"Revelation as `Encounter': Karl Barth meets J. L. Austin and John Searle."
By Gareth Lee Cockerill, Wesley Biblical Seminary, Jackson, MS.
Introduction
Failure to observe international boundaries may have unpleasant
consequences. We all remember the collision a few months ago of a U.S.
reconnaissance plane with a Chinese fighter. The U.S. claimed the plane
was in international air space; the Chinese, that it was in their space. As a
result, the U.S. Crew was held hostage in an unfriendly land.
Failure to observe theological boundaries can also have unpleasant
consequences. The intent of this paper is to clarify the boundary between a
traditional Evangelical, I would rather say classical Evangelical, and
Barthian view of Scripture. How do we survey a boundary line? A surveyor
sights using a fixed point established by a "rod" held by his "rod-man."
"Speech-act" theory, as developed by J. L. Austin and John Searle,
1
will be
our rod, our fixed point, for surveying this line. Our goal is to bring greater
clarity to both views and to show the inadequacy of the Barthian view.
Barth's Influence on Evangelicalism
But Barth is not the influence in the theological world that he once
was, so why should we worry about his view of Scripture? Today we must
deal with the "new hermeneutic," with deconstructive, reader-response,
ideological and pragmatic criticism. Isn't discussing Barth's view a bit
passé?
Two factors justify a fresh investigation of the Evangelical and
Barthian views of Scripture. First, for many Evangelicals the boundary line
between the two is indistinct. Second, as a result, Barth continues to
influence us more than we may realize. Will our hazy vision cause us to
transgress a boundary and bring consequences destructive of our faith and
witness?
It is easy to see why Barth appeals to Evangelicals. We are allured by
his emphasis on the transcendence of God, the reality of God's intervention
in the world, and by his affirming the genuineness of God's personal
encounter with His people. Furthermore, Barth was often a masterful
exegete of Scripture who insisted that dogmatics be based on the "Biblical
witness." His affirmation of Scripture as a "human witness" to revelation
1
See {Austin 1975; Searle 1979; Searle 1969}
Clarify by usin
terms, assertiv
commissives, e
and declaration
explain these l
last is importan
God's speaking