11
on the inside of language, then even the Holy Spirit's speaking to the churches would have to be
interpreted through how Christians in their various communities use their own particular
languages. Likewise, the same rationale applies to the written word of God. Clearly, if meaning
is use (which, again, seems to be Grenz and Franke's intention), then however Christians in a
given locale use scripture will make its meaning. Therefore, their appeals to the Holy Spirit and
scripture to unify discrete communities into a common one will fail due to their idea of the
strong particularity of languages and communities.
But this conclusion about the discreteness of all theological claims should make us pause
and reflect in another way upon how to interpret their claims. We will now consider that final
issue.
The Issue of Access
By way of illustration, let us return to the conclusion about the dismal prospects of
revelation on their linguistic approach. In this light, their claim that God can and does break
through language should be interpreted in one of two ways. First, it too is just another
construction made within a specific, discrete Christian community, due to the strong particularity
of language. That is, this is just a claim based upon how some particular community has made
its world by its use of its language. If this interpretation is accurate, then why should other
Christians believe Grenz and Franke's particular community's construction, since there is no
essence to linguistic communities, even the Christian one? Clearly, many Christians, such as
Dallas Willard or William Lane Craig, would not accept their linguistic stance, so it is not the
case that all Christians will in fact accept their view. Furthermore, this conclusion entails that
God is a linguistic construction, a view that clearly is unacceptable for Christians.