Page 8

Barth meets Austin and Searle

Page 8

of the authors of Scripture, as Barth contends, but it did assume the human
word of Scripture, so that, in a sense more parallel to the incarnation than
Barth would like to admit, Scripture is a divine/human book.

We have used speech-act theory as a "rod" or fixed point from which

we have re-surveyed the sometimes-blurred boundary line between a
classical Evangelical and Barthian view of Scripture. This new survey has
enabled us to correct some misunderstandings about the Evangelical view
and to hold together both its dynamic, incarnational nature and its truth
claims. It has also enabled us to expose the inadequacies and self-
contradictions of the Barthian view.

Hostages in a Foreign Land

I offer this analysis as a caution lest our Evangelical plane collide with

the Barthian jet and we be held hostage in a foreign land! If that were to
happen, what would the strange land look like? When we look at Barth, the
landscape doesn't look too unfamiliar. After all, he affirms the Resurrection
and even the Virgin Birth. Nevertheless, the demotion of Scripture from
God's revelation to human witness opens the door for the relativization of
Biblical teaching. If we hold such statements as the following, will not our
interpretation be affected? "The Bible is not in and of itself the revelation of
God but the divinely appointed means and channel of this
revelation.{Bloesch 1994: 57} "We need to acknowledge that the Holy
Spirit guided the prophets in their reflection, but their articulation of this
reflection is at least one step removed from the revelation itself."{Bloesch
1994: 56} "Inspiration does not guarantee that the Bible is inerrant in the
sense of being exempt from human misconceptions and limitations--even in
the areas of ethics and theology."{Bloesch 1994: 121-122} We fall again
into that old error of choosing on the basis of our own judgment (sometimes
with very sophisticated argumentation) between what is of abiding value and
what is culturally conditioned.

I give only one example. In my judgment, my good friend David

Thompson has made this error in his article "Women, Men, Slaves and the
Bible: Hermeneutical Inquiries."

Dave seeks to give scriptural support to

an egalitarian rather than a complementary view of the relationship between
men and women. By "egalitarian" he means that in no sense are women to
submit to men in family, church, or society. He basis his argument on two
questionable assumptions, which we cite here in full:

Christian Scholars Review