangelical theology is to help make communities of disciples, people who come to understand and correspond to the reality of the gospel – people who become “little Christs” and thus fulfill their vocation to live as images of God.” This means, for Vanhoozer and Trier, that the “ambition of evangelical theology is to retrieve what God’s people have heard in the past, to renew tired traditions and to respond with alacrity and obedience to God’s forward call in the present” (45). The rest of the book is their inaugural schematic on how to achieve and accomplish this “chief task”.
“Theology and the Mirror of Scripture” is a dense read. Honestly, I’m not sure I fully understand much of what is being projected. It will likely take a second reading and time to digest their proposals. That said each chapter holds riches and resources to be plundered. There is a solid case made for the theological interpretation of Scripture, of looking along, rather than at biblical texts (185). Also, some form of confessionalism and higher ecclesiology is hammered out. Included in the chapters are gentle warnings to “pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it” (Hebrews 2.1), to be careful about sliding away from sola Scripture into sola cultura (257-260).
“Theology and the Mirror of Scripture” is not a definitive mountain-top statement, “Do this, and you shall live!” Rather, it is more of a suggestive, conversation-initiating book. It is meant to spray a little WD-40 on the gritty, rusty evangelical hinge. I encourage you to pick up a copy and begin thinking along with Vanhoozer and Trier: what would a mere evangelicalism look and feel like, and how do we get there.
Thanks to IVP Academic for providing, upon my request, the free copy of “Theology and the Mirror of Scripture” used for this review. The assessments are mine given without restrictions or requirements (as per Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255).
“Theology and the Mirror of Scripture” seeks to outline and arrange a way to pursue a mere evangelical approach to theology, Christian practice, Scripture and church. By mere Vanhoozer and Trier do not mean a minimal or negligible evangelicalism. Instead, the authors are seeking “for the greatest common denominator, that which ought to unify (…),” to define those things that are of “first importance” (12). They desire evangelicals to be people of something bigger, to recognize that “no one denomination or theological system exhausts everything there is to be said (…),” and so we should “speak the truth, and perhaps nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth (…). To speak the whole truth, we need the whole (catholic) church” (119).
Nevertheless the authors recognize that they are up against a high wall that will be hard to mount. They identify four challenges that potentially block the way of building a mere evangelicalism. First there is now “more robust academic engagement” between evangelical scholars and other academic disciplines, which brings around “puzzling difficulties” for trying to discern if changing views are “theologically faithful or unfaithful, identity-altering or indifferent” (24). Next, evangelicals have become increasingly aware of the “Great Christian Tradition” as well as other sub-traditions and internal variety (24-5). Further, there is a growing interest in, and perception of, global Christianity, along with the various ways the Gospel is worked into, through and out of the countless cultural contexts (25). Finally, “interfaces with emergent Christianity and culture” all of which are pushing hard against any “traditional concept of evangelical identity” (25-6). These four challenging changes “exacerbate the dilemma of distinguishing uniquely “evangelical theology” from “theology done by evangelicals” (26). The wall to be scaled is high, and there are serious obstacles that will make even getting to the wall problematic.
With these adversities and vicissitudes clearly before them, the authors craft out a basic set of involved approaches. As they note, the “the purpose of evangelical theology is to help make communities of disciples, people who come to understand and correspond to the reality of the gospel – people who become “little Christs” and thus fulfill their vocation to live as images of God.” This means, for Vanhoozer and Trier, that the “ambition of evangelical theology is to retrieve what God’s people have heard in the past, to renew tired traditions and to respond with alacrity and obedience to God’s forward call in the present” (45). The rest of the book is their inaugural schematic on how to achieve and accomplish this “chief task”.
“Theology and the Mirror of Scripture” is a dense read. Honestly, I’m not sure I fully understand much of what is being projected. It will likely take a second reading and time to digest their proposals. That said each chapter holds riches and resources to be plundered. There is a solid case made for the theological interpretation of Scripture, of looking along, rather than at biblical texts (185). Also, some form of confessionalism and higher ecclesiology is hammered out. Included in the chapters are gentle warnings to “pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it” (Hebrews 2.1), to be careful about sliding away from sola Scripture into sola cultura (257-260).
“Theology and the Mirror of Scripture” is not a definitive mountain-top statement, “Do this, and you shall live!” Rather, it is more of a suggestive, conversation-initiating book. It is meant to spray a little WD-40 on the gritty, rusty evangelical hinge. I encourage you to pick up a copy and begin thinking along with Vanhoozer and Trier: what would a mere evangelicalism look and feel like, and how do we get there.
Thanks to IVP Academic for providing, upon my request, the free copy of “Theology and the Mirror of Scripture” used for this review. The assessments are mine given without restrictions or requirements (as per Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255).
January 10, 2016
The term “evangelical” is an increasingly diverse expression that is often tossed around in Christian circles today with little meaning or understanding. What does it mean to be “evangelical” from a theological perspective? Can we actually accomplish a purely “evangelical” theology? Moreover, is “evangelical(ism)” even an appropriate label to be lobbying around today? Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Daniel J. Terier argue that it most certainly is, and their new book, Theology and the Mirror of Scripture: A Mere Evangelical Account seeks to present this reality in an engaging and persuasive package.
Theology and the Mirror of Scripture rightly understand the importance of the Scripture and its relation to the discipline of theology—specifically evangelical theology. Vanhoozer and Terier argue, a “mere” evangelical theology should encompass a “Protestant ecumenical range of motion while anchored to the biblical, Trinitarian and crucicentric gospel” (p. 20). This anchor is held in place by two theological foundations: (1) ecclesiology—the church as the representative household of God, and (2) bibliology—the Scriptures as a mirror reflecting the form and content of the Bible on our teaching.
For Vanhoozer and Terier, evangelical theology can be effectively distilled down to the pursuit of wisdom, via “theological interpretation of Scripture,” actively amid the drama of the church’s worship and witness (p. 40). The first part of the book, chapters one and two, seek to frame the discussion ontologically in an investigation into the gospel of God and the God of the gospel—specifically the reality that exists behind the mirror of Scripture in the triune Godhead—and epistemologically in the testimony of Scriptural knowledge, and the way that biblical truth is preserved as doctrines come into focus through time and across cultural space (p. 41).
This first section provides the reader with a working framework for understanding evangelical theology, and the second part seeks to helpfully furnish the empty house that was previously built. The second part of the book, chapters three to six, defines and defends theology as the wisdom of the people of God collectively—a wisdom that is ultimately dependent on a proper theological interpretation of Scripture. Moreover, the wisdom that arises out of a theological interpretation of Scripture has a primary goal of serving the people of God as they live on mission corporately.
Theology and the Mirror of Scripture concludes with a strong and appropriate call for the reader to live theologically within the context of the community of God’s people. It is here that theology, that is “mere” evangelical theology, finds its ultimate purpose—to help the church glorify and enjoy God forever (p. 255). Thus, the local church is the mirror of the evangel, proclaiming the gospel of the Triune God, and embodying a visible sign of the invisible grace of our transdenominational, multiethnic fellowship in Christ (p. 262).
Theology and the Mirror of Scripture puts forth a noble and admirable task. In a day where it may be easier to peg Jell-O to a wall than articulate an evangelical theology, Vanhoozer and Terier have produced a clear and compelling volume. Theology and the Mirror of Scripture has cleared much of the mud that once saturated the uncertain waters of evangelicalism. If you are looking for a careful engagement on the bedrock of evangelical theology Theology and the Mirror of Scripture is an indispensable introduction that you cannot ignore. It comes highly recommended!
I received a review copy of these books in exchange for and honest review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.
Theology and the Mirror of Scripture rightly understand the importance of the Scripture and its relation to the discipline of theology—specifically evangelical theology. Vanhoozer and Terier argue, a “mere” evangelical theology should encompass a “Protestant ecumenical range of motion while anchored to the biblical, Trinitarian and crucicentric gospel” (p. 20). This anchor is held in place by two theological foundations: (1) ecclesiology—the church as the representative household of God, and (2) bibliology—the Scriptures as a mirror reflecting the form and content of the Bible on our teaching.
For Vanhoozer and Terier, evangelical theology can be effectively distilled down to the pursuit of wisdom, via “theological interpretation of Scripture,” actively amid the drama of the church’s worship and witness (p. 40). The first part of the book, chapters one and two, seek to frame the discussion ontologically in an investigation into the gospel of God and the God of the gospel—specifically the reality that exists behind the mirror of Scripture in the triune Godhead—and epistemologically in the testimony of Scriptural knowledge, and the way that biblical truth is preserved as doctrines come into focus through time and across cultural space (p. 41).
This first section provides the reader with a working framework for understanding evangelical theology, and the second part seeks to helpfully furnish the empty house that was previously built. The second part of the book, chapters three to six, defines and defends theology as the wisdom of the people of God collectively—a wisdom that is ultimately dependent on a proper theological interpretation of Scripture. Moreover, the wisdom that arises out of a theological interpretation of Scripture has a primary goal of serving the people of God as they live on mission corporately.
Theology and the Mirror of Scripture concludes with a strong and appropriate call for the reader to live theologically within the context of the community of God’s people. It is here that theology, that is “mere” evangelical theology, finds its ultimate purpose—to help the church glorify and enjoy God forever (p. 255). Thus, the local church is the mirror of the evangel, proclaiming the gospel of the Triune God, and embodying a visible sign of the invisible grace of our transdenominational, multiethnic fellowship in Christ (p. 262).
Theology and the Mirror of Scripture puts forth a noble and admirable task. In a day where it may be easier to peg Jell-O to a wall than articulate an evangelical theology, Vanhoozer and Terier have produced a clear and compelling volume. Theology and the Mirror of Scripture has cleared much of the mud that once saturated the uncertain waters of evangelicalism. If you are looking for a careful engagement on the bedrock of evangelical theology Theology and the Mirror of Scripture is an indispensable introduction that you cannot ignore. It comes highly recommended!
I received a review copy of these books in exchange for and honest review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.
December 15, 2015
What is an “evangelical?” Is there even such a thing? If one were to look at the vast spectrum of people who call themselves evangelicals, one might be tempted to say that there isn’t. Yet somehow, this moniker can’t simply be shaken off. People keep on calling themselves (and other) evangelicals. It’s a sociological-theological-historical term that I believe should not be abandoned. Even though its definition as a sociological reality is being stretched beyond recognition, there is such a thing as being a “mere” evangelical. And whatever it means to be a “mere” evangelical is defined by God’s word and God’s act.
In their most recent book, Theology and the Mirror of Scripture: A Mere Evangelical Account, Kevin Vanhoozer and Treier (V&T) have attempted to give an account of what such a “mere evangelical” theology might be. By the looks of their endorsers on the back of the book it would seem as though they have given a satisfactory account.
According to V&T mere evangelical theology begins with theological ontology, specifically with the Trinitarian God of the gospel. It begins with the economic Trinity which mirrors the immanent Trinity. However this Trinitarian God who reveals himself in history is not know to us apart from Scripture. So V&T also argue that the biblical testimony yields knowledge of this Triune God because it mirrors who this God is. As V&T say, there is truth and authority in this mirror. Mere Evangelical theology is focused on the God of the Gospel and the Gospel of God. God himself is the light. Scripture is a mirror of that light. Tradition is a mirror who’s light is not from itself but is derivative from the light of God reflected through scripture.
The second part of this book relates V&T’s theological ontology and mirror metaphors to various theological practices – specifically the interpretation of scripture, the role of tradition, and the role of scholarship in the church.
What unites V&T’s proposal for mere evangelical theology is the metaphor of “mirror” which is scattered throughout the book. I believe this is a helpful metaphor which (at least for me) helped me make sense of the ontological priority of God in doing theology and the primacy of scripture. But where it made things most clear for me is in the role of tradition in doing theology. Calling tradition a mirror was a helpful move, for it emphasizes that it still reflects the true light, yet in some derivative way which is not foolproof from distortions.
V&T’s proposal for thinking of theology as a mirror of the God of the Gospel and the Gospel of God is a very useful metaphor, it even has implications for ecclesiology, for one might even say that the Church and local churches are also mirrors of the God of the Gospel/The Gospel of God.
Overall, I highly recommend this book by two able theologians who have devoted much work to theological prolegomena. It fits right alongside Swain and Allen’s Reformed Catholicity as a book which addresses how to be reformed and evangelical while doing theology within the context of “mere” Christianity.
(Note: I received this book from IVP in exchange for an impartial review.)
In their most recent book, Theology and the Mirror of Scripture: A Mere Evangelical Account, Kevin Vanhoozer and Treier (V&T) have attempted to give an account of what such a “mere evangelical” theology might be. By the looks of their endorsers on the back of the book it would seem as though they have given a satisfactory account.
According to V&T mere evangelical theology begins with theological ontology, specifically with the Trinitarian God of the gospel. It begins with the economic Trinity which mirrors the immanent Trinity. However this Trinitarian God who reveals himself in history is not know to us apart from Scripture. So V&T also argue that the biblical testimony yields knowledge of this Triune God because it mirrors who this God is. As V&T say, there is truth and authority in this mirror. Mere Evangelical theology is focused on the God of the Gospel and the Gospel of God. God himself is the light. Scripture is a mirror of that light. Tradition is a mirror who’s light is not from itself but is derivative from the light of God reflected through scripture.
The second part of this book relates V&T’s theological ontology and mirror metaphors to various theological practices – specifically the interpretation of scripture, the role of tradition, and the role of scholarship in the church.
What unites V&T’s proposal for mere evangelical theology is the metaphor of “mirror” which is scattered throughout the book. I believe this is a helpful metaphor which (at least for me) helped me make sense of the ontological priority of God in doing theology and the primacy of scripture. But where it made things most clear for me is in the role of tradition in doing theology. Calling tradition a mirror was a helpful move, for it emphasizes that it still reflects the true light, yet in some derivative way which is not foolproof from distortions.
V&T’s proposal for thinking of theology as a mirror of the God of the Gospel and the Gospel of God is a very useful metaphor, it even has implications for ecclesiology, for one might even say that the Church and local churches are also mirrors of the God of the Gospel/The Gospel of God.
Overall, I highly recommend this book by two able theologians who have devoted much work to theological prolegomena. It fits right alongside Swain and Allen’s Reformed Catholicity as a book which addresses how to be reformed and evangelical while doing theology within the context of “mere” Christianity.
(Note: I received this book from IVP in exchange for an impartial review.)
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews