SEEING THE UNSEEN: IMAGINATION IN

THE THEOLOGICAL METHOD OF KEVIN J. VANHOOZER

___________________

A Thesis

Presented to

the Faculty of the Department of Theological Studies

Dallas Theological Seminary

___________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the degree

Master of Theology

___________________

by

Joshua David Vajda

August 2012

Accepted by the Faculty of the Dallas Theological Seminary in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Theology

Examining Committee

iii

ABSTRACT

SEEING THE UNSEEN: IMAGINATION IN

THE THEOLOGICAL METHOD OF KEVIN J. VANHOOZER

Joshua David Vajda

Readers: Glenn R. Kreider, Douglas K. Blount

Imagination is a recurring subject in the work of theologian Kevin J.

Vanhoozer, especially regarding his doctrine of theological method. However, there has been no work that examines his views on the imagination systematically, placing them in historic context and weighing their importance for theological method and systematic theology in general.

Vanhoozer defines imagination as synoptic vision, the ability to synthesize new images from existing sensations—essentially, to see the unseen. This understanding has existed in one form or another since at least the time of Epicurus, and has had an especially strong following in the Romantic Movement and its sympathizers in subsequent generations. Vanhoozer’s definition continues to be fairly common in literature on theological imagination over the past century, although it is not without significant detractors.

Synoptic vision is central to Vanhoozer’s theological method as the faculty that informs us of how to follow biblical examples in ever-changing contexts. It provides the bridge between right faith and the right actions by which it is justified. In addition, it is capable of informing the mind of aspects of reality not present to the senses but known through faith or extrapolation; thus the imagination properly used can provide a more accurate view of reality than the senses alone.

The role the imagination plays in Vanhoozer’s method is usually either addressed in other ways by other theologians or not addressed at all, such as the way synthetic reasoning is taken for granted. However, by utilizing the imagination, Vanhoozer provides an account that draws helpful connections between disparate aspects of method. Imagination also emphasizes the role of narrative in theology over abstract propositions and makes room in theology for more creative language and endeavors where there often is none. Ultimately, the imagination is essential to both understanding Scripture and living christianly, and taking this truth into account ought to change the way one constructs and communicates theology.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Why Kevin Vanhoozer?

Vanhoozer’s Theological Method

Legitimacy of the Task

2. BRIEF SURVEY OF HISTORIC DEFINITIONS OF IMAGINATION . . 11

Imagination in Ancient Greek Philosophy

Imagination in Early Christianity

Imagination in Medieval Thought

Imagination and the Enlightenment

Imagination and the Romantics

Summary of Findings

3. IMAGINATION IN VANHOOZER’S METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Imagination Defined by Vanhoozer

Various Kinds of Imagination

Defending Imagination

Role of Imagination in Vanhoozer’s Method

4. EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL IMAGINATION TODAY . . . . . . . . . 36

Stanley Grenz’s Theology for the Community of God

Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology

Michael Horton’s The Christian Faith

Summary

5. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

v

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In the darkness something was happening at last. A voice had begun to sing. It was very far away and Digory found it hard to decide from what direction it was coming. Sometimes it seemed to come from all directions at once. Sometimes he almost thought it was coming out of the earth beneath them. Its lower notes were deep enough to be the voice of the earth herself. There were no words. There was hardly even a tune. But it was, beyond comparison, the most beautiful noise he had ever heard. It was so beautiful he could hardly bear it.1

The realm of the imagination is a world of excitement. It gives mankind the

opportunity to touch the intangible, smell the odorless, and to see the unseen. There the

impossible becomes possible—and thus it is often associated with fiction, childhood, and

fantasy. We use our imaginations when we want to experience the unreal. The passage

above attempts to place the reader in a nonexistent world enveloped in perfect darkness

listening to a song without words, tune, instrumentation, or location—a song that no one

could have produced at the time of its writing, and perhaps could not approximate even

now. Yet by suspending disbelief, assenting to the narrative, and engaging the

imagination, it is possible to find oneself hearing what Digory heard at that moment.

This connection with the impossible, the fantastic, and the unreal has often

rendered the imagination the stuff of nonsense among more mature, reasoned people.

What else would one call that which defies the physical senses and common sense alike?

As Willy Wonka noted, “A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.”2

1C.S. Lewis, The Magician’s Nephew (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 116.

2Roald Dahl and David Seltzer, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, DVD, directed by Mel Stuart (Burbank, CA: Warner Bros., 1971).

2

The imagination can provide a welcome vacation from reality, but what serious role

could it play in the search for theological understanding? In an academic community

committed to the truth of the faith—its correspondence to reality—what could the

imagination hope to contribute?

There are those who claim that the imagination is not only relevant to the real

world but a necessary part of reason itself. As such, they argue, it has implications for

any and every field of study—including theology. For more than a decade, one prominent

voice in its favor has been professor and author Kevin J. Vanhoozer. A great deal of his

published work to date has at least mentioned the imagination in passing, and three works

in particular have emphasized it heavily: Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul

Ricoeur, First Theology, and most recently, The Drama of Doctrine.3 Vanhoozer’s view

of imagination as “synoptic vision” is valuable to evangelical theology because it bridges

significant gaps left by more rationalist theological methods.

Why Kevin Vanhoozer?

The role of the imagination in intellectual life has been discussed since at least

the time of Plato, and it enjoys a rich if not well-known tradition. So why are

Vanhoozer’s thoughts on the subject of interest to academia? He is not only a recent

voice in the conversation on imagination, but also one of the more prominent and

influential voices in evangelical theological circles today. As such, his work is worthy of

closer inspection and deeper reflection.

Kevin J. Vanhoozer is a well-respected American evangelical theologian

working in the Reformed tradition. Since 2009, he has been the Blanchard Professor of

3Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in Hermeneutics and Theology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scriptures & Hermeneutics (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002). Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005).

3

Theology at Wheaton College.4 Prior to Wheaton, he served at Trinity Evangelical

Divinity School as research professor of systematic theology for eleven years, and before

that he taught theology and religious studies for eight years at the University of

Edinburgh.5 At the time of this thesis’s publication, he is transitioning back to his former

position at Trinity.6

Over the past fifteen years, Vanhoozer has authored six books and co-

authored, edited, or co-edited nearly a dozen more—often with other highly respected

Christian scholars.7 His primary interests have been hermeneutics and prolegomena, often

bringing to the table insights from the fields of philosophy, pastoral ministry, and the arts,

to name a few. Two recurring themes in his writing are bridging the gap between text and

meaning, and bridging the gap between doctrine and practice. His work has been highly

acclaimed in evangelical scholarship, and there is no reason to doubt that he will continue

to be an important voice in American theology for decades to come.8

Vanhoozer’s Theological Method

The broader task of this thesis is to evaluate the role of the imagination in

Vanhoozer’s theological method, which calls for an explanation of that method.

Discussion of methodology is tricky because one could easily mistake it for a machine;

simply pour the ingredients into one end—in proper order and proportion—and fresh-

4Anonymous, “Kevin Vanhoozer, Ph.D.,” Wheaton College web site, http://wheaton .edu/Academics/Faculty/V/Kevin-Vanhoozer (accessed July 8, 2012).

5Ibid.

6Chris Donato, “Welcome Back Vanhoozer,” Trinity International University web site, http://news.tiu.edu/2011/11/09/welcome-back-vanhoozer (accessed July 8, 2012).

7A thorough—though not exhaustive—list of publications is included in the bibliography.

8Cf. Tim Stafford, “The New Theologians,” Christianity Today, 8 February 1999, 39-40; Anonymous, “Christianity Today Book Awards 2006,” Christianity Today, June 2006, 34-35.

4

baked theology will come out the other. However, even if one conceived of his own

theological process in such simple terms, the reality is much more complex.

While Vanhoozer nowhere says “my theological method is as follows,” he

does give a relatively succinct overview of how he thinks one should do theology in the

introduction to his Drama of Doctrine. Even though this work is now seven years old,

and methodology has the troublesome habit of evolving over time, the book is at least an

influential representation of his prolegomena and thus a helpful starting point.9

The Definition of Theology

He accepts the longstanding Christian tradition of defining theology as “faith

seeking understanding,” of which Anselm is a notable proponent.10 This includes an

historic Christian position on the relationship between faith and reason; if faith seeks

understanding, it must precede understanding. Faith is the starting point, and

understanding is impossible without faith—or as Anselm quotes Augustine, “unless I

believe, I shall not understand.”11 So theology assumes faith or belief and is the attempt to

understand as much of that faith as possible; doctrine is the result when the attempt is

successful.12

9Vanhoozer states in footnote 16 that theology’s obsession with prolegomena is a primarily modern phenomenon stemming from the desire to objectively verify claims. Rather than perfecting method so that truth may be found, he argues that the truth believed must direct the methodology—which matches the pattern of faith seeking understanding. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 6.

10Ibid., 4.

11Anselm of Canterbury, “An Address (Proslogion),” in A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham, ed. Eugene R. Fairweather, trans. A. C. Pegis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 73.

12Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, 4.

5

The Sources of Theology

The content of this faith that one seeks to understand is “the meaning of the

apostolic testimony to what God was doing in the event of Jesus Christ.”13 While

Vanhoozer does not deny general revelation, he is concerned with uniquely Christian

doctrine and thus with the special revelation that flows from Christ and Scripture.14 This

revelation is what must be accepted and trusted before one attempts to understand it more

fully. The exact nature of divine revelation has been hypothesized to come through many

channels or sources, and he lists four of the most widely-used examples in Christianity

for the purposes of critique—not to outline a method or set up a hierarchy.

The first source listed is biblical propositions, which are universally-

applicable truth claims abstracted from past revelation delivered through a static yet

infallible biblical text. Vanhoozer notes the historic popularity of this approach, but

criticizes it for its oversimplification of Scripture and the foundationalist epistemology

that seems to be implied.15

Second is the person of Christ himself. Christians of course believe that Jesus

was divine revelation during his historic ministry on earth, but Vanhoozer has in mind

Barth’s notion of Christ as ongoing divine revelation. 16 Here the Bible is still the

medium, but instead of reason unlocking its assertions to find timeless truth, God reveals

himself afresh through the reading of any and every text as the Spirit relates it to Christ.

Despite an apparent affinity for this view, Vanhoozer questions its “quasi-sacramental”

nature.17

13Ibid.

14Ibid. Cf. footnote 10.

15Ibid., 5.

16Ibid.

17Ibid.

6

The third source is Christian piety, associated with Schleiermacher and

liberalism. Here revelation is Scripture’s ability to express in words an individual’s

religious experience. 18 While he does not discount this source in general, he emphasizes

its inability to stand on its own. Experience is legitimate but insufficient.

Finally, he addresses church practices, traditions of reading and acting passed

down in community. “It is the form of the church’s life and language that gives doctrines

their substance and meaning.”19 Despite its recent surge in popularity due in large part to

the rise of postmodernism, Vanhoozer worries that this view lacks the means to

distinguish between malformed church practice and true doctrine of God. If theology

merely deals with the way things are in the church, it lacks the power to speak of what

could and should be, or to adjudicate between opposing traditions.

The Norm of Theology

So theology is faith seeking understanding, and the content of that faith is the

content of divine revelation associated with Scripture and Christ—although there are

different accounts of our access to it. Vanhoozer is not entirely comfortable with any of

the sources mentioned above, but he does seem most interested in the concept of

ecclesiology as revelation. To properly judge these potential sources, Vanhoozer

advocates “the uses of Scripture” as the norm, but not just any uses.20 For him, the norm

or authority is in “divine authorial discourse,” a phrase he borrows from Nicholas

Wolterstorff.21 Elsewhere he clarifies that this norm is “not Scripture as used by the

18Ibid., 6.

19Ibid., 7.

20Ibid., 7-11.

21Ibid., 11.

7

church but Scripture as used by God.”22 Thus, the norm in Vanhoozer’s theology is God’s

use of Scripture—what God is doing with his words, to put it in the terms of speech-act

theory. Vanhoozer claims this approach is faithful to the principle of sola scriptura.23

The Purpose of Theology

The result of this “faith seeking understanding” process is doctrine, which is

man’s response to divine revelation. It represents the fruits of the search for

understanding, but for Vanhoozer understanding also requires action.24 He portrays this

not as a stance on the nature of understanding itself, but about the nature of the Christian

faith. Christianity is a way of life—Christ even called himself the way, truth, and life—

thus it cannot properly be understood without being lived. This may be deduced from the

biblical dictum of faith justified by works; if true faith produces good works, then the

understanding that both expounds and relies upon that faith cannot be divorced from its

enactment.25

It is at this point that the imagination first explicitly appears in Vanhoozer’s

method. In order to put the faith into practice, to live that which is understood, good

theology requires imaginatively living after biblical examples.26 The emphasis on biblical

examples demonstrates Vanhoozer’s focus on special revelation and sola scriptura; God

has selected these examples to reveal himself. Yet one could not perfectly copy someone

else’s life even if that were desirable, simply because the context will always be different.

The imagination is necessary here as the part of the mind that synthesizes the past

22Ibid., 16-17.

23Ibid., 16.

24Ibid., 17.

25Cf. Jas 2:14-26.

26Ibid., 15.

8

example with the present circumstances to create blueprints for continually new yet

faithful enactments of Christian faith.

So theology is the attempt to understand the content of the Christian faith one

is imaginatively living day to day. The continued acting out of the faith in ever-changing

contexts requires that theology continually change, making theology a never-ending task.

Even if God in his infinitude could be fully understood by man, every generation would

still be forced to imagine the implications of that knowledge for a new era. Vanhoozer

claims that theology has five tasks as it seeks to understand and live the faith: celebrating,

coping, criticizing, communicating, and continuing.27

Ultimately, Vanhoozer says the product of his canonical-linguistic approach is

not a proposition, an experience, or a law, but “an imagination that corresponds to and

continues the gospel by making good theological judgments about what to say and do in

light of the reality of Jesus Christ.”28 So it would seem that the reward faith finds at the

end of its search for understanding is the ability to see the unseen accurately—in this

case, the Christian way to act moment by moment.

The Theater of Theology

The nature of this method resists systematizing or outlining. There is no clear

order for believing, understanding, acting, and imagining, and each influences the other,

often imperceptibly. However, a main function of his Drama of Doctrine is to cast his

theological method in the form of theater so that it might be more easily understood. So

history is a drama, people are actors who have their entrances and exits, the Bible is the

actors’ script, the Holy Spirit is the director, ministers are the Spirit’s assistants, the

theologian is dramaturge—something like a performance advisor—and the Christian life

27Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, 15.

28Ibid., 30. Emphasis added.

9

is a kind of imaginative performance, re-enacting the script in a new presentation

according to the director’s cues and with help from assistants and dramaturges.29

The emphases within this method, and his work at large, address two

dichotomies, the latter of which Vanhoozer expressly likens to Lessing’s ditch.30 The first

is the gap between text and meaning; the second is between knowing and doing. To cross

the first ditch, he relies on J. L. Austin’s speech-act theory in an attempt to rescue

Scripture from meaninglessness. Because the words of Scripture were chosen not to

communicate propositions but to produce change in the reader, the various effects a text

accomplishes are taken to provide stability to the relationship between signified and

signifier. He attempts to construct his second bridge—saving doctrine from uselessness—

through Paul Ricouer’s philosophy of imagination. By synthesizing unchanging doctrine

and ever-changing circumstances, the imagination keeps doctrine both trustworthy and

relevant.

Legitimacy of the Task

Before launching into a constructive critique of Vanhoozer’s concept of

imagination and its role in his method, one ought briefly to examine the legitimacy of the

task at hand. In a post-foundationalist context, one might question the very act of

analyzing a work for the purpose of critiquing logic, argumentation, and evidence

presented. Some would even argue that Vanhoozer is attempting to work within a more

or less relativist construct, posing theories without arguing for them. If this were true,

how could anyone propose to judge his work by a standard he was not attempting to

meet? Surely this would be like expecting the evening news to follow the rhythm and

rhyme of an English sonnet.

29Ibid., 30-33.

30Ibid., 12-13.

10

I contend all work is subjected to the probe of reason and logic regardless of

permission or intent, and that Vanhoozer himself would not object to this. Despite his

objections to foundationalism, he follows conventions of critiquing others and citing

sources that implicitly invite the same in return. This indicates that he has not written off

scholarly conventions and argumentation in favor of mere rhetoric or relativist thought.

The one major caveat to this argument is that his writing style sometimes

lacks the transparency and concision that some expect in serious academic work. He

often retreads the same matter over and over from different perspectives, sometimes

producing multiple definitions for the same concept without stopping to relate all of them

to one another; such is the case with imagination. However, this style of writing is better

understood not as a rejection of the guild’s standard form of contribution and interaction,

but as an example of evoking the imagination in service of understanding. Just as he

claims Scripture is more than a delivery mechanism of truth propositions, so his work

attempts to be concerned with the same. A deeper analysis of his style and its relationship

with the imagination and theology will be undertaken in chapter 3.

11

CHAPTER 2

BRIEF SURVEY OF HISTORIC DEFINITIONS OF IMAGINATION

The imagination enjoys a long history of discussion over both its essence and

its role in intellectual life in Western Civilization. Before addressing Vanhoozer’s own

view on the subject, it is important to place that view in the context of this ancient dialog.

Imagination in Ancient Greek Philosophy

The English “imagination” comes from the Latin imaginatio, referring to the

mental power to create images of things unseen. 1 Its Greek counterpart has also been

adopted into the English language in such forms as fantasy, phantasm, and phantom:

phantasia. This can refer to any kind of appearance whether real or illusion, or even to

the conjuring of images through literary devices.2 Many Greek philosophers were

interested in epistemology—due in no small part to the influence of Socrates—so they

often commented on the relationship between appearance and reality.

Some of the earliest and most famous comments on the subject of imagination

in Greek thought may be found in Plato’s Republic. As he understood it, the way the

world appears to man is merely a shadow of reality, a representation of the transcendent

forms—and worse yet, artists of various kinds render representations of those

representations, “two generations away from the throne of truth.”3 Thus, those who

1P. G. W. Glare, ed., Oxford Latin Dictionary, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 831.

2Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Dictionary, vol. 2, ed. Henry Stuart Jones (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 1915.

3Plato Republic 597e.

12

manufacture images of any kind are evil, propagating false representations of reality. The

part of the mind that would accept those representations in the face of conflicting

empirical data is irrational. This is presumably the imagination.4 Plato also notes in his

Theaetetus the difficulty discerning between reality and dreaming, the latter of which he

refers to as imagining.5

Aristotle discusses the imagination at length in book III of On the Soul—

although some translations prefer the term “appearance” instead. He distinguishes

appearance from perception, the latter being the direct result of sense-experience but not

the former.6 Appearance is the result of the mind re-imaging past sensations. For

Aristotle, neither appearance nor perception is defective or problematic, but rather the

mind can sometimes mistake one for the other.

In the centuries following Plato and Aristotle, it became popular to be

skeptical of the senses; it was in this context that Epicurus also wrote on the imagination.7

He believed that the imagination not only re-presents past sensations as Aristotle thought,

but also images from dreams. He also seems to have held that the imagination can be a

source of new sensations itself, which arguably puts it on par with the more traditional

senses of sight and touch. He applies these insights to the Greek gods to explain how men

can have an accurate understanding of beings they have never seen, concluding that this

information is presented to the imagination.8 He describes this in a way that resembles the

4The irony here is that Plato’s famous cave is an allegory that he uses to try to draw the mind closer to the truth about forms and appearances. As Socrates paints the mental image in the fictional dialogue—itself another generation removed from reality—he repeatedly asks Glaucon to “imagine.”

5Plato Theaetetus 158c.

6Aristotle On the Soul 427b-428b.

7Norman Wentworth DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954), 137.

8Peter Adamson, “Nothing to Fear: Epicureans on Death and the Gods,” History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps web site, MP3 audio file, 22:01, http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/

13

synoptic vision of Vanhoozer, and may very well stand at the headwaters of the tradition

Vanhoozer adopts.

Imagination in Early Christianity

As with many other concepts, Christians in the early and medieval eras of the

church relied heavily on Greek philosophy in their thinking about the imagination. It

continued to be primarily an epistemological question, although more than one significant

author attached the issue to the source and significance of dreams.

“ ‘Must we then resist the senses with all our might?’ ‘Certainly.’ ”9 In

corresponding with his friend Nebridius regarding the superiority of the soul (which

includes the mind) over the body, Augustine himself ends up launching into a discussion

of the imagination. He enquires into the possibility of the perceptions of the mind being

more real than those of the senses—that the soul might sense realities of which the body

is unaware. He sides with Aristotle in the dependence of imagination upon memory,

despite Nebridius’s contrary position.10 He states that there are three classes of

imaginings: remembrance, supposition, and abstraction; all of these are the product of

reason. The imagination then is not associated with false perception but with intentional

image-making for the purposes of improved understanding.

The Recognitions of Clement, a part of the Pseudo-Clement literature, features

a scene in which the Apostle Peter and Simon the Magician are debating over the

imagination. Peter explains that he once imagined what he thought Caesarea would look

like, only to find when he visited that it was nothing like he had pictured. He says that

imagination does not produce anything new but synthesizes images from old

sites/default/files/MP3/HoP 057 - Nothing to Fear – Epicureans on Death and the Gods.mp3 (accessed May 9, 2012).

9Augustine Letters of St. Augustine 3.4.

10Ibid. 6-7.2.

14

experiences.11 His point is to undermine Simon’s assertion that man can learn about

things “above the heavens” by simply imagining them, and that the mind cannot imagine

the impossible.

While these two views seem quite compatible with Vanhoozer’s definition,

John of Damascus offers a different perspective in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.12

He identifies the imagination with the part of the mind that is aware of what the body is

sensing, yet distinguishes it from sensation itself. It has no connection to the reasoning

activity of the mind but is activated when the senses are engaged. He differentiates this

from appearance, which is when the same mechanism acts without prompting. John goes

on to talk at length about the five senses and how they interact with sensation, but he

never explains what the imagination does that distinguishes itself from this. It may be that

he is assuming something like Aristotle’s view in which memory acts upon it to produce

sensation rather than material objects, but this is only speculation.

Imagination and Medieval Thought

Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides discusses the imagination in the

context of prophecy. He begins with what he takes to be the consensus view on the

imagination: “Part of the functions of the imaginative faculty is . . . to retain impressions

by the senses, to combine them, and chiefly to form images.”13 This is essentially a

restatement of Augustine’s three classes. The imagination is a power that must be

developed, and the best imaginations perceive things as clearly as though through the

senses. Imagination can be made to bend to the intellect, but this requires conditioning.

Maimonides warns against imbalance between intellect and pure imagination—like the

11Pseudo-Clement The Recognitions of Clement 2.65.

12John of Damascus Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 2.42.

13Moses Maimonides The Guide for the Perplexed 2.36.

15

philosopher whose intellect is inflexible, or the mystic whose imaginings lead him away

from reality into nonsense.

The great Thomas Aquinas interacts with Aristotle and Avicenna on the

subject of the imagination in his Summa Theologiae. Following Aristotle, he takes

imagination to be what mediates sense-perception to the intellect.14 Avicenna posited an

additional sense between instinct and imagination which he called fantasy; this faculty

“composes and divides imagined forms, as when from the image of gold and the image of

mountain we compose the single form of a golden mountain which we have never

seen.”15 Aquinas rejects this distinction, giving imagination the scope of both.

For St. John of the Cross, the imagination is one of the ways God conveys

supernatural knowledge. It is responsible for comprehending what is conveyed inwardly,

apart from physical manifestation.16 Because the soul is so much greater than the body,

mystical physical sensations are to be avoided; if God would speak to someone, he would

do so directly to one’s soul and not trifle with the body. In fact, in order to receive the

purest communication from God, one must deny the body and meditate on God so that

the imagination is primed. So it would appear that the imagination is a fallible but crucial

aspect of Christian life, thought, and experience in John’s theology.

The Protestant Reformers essentially worked in a medieval context, although

they are sometimes treated as a separate entity. In the Institutes, John Calvin focuses on

pastoral theology rather than scholastic philosophy, yet he does reference fantasy as a

cognitive faculty of the soul alongside understanding and reason. He says that fantasy

“distinguishes those things which have been held by common sense,” and is instrumental

14Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae 11.78.4.

15Ibid.

16John of the Cross The Ascent of Mount Carmel 2.41.

16

to anger and lust but not the will.17 Ultimately he refuses to be dogmatic about the

imagination because in his opinion the will and understanding are the only faculties

worth commenting on.

Imagination and the Enlightenment

With the Enlightenment came two related movements that were antagonistic

to the imagination: empiricism and the analytic tradition in language. The first

emphasized inductive reasoning based on sense experience, believing the imagination

was responsible for confusing the mind about which sensations were real or accurate—an

epistemological concern that goes back to the Greeks, as seen above.18 The second

movement focused on language rather than cognition and sought to abolish all ambiguity,

attacking its linguistic tools such as metaphor and analogy.19 It should come as no

surprise that these movements saw Christianity as inherently imaginative—and dismissed

it accordingly.20

British empiricist John Locke, famous for his doctrine of tabula rasa, believed

that the mind only draws upon previous sense experience, and did not seem to associate

the imagination with anything besides the presentation of images to the mind’s eye.21 For

him, the task of synthesis was rational and the concept of the imagination as historically

expressed unnecessary.22 Illusion is simply false judgment about sensory data.

17John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.15.6.

18Paul Avis, God and the Creative Imagination: Metaphor, Symbol and Myth in Religion and Theology (New York: Routledge, 1999), 15-16.

19Ibid., 18-20.

20Ibid., 7.

21John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. A. S. Pringle-Pattison (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), 54.

22John E. Thiel, Imagination and Authority: Theological Authorship in the Modern Tradition (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1991), 102-03.

17

Perhaps the single most important figure in Enlightenment imagination is

Immanuel Kant, who made it central to a number of his ideas. Green notes in particular

that “it mediates the sensible given and the concepts of understanding.”23 Kant states that

imagination is a transcendental act of the soul that synthesizes a priori principles and

personal experience; in short, it connects the dots between intuition and sensation.24 This

is vaguely reminiscent of Avicenna’s insertion of imagination between instinct and

perception, as seen above. For Kant, imagination is necessary for understanding.

Vanhoozer’s view of imagination is informed by Ricoeur’s, which in turn is built on

Kant’s work—all of which will be demonstrated in chapter 3.

Ludwig Feuerbach represents the most antagonistic view of the imagination,

which influenced such heavyweights as Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche. For Feuerbach,

imagination is departure from reality, the copy of the real thing that obscures our view.25

He believed that mankind—and especially religion as an institution—preferred to see the

world not as it is, but through false representations of what is. This seems reminiscent of

Plato’s Cave, only here the priests are the culprits instead of the artists. For example,

Feuerbach says the imagination interprets reason as the revelation of God, but in reality

“God” is the revelation of reason to itself.26

Imagination and the Romantics

While the Enlightenment tended to downplay or denigrate the imagination—

with the notable exception of Kant—the Romantic Movement embraced the imagination

23Garrett Green, Imagining God: Theology and the Religious Imagination (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), 13.

24Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 2nd ed., trans. F. Max Mueller (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1907), 82-85.

25Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, trans. George Eliot (New York: Harper & Brothers Pub., 1957), xxxix.

26Ibid., 36.

18

as essential to the life of the mind. The romantics were generally more interested in the

deliverances of the imagination than the faculty itself, but the view of the imagination as

the organ of synthesis, now held by Vanhoozer, was prevalent at this time.27

One early figure was William Blake, who called imagination the divine

vision.28 He contrasted the single-minded man, who is self-centered and concerns himself

with the material world and its sensations, with the superior double-minded man, who is

God-centered and sees spiritual reality through nature.29 The first has a dead imagination,

but the second has his perception cleansed so that the imagination beholds the infinite and

eternal. Imagination is the spiritual sense.30

Samuel Taylor Coleridge was easily one of the most significant voices of the

age. He conceived of the imagination as the spark of divine creativity that creates and

shapes new things from that which is already known.31 As such, Coleridge emphasized its

ability to find balance between opposing poles such as the sensual and spiritual or theory

and practice.32 In fact it even operates on its own balance between passive reception and

active production, which has been likened to the receiving of a gift.33 Imagination

27Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 5th ed. (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2011), 70.

28J. G. Davies, The Theology of William Blake (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948), 74. This term “divine vision” is also associated with Christ, who becomes the imagination even as he is beheld in the imagination (cf. Ronald L. Grimes, The Divine Imagination [Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1972], ix, 119).

29Ibid., 60-64.

30Ibid., 132.

31Avis, God and the Creative Imagination, ix, 41.

32Robin Stockitt, Imagination and the Playfulness of God: The Theological Implications of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s Definition of the Human Imagination (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 69-70.

33Ibid., 73.

19

produces symbols based on the deliverances of reason, which then become more fodder

for reason.34 He would later say that imagination is simply reason in another key.35

For Coleridge, the imagination is distinguished but not divided into two parts,

primary and secondary.36 The primary imagination is the aspect that is shared by all

people as the imago Dei, the divine in man that creates the world after God—

appropriately interpreting our experience of the world.37 Coleridge later thought this move

was too pantheistic. The secondary imagination is what we associate with creative people

who sharpen their gifts to produce new symbols, living organisms of thought.38 This is

contrasted with mere fancy which simply counterfeits true creativity by mechanically

rearranging objects in memory.39

Soren Kierkegaard’s interest in the imagination was primarily ethical. He

worried that living in a dream world constructed by the imagination would rob life of

moral tension—which was probably true for the romantics who sought to live according

to their passions.40 Nevertheless, he saw imagination—what he called the process of

“infinitizing”—as a crucial element in living the Christian life.41 For Kierkegaard, the

human will is informed by the imagination, which in turn draws off of information and

34Ibid., 81-82.

35Green, Imagining God, 20.

36Avis, God and the Creative Imagination, 41.

37Stockitt, Imagination and the Playfulness of God, 64-65.

38Green, Imagining God, 19

39Stockitt, Imagination and the Playfulness of God, 66

40Jennifer Elisa Veninga, “Fictitious Worlds and Real Unrealities: The Aesthetic Imagination in Soren Kierkegaard and Hebert Marcuse,” in God’s Grandeur: The Arts and Imagination in Theology, ed. David C. Robinson (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006), 191.

41Ibid., 195

20

emotion.42 It presents to us the ideal that teaches us to hope and fear, and ultimately to

change, as long as the will acts upon it.43 Unfortunately, the imagination is also warped

because there are some things like Christ’s call to suffering that cannot be properly

imagined.44 Worse yet, if the will refuses to act upon the imagination, it becomes

deception.45

Summary of Findings

In recent decades, opinions on the imagination in theological circles have

more or less gravitated to either Enlightenment antipathy or Romantic adulation—and,

perhaps stereotypically, these conclusions tend to serve modern and postmodern

sympathies, respectively. Those who believe strongly in the power of human reason tend

generally to ignore the imagination or see it as a nuisance, while those with a more

tempered or scornful view of reason tend to grant the imagination greater prominence.

While there is a great deal of diversity in perspectives on the imagination,

there is also much similarity. However, one obstacle to the whole discussion is the lack of

standard terminology. Different thinkers have used imagination synonymously with

fantasy, fancy, sensation, appearance, illusion, or perception. At very least it seems the

imagination is usually cast as the image-maker that the mind’s eye sees—although even

this is not unanimously held, since Ricoeur considers fiction a better paradigm than

image.46 Some thinkers include current sense-perceptions in the domain of the

42Soren Kierkegaard, Practice of Christianity, trans. and ed. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 186.

43Veninga, “Fictitious Worlds and Real Unrealities,” 197.

44Kierkegaard, Practice of Christianity, 187.

45Ibid., 190.

46Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in Hermeneutics and Theology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 9-10.

21

imagination, some do not. Usually memory plays a significant role, but some note the

possibility of seeing things they have never seen. Such a process involves extrapolation—

which may or may not be intrinsic to imagination, depending on the scholar. Imagination

could be activated by the mind or by God, as is the case with divine visions; thus it could

be active, passive, or some combination of the two. Depending on how thought processes

are mapped, imagination could play a pivotal role in understanding and deciding to act.

Some even find the imagination infallible.

As always, metaphysics and epistemology play decisive roles in the

discussion. That which one believes about the nature of reality and how one comes to

know and understand it shapes the context for the imagination’s work. Imagination could

draw a person away from the physical reality presented to her senses, or it could be a kind

of spiritual sixth sense; it could even be the imago Dei. The value of the imagination for

theology directly rests on how one answers these questions, and doubtless many more.

22

CHAPTER 3

IMAGINATION IN VANHOOZER’S METHOD

It might be a bit strong to call Vanhoozer a disciple of Paul Ricoeur, but

Vanhoozer did his doctoral dissertation on Ricoeur and by all accounts seems at least

sympathetic to Ricoeur’s thought on the imagination.1 He views Ricoeur’s work as being

in part a “completion” of the project Kant started.2 Given such connections as these, it is

hardly surprising that Vanhoozer’s conclusions about the imagination generally resemble

the romantics more than the rationalists, as do Ricoeur’s.3 However, key components may

be traced back to Augustine as well, as seen in Augustine’s thoughts on supposition and

abstraction above.

Imagination Defined by Vanhoozer

Vanhoozer assumes the “imagination as synthesis” model. He classifies it as a

cognitive instrument housed in the mind alongside volition, emotion, and intellect. 4 As

“the power of synoptic vision,” the imagination invents or discovers connections between

heterogeneous elements producing a unified whole. 5 Imagination is especially important

1Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in Hermeneutics and Theology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), ix.

2Ibid., 7, 17.

3Ibid., 56.

4Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 12, 106.

5Ibid., 280-81.

23

for three reasons, the first of which being that it relates truths to one another—which is

perhaps the most basic and obvious benefit of synthesis.

The second reason is that the imagination reveals hidden realities. Here it

plays an important role in worldview, helping a person properly interpret reality. Instead

of judging the world based solely on sense perception, the imagination adds Scriptural

truths that give a clearer picture of what is actually happening. For example, Vanhoozer

notes that the church is one in Christ; that is the reality.6 Yet no one could tell this by

looking or listening. Instead, Scripture informs the imagination which helps Christians to

see this unseen truth, to interpret experience correctly. It is especially important for

Christianity given the unseen nature of God and the spiritual world. As Vanhoozer puts it,

“Could it not be that God has designed the imagination to be not merely a faculty of

fantasy—a means for seeing what is not there—but as a means for seeing what is there,

particularly when the senses alone are unable to observe it?”7 This concept can be traced

back through thinkers such as Epicurus and Augustine, but it avoids some of the extremes

of medieval ascetic application.

Finally, the imagination influences human behavior by presenting options for

the will to act upon. This is an emphasis picked up in Coleridge and especially

Kierkegaard, and runs directly counter to Calvin’s view. It also seems compatible with

Jonathan Edwards’s theology, which predates the Romantic Movement.8 Although the

language of imagination is not used, the concept is also reminiscent of Aristotle’s

Nicomachean Ethics, in which the person who would be virtuous must copy the example

6Ibid., 163-164.

7Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scriptures & Hermeneutics (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 36.

8Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, 2nd ed., The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 1, ed. Paul Ramsey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 143.

24

of virtuous people.9 Unless one is somehow constantly in the presence of the virtuous, the

imagination cannot be avoided. One must picture what a virtuous person would do in a

given situation—to ask himself something like the much-maligned “what would Jesus

do?”

Various Kinds of Imagination

One complicating factor in assessing Vanhoozer’s view of the imagination is

that he mentions multiple kinds of imagination, usually without relating them to one

another. Leaving aside mere characterizations such as forgetful, egotistical, anemic, and

atrophied, there are no less than twenty-one different imaginations besides the basic kind

listed between just Drama of Doctrine and Biblical Narrative: dramatic, historical,

cultural, social, creative, poetic, narrative, textual, contextual, metaphorical, theo-

dramatic, eschatological, schematizing, reproductive, literary, mediating, moral,

productive, utopian, intertexual, and aesthetic imagination.10 In other works, we also find

reference to the ontological imagination and the biblical-ontological imagination.11 These

various kinds of imagination appear to be common in current literature on the subject, so

Vanhoozer may assume some familiarity with the topic in his readers.12 For the

uninitiated, context helps to identify the nuances in these different terms.

9Aristotle, “Nicomachean Ethics,” in The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Edition, vol. 2, ed. Jonathan Barnes, trans. W. D. Ross and J. O. Urmson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 1807.

10In Biblical Narrative, Vanhoozer also interacts with a work called The Analogical Imagination. However, description is scarce and he does not seem to have adopted this category into his system as it appears to be an argument for some kind of religious pluralism (cf. Biblical Narrative, 158-70).

11In “Once More Into the Boarderlands,” Vanhoozer makes repeated reference to MacKinnon’s work on existential imagination without explaining what it is. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Once More Into the Boarderlands: The Way of Wisdom in Philosophy and Theology after the ‘Turn to Drama’ ” in Transcending Boundaries in Philosophy and Theology: Reason, Meaning and Experience, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Martin Warner (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007).

12Examples of this can be seen in various works on the imagination by Alison Searle, Garrett Green, and Paul Avis. Some helpful starting points are listed in the bibliography.

25

Ricoeur’s Imaginations in Vanhoozer’s Biblical Narrative

Vanhoozer derives many of his terms from Ricoeur—and through Ricoeur,

Kant. It is unclear just how much the discussion of imagination in Biblical Narrative

represents Vanhoozer’s own thought as the work’s purpose is to render intelligible

Ricoeur’s ideas.13 At very least Biblical Narrative provides context for Vanhoozer’s

theology of imagination; but it is also likely that it forms the very foundation of his

understanding. The reader will detect many similarities between this account and other

distinctions Vanhoozer makes in Drama of Doctrine.

Ricoeur’s system begins with a distinction between the productive and

reproductive imaginations. 14 The latter reproduces absent objects.15 It is image-based and

is essentially imitative in nature.16 The former produces new ideas in various forms—

many of which feed back into the imagination so that they are both source and product.17

The productive imagination is divided into creative imagination and

mediating imagination. Mediating imagination connects concepts with intuition.18

Creative imagination, on the other hand, is the power to dream up the possible.19 It is not

limited by what is currently understood or undertaken.20 As such, it is called a humanizing

capacity—a trait that distinguishes mankind from the animals.21

13Vanhoozer, Biblical Narrative, 3.

14The form of the following exposition was constructed intuitively based on scattered descriptions of relationships throughout the text. They have been arranged here for the sake of clarity.

15Vanhoozer, Biblical Narrative, 44.

16Ibid., 45, 47-48.

17Ibid., 44, 200.

18Ibid., 44.

19Ibid., 17.

20Ibid., 43-44.

21Ibid., 56.

26

Within the creative imagination are the schematizing imagination and the

symbolizing imagination. The former creates a schema or an interpretive framework for

understanding concepts.22 The latter produces symbols, uniting an idea with a signifier.23

The creative imagination can also be organized by medium, so to speak. When

the creative imagination deals with images, it is referred to as the aesthetic imagination.24

When it deals with words, it is the literary imagination.25

As if such distinctions were not meticulous enough, Ricoeur gives different

names to the applications of these powers, labeling them their own unique imaginative

faculties. Poetic imagination is a kind of literary imagination that creates verbal wholes

out of parts.26 It is a hybrid—a schematizing symbol—and it has no time reference.27

When time becomes an integral part of the poetic imagination, it loses its symbolic nature

and becomes narrative imagination.28 It is thoroughly schematizing and essentially

produces myth.29 This myth could be composed of either history or fiction.30 When

imagination is synthesizing meaning between two different texts—in the broadest sense

of that term—it becomes the intertextual imagination.31

22Ibid., 45-48.

23Ibid., 49.

24Ibid., 264.

25Ibid., 44.

26Ibid., 49, 93.

27Ibid., 49.

28Ibid., 46.

29Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, 284.

30Vanhoozer, Biblical Narrative, 86.

31Ibid., 200-01.

27

Finally, Vanhoozer references two other imaginations in Ricoeur’s work,

which we might think of as subjunctive for the sake of organization. These are products

of the creative imagination that deal with possible realities. One is the moral imagination,

which sees what ought to be; the other is the utopian imagination, which sees the best

possible social realities.32

Vanhoozer’s Imaginations in Drama of Doctrine and Other Works

Transitioning to Vanhoozer’s use of imagination in his own work, the terms

creative imagination, poetic imagination, and narrative imagination appear to be directly

borrowed from Ricoeur. They are referenced without significant alteration, and the rest of

Ricoeur’s system seems at very least compatible with Vanhoozer’s system in Drama.

Most of the kinds of imagination featured in Vanhoozer’s work may be neatly

grouped under the three reasons for the imagination’s significance listed at the outset of

this section: relating truths, revealing hidden realities, and influencing behavior.

In the first set, the textual imagination is responsible for discerning the

relationship between a whole and its parts.33 In some ways this might be likened to the

intertextual imagination of Ricoeur, and one could even conjecture a mutually-

schematizing function here. However, in Drama, this is contrasted with the contextual

imagination of the fitting response—which indicates that the term is probably not

intending to reference Ricoeur’s intertextual imagination so much as the text of Scripture,

which is understood at least on some level by relating whole to parts and parts to whole.

The metaphorical imagination, on the other hand, spots moral and theological

similarities between past and present.34 Keeping with the textual theme, it is creating a

32Ibid., 51, 107.

33Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, 308.

34Ibid., 317.

28

timeless symbol like Ricoeur’s poetic imagination, but has a unique focus on similarity.

In a sense, textual imagination discerns meaning in difference, and metaphorical discerns

meaning in commonality. Again, the terminology and imagery are rooted in biblical

studies, where the most important past is recorded in the Old and New Testaments.

Turning to the second set, we find a number of imaginations that help us grasp

unseen realities. On the most basic level, we find the ontological imagination which is

how we picture reality. Vanhoozer uses this to describe how our mental pictures of

molecular structures and atomic figures inform how we think about what is real.35 In

contrast to this sterile scientific picture, Vanhoozer offers two closely-related terms to

speak of reality as seen through the eyes of faith, as it were—both found in different

works.36 One he calls the biblical-ontological imagination, no doubt emphasizing the

nature of what exists in the present.37 The other he labels theo-dramatic imagination,

which plays an integral role in his theological method and is meant to evoke the extended

metaphor of drama and its relationship to life.38 This emphasizes the ethical and

contextual aspects of the world that is—yet one should be careful not to draw too firm a

distinction between the two. This clearly resembles Ricoeur’s narrative imagination.

Last but not least is the eschatological imagination, which pictures the reality

that will be.39 This reality is not only unseen but unreal in the present time; yet as a future

truth, it is intertwined with the present—mentioned in the same passage as the theo-

dramatic imagination.

35Vanhoozer, First Theology, 110.

36Vanhoozer does not use ontological imagination in opposition to biblical-ontological or theo-dramatic imaginations, but rather it is a more inclusive term for the same concept.

37Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 79.

38Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, 416.

39Ibid.

29

In actuality, the third “set” only encompasses one kind of imagination, which

has already been alluded to above. This is the contextual imagination, or the faculty that

“discerns the shape of a ‘fitting’ response.”40 It is the ethical aspect of imagination, a

reinterpretation of Ricoeur’s moral imagination again put into the language of biblical

studies. Having synthesized the meaning of the Bible via textual imagination and relating

it to the present via metaphorical imagination, all that remains is to contextualize the

truths of Scripture for our own situations.

A handful of imaginations do not fit neatly into the categories above. Yet if

one had to put them anywhere, they would probably fit best into the “unseen realities”

set. They are four kinds of imagination that put forth accounts of the world that could be

likened to narrative theology done from different perspectives. The first of these is the

social imagination, which is the collective imagination of society.41 The next is very

similar: cultural imagination—the story we believe and tell one another as a people.42

Both are collective imaginations, which have not yet surfaced as a type in this paper.

Though there is little written about it, the social imagination seems to emphasize the

faculty of collective imagining as opposed to the emphasis on the product found in

cultural imagination.

The remaining two could be likened to the two kinds of narrative imagination

mentioned in Ricoeur, history and fiction. While they are not perfect parallels and these

seem to emphasize the person imagining more than the product, the similarities are

obvious. One is dramatic imagination, which is the narrative as told by the director,

writer, and actors together.43 Unlike narrative imagination in Ricoeur, dramatic

40Ibid., 308.

41Ibid., 80.

42Ibid., 79-80.

43Ibid., 17.

30

imagination entails a visual element as well as a verbal one. The other imagination, and

the last variation in this study, is the historical imagination. This is the imagination of the

historian, the shaping of the events of history into a discrete narrative.44

All in all, this long list of imaginations is comprised of little more than

variations on a theme—helpful shorthand for discussing a wide range of applications for

the faculty Vanhoozer simply calls “synoptic vision.”

Defending Imagination

In the course of his work, Vanhoozer admits the existence of competing

definitions of the imagination like those explored above. He states that modern

philosophers see it as nothing more than rhetorical embellishment, that it is typically

thought to perceive things that are not there, and that it creates the impossible or

reproduces the absent. 45 However, he does nothing to defend it against detractors or

otherwise explain why his definition is better. While he could have argued using biblical

evidence, deductive or inductive reasoning, or even personal experience, the most

obvious choice given his method would have been historical church practice. Instead he

uses none of these, merely assuming his definition in the way a scientist might assume a

given aspect of his paradigm. One might even infer that the results are to be taken as

proof enough. If this is in fact the case, it only serves to heighten the crucial role

imagination plays in his theological method.

In his defense, the manner of his treatment is no different than anyone

surveyed in the history of the imagination. Scholars tend to hypothesize about how the

mind works and how the imagination fits into this, and much of it depends on other

aspects in their system and the way they choose to define terms. By identifying in the

44Ibid., 41.

45Ibid., 279-81.

31

history early forms of what would develop into Vanhoozer’s view of imagination, it is at

least possible to form an argument from tradition. Perhaps its explanatory power,

elegance, and internal consistency could be used to argue that it is a rational approach.

Other scholars have attempted to argue their views biblically; perhaps Vanhoozer has

found their work sufficiently persuasive or well-established in the theological community

that he feels no need to retread those paths. Whatever the case may be, his work on this

subject is defensible even if he has not opted to defend it.

Role of Imagination in Vanhoozer’s Method

If one accepts that imagination is more or less synthetic reasoning, there could

be no credible objection to its inclusion in theological method. Synthesis is a necessary

task of cognition no matter the faculty assigned to it. However, the way Vanhoozer

applies the imagination and especially the various kinds of imagination to his theological

method serves both to underscore the importance of synthesis in various contexts as well

as to validate the role of creativity and more artistic endeavors in theology.

The extended metaphor of theater that Vanhoozer especially adopts in Drama

of Doctrine emphasizes imagination as a key factor in theology, but imagination is at

least mentioned in passing in nearly all of his works. This should come as no surprise by

this point because imagination permeates every aspect of his method.

Imagination and Christian Thought

If theology is “faith seeking understanding,” synthesis is unquestionably a

significant part of the understanding one seeks. This faith could be characterized as a

picture of reality informed by the theo-dramatic imagination, the schema or narrative that

simultaneously makes sense of the world and must itself be made sense of. Imagination is

also involved in comprehending the sources of theology via textual and metaphorical

imaginations which relate parts to wholes and identifies continuity across time,

respectively. He says that the imagination is intrinsic to biblical interpretation for

32

understanding the human author, God’s timeless communique, and our proper present

response.46

Imagination in Christian Practice

Faith cannot truly be understood unless it results in practice, and here the

imagination finds what may be its most compelling application. For Vanhoozer,

imagination is required to live ancient biblical patterns in diverse contemporary

contexts—like an actor incarnating a role. Without imagination, theology becomes stale,

fixed, and rigid; activity becomes inauthentic. Furthermore, as doctrine loses touch with

context it ceases to reveal God’s Word accurately. The faith must be continually

reimagined—not reinvented as in more liberal schools of thought.47

Finally, as explained above in chapter 1, Vanhoozer claims that the product of

his canonical-linguistic method, which is the subject of the Drama of Doctrine, is a

healthy imagination. This imagination is explicitly defined in terms of its ability to make

Christian ethical judgments, which harkens back to Kierkegaard. It might be described as

the bridge between wise thinking and wise living, investing a lucidity and emotional

attachment that propels the will.

If Vanhoozer is right about imagination informing the will, then it could solve

the problem of many a pastor or teacher who finds in his care people who “know” the

truths of Scripture but fail at living in a distinctly Christian way. One explanation

Vanhoozer offers is that the imagination is captivated by non-Christian images. He says

that culture colonizes the imagination, feeding it a shared narrative that sometimes

46Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “On the Very Idea of a Theological System: An Essay in Aid of Triangulating Scripture, Church and World,” in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology, ed. A. T. B. McGowan. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 181.

47Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, 92.

33

conflicts with the biblical narrative.48 In fact, what makes a culture a cohesive social

group is the fact that its members share the same imaginative world.49 Relating this back

to speech-act theory, he writes, “Taking imagination captive is perhaps the ultimate

perlocutionary effect.”50 Thus the Christian apologist’s greatest obstacle is not the well-

structured unbelieving argument but an unbelieving culture forming unbelieving

imaginations.51 Vanhoozer points us back to the narrative and poetic elements of

Scripture that go beyond proposition to captivate the imagination christianly.52 This is not

to say that extra-biblical cultural texts have nothing of value to offer the faith, only that

they must be judged based on the morality of the effect it has on the will. As Vanhoozer

puts it, “What will it [this communicative act] do to us if we surrender our imagination to

its paths?”53

Invocation of the Imagination in Vanhoozer’s Writing Style

Because of this crucial connection between imagination and action,

Vanhoozer includes imagination in one additional facet of his work: its mode. His writing

style—which is sometimes criticized for being verbose—makes use of techniques that

attempt to excite the imagination in the reader.

On the most obvious level, I again point to the extended metaphor of theater

in his Drama of Doctrine. Unique to this work, Vanhoozer’s constant association of

48Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “What is Everyday Theology? How and Why Christians Should Read Culture,” in Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Charles A. Anderson, and Michael J. Sleasman (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 32.

49Vanhoozer, First Theology, 315.

50Vanhoozer, “What is Everyday Theology?” 52.

51Vanhoozer, First Theology, 346.

52Vanhoozer, “What is Everyday Theology?” 57-58.

53Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge, 10th anniversary ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 397.

34

theological concepts with dramatic conventions paints mental images of what are

otherwise abstract ideas. Without stating the point too strongly, these concrete images are

generally easier for the human mind to remember and process. Metaphors decorate the

terrain of all his work; he describes them as instances of the imagination making creative

connections.54 Of course, this insight is nothing new; good communicators have been

making use of figurative language for millennia; but Vanhoozer no doubt does this with

the awareness that capturing the reader’s imagination is crucial to the success of his

work.

Another imaginative tool Vanhoozer uses in his writing—perhaps more than

any other—is intertextuality. The reader will recall that he posits an intertexual

imagination that relates texts to one another, such as Old and New Testaments, for

example.55 All throughout his work he references cultural texts from Scripture, theology,

philosophy, and literature. This is not to be confused with the academic practice of citing

sources; intertextuality is allusion. It can be likened to the pervasive use of hypertext

online in which the words on the page not only convey meaning but invite you to explore

and import the content of related pages. To the novice, such a heavily saturated work can

be daunting or even indecipherable; the author’s writing demands much, although it is

also rich with suggestions for expanding the reader’s horizons. Yet the well-read,

cultured individual will recognize these allusions and the imagination will call to mind

the original text and context and begin synthesizing the present work with the referenced

external source.

Attention should also be drawn to his use of pun, which is closely related to

intertextuality. Vanhoozer frequently references familiar phrases only to add a slight twist

that appropriates the concept in a whole new way. One simple example is found in his

54Ibid., 129.

55Ibid., 132.

35

endorsement of Michael Horton’s systematic theology to be assessed below. He writes,

“May many readers therefore take up this book, read, and walk!”56 This combines Jesus’

command to the lame man to take up his mat and walk with the theme of Horton’s

theological work which is patterned after the imagery of a pilgrimage. In fact, perhaps

this type of word-play could be labeled an intertextual metaphor, combining two texts

under a single metaphor.

56Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011). Endorsement is found on the back cover, not a numbered page.

36

CHAPTER 4

EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL IMAGINATION TODAY

Thus far Vanhoozer’s concept of the imagination has been placed in a rough

sketch of the history of the imagination in scholarship, and its complex role in his

theological method has been explained. Before concluding this work, Vanhoozer’s

resulting method will be compared with that of three other contemporary evangelical

theologians in order to demonstrate what difference, if any, his conception of imagination

makes. Rather than attempting to analyze the theological method of each scholar as

exhaustively as with Vanhoozer, the following will survey their resulting works of

systematic theology.

The following analysis first accounts for any use of imagination as an explicit

theological concept. After discerning what role, if any, imagination plays in each method,

the texts will be examined for their accounts of those things which Vanhoozer expressly

relates to the imagination: first, the role of synthetic reasoning and creativity; second, the

nature of worldview with special emphasis on seeing the unseen; third, an account of how

knowledge informs the will and how theology is contextualized.1 In parting, the writing

style will be examined for imaginative techniques.

Stanley Grenz’s Theology for the Community of God

The oldest work of the three is Stanley Grenz’s 1994 systematic theology,

which follows the motif of community. Imagination plays no explicit role in his method,

1Creativity is one example of the imagination at work. It is included here in an attempt to broaden the search for any clues to each author’s views on imagination.

37

and he does not emphasize Scriptural propositions or narrative the way Grudem and

Horton do, respectively. However, of the three he has the most comprehensive account of

worldview.

Beginning with synthesis and creativity, Grenz states that reason is an

acceptable means to arriving at knowledge of God.2 Summarization is a central aspect of

systematic theology, and good systematic work “requires a valid and beneficial

integrative motif.”3 This motif could be described as essentially a work of creativity, but

he also says that theology is by nature analogous, representing relationships between

concepts rather than precise scaled-down models.4 While he may not have had the kind of

analogy in mind that is often associated with creativity, any worthy analogy is a creative

connection at its core.

Grenz’s emphasis on community leads to his emphasis on culture and

worldview. All revelation of God is mediated by experience and interpreted through a

person’s worldview.5 On the one hand, experience is a product of narrative.6 This implies

seeing oneself as part of a larger story, which is one place where Vanhoozer would point

to imagination. On the other, “the process of knowing and to some extent even

experience of the world can only occur within a conceptual framework mediated by the

social community in which a person participates.”7 Here the social community seems to

replace the imagination to some extent, providing the means to see-as. However, this is

2Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994), 58-59.

3Ibid., 6, 17.

4Ibid., 14.

5Ibid., 20.

6Ibid., 8.

7Ibid., 9.

38

not unlike Vanhoozer’s cultural imagination. Because of this, the worldview of the

Christian is informed by a faith commitment to see the world a certain way.8

The concept of “seeing the unseen” is not addressed in this work. He devotes

whole chapters to the existence of the unseen—God, angels, etc.—but makes no case for

the need to see them or the ability to see them. If faith chooses to see the world a certain

way, this could include a sense in which the invisible is painted into perception of reality.

Grenz emphasizes experience mediated through the symbolic and narratival, as well as

through sacred documents.9 All of these are capable of invoking imagination, although

Grenz draws no attention to this fact.

Given the contextual nature of receiving revelation and creating theology, it

will come as no surprise that Grenz is matter-of-fact about living out the faith.10 It is

impossible not to contextualize the faith. The core confessions of the faith are constantly

being articulated in new cultural paradigms.11 Of course, this is sometimes done

incorrectly, but the authority on the matter is Scripture properly interpreted. Again, it is

not hard to read imagination into the system, but Grenz does not do so.

When it comes to the process of converting knowledge into action, Grenz

tends to jump directly from instruction to action. Instruction brings maturity, and

theology itself ought to change lives but often does not.12 A unique aspect of his account

is to say that faith itself includes cognition, emotion, and volition alike—almost as

though he refuses to distinguish between knowing and doing.13 While Vanhoozer would

8Ibid., 11.

9Ibid., 9.

10Ibid., 8.

11Ibid., 15-16.

12Ibid., 6, 17.

13Ibid., 11.

39

agree that faith not lived is not faith at all and understanding not practiced is not true

understanding, he would still insist on the role imagination plays in translating

knowledge into action in order to validate faith and understanding.

Lastly, Grenz’s writing style is not particularly imaginative—perhaps the least

of those assessed in this paper. While it has many commendable qualities, it does not rely

upon the kinds of creative tools used in other works to evoke imagination, such as

metaphor, intertextuality, or the inclusion of hymns.

Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology

This popular evangelical text for lay people is difficult to compare with the

more academic Vanhoozer’s work. Not only does the theological imagination not arise

explicitly anywhere, but Grudem defines systematic theology as the collecting and

summarizing of only biblical passages relevant to the topic at hand.14 Thus the kind of

history, philosophy, and artistry that informs Drama of Doctrine is not explicitly taken

into account in Grudem’s work. This probably explains the short prolegomena, having

only seventeen pages of content if one excludes discussion questions, bibliography, etc.

Grudem does affirm the legitimacy of deductions made from the biblical text,

which presumably includes the deliverances of synthetic reason.15 Theology for Grudem

is essentially summarizing the testimony of Scripture, which is itself an act of synthesis.16

Creativity shows up in various contexts such as theology proper, anthropology, and

soteriology, but only in passing as a mode for knowing God. In theology proper and

anthropology it is a special activity man undertakes that demonstrates his likeness to the

14Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 21-22. He attributes this convention directly to the influence of John Frame, but he also argues that this is a common practice in evangelical theological circles.

15Ibid., 34.

16Ibid., 36.

40

God who created all things.17 In soteriology, it is a form of common grace—but this may

be more of an aesthetic claim about fallen man’s appreciation for beauty and ability to

create beautiful things.18 Creativity is given space at the table of method when Grudem

acknowledges the importance of analogy in attempting to understand God.19

Surprisingly, the concept of worldview appears to be totally untouched in

Systematic Theology. Perhaps this, too, can be chalked up to its biblical emphasis over

and above philosophical and apologetic concerns. However, regarding the ability to see

the unseen, he does have some interesting thoughts about reality being a matter of the

visible and invisible rather than natural and supernatural. He believes the latter distinction

is unhelpful and even potentially misleading.20 Reality is reality whether it is sensible or

not. Instead of discussing how the imagination adds the invisible elements of reality

described by Scripture to those apprehended by the senses, Grudem addresses the ways in

which the invisible actually become visible. Creation is a visible representation of the

invisible God, metaphorically speaking.21 The Holy Spirit sometimes produces visible

representations such as the dove descending at Christ’s baptism, or the tongues of fire

resting upon the apostles’ heads at Pentecost.22

Turning now to personal application in contextualization and propelling the

will, Grudem does not show any awareness of a need to bridge the gap between theory

and practice. Knowledge of God by itself seems sufficient to produce trust in him.23

17Ibid., 272, 447.

18Ibid., 661.

19Ibid., 188-89.

20Ibid., 1027.

21Ibid., 188-89.

22Ibid., 641.

23Ibid., 29.

41

Scripture makes us wise, but he does not attempt to explain how; doctrine is persuasive

for accomplishing change, but he does not say why.24 The closest he comes is when he

explains that the Holy Spirit produces feelings and desires.25 He also states that we

become Christ-like when we imitate him, but he does not address what accurate imitation

entails.26

Finally, his writing style is fairly unimaginative, relying only rarely on

analogy as a communicative tool.27 However, one unique imaginative aspect of Grudem’s

book is every chapter concludes with the lyrics to relevant hymns.

Michael Horton’s The Christian Faith

Another work of systematic theology is Horton’s Christian Faith, which was

released in 2011. It contains a unique blend of acceptance and rejection of Vanhoozer’s

views, although he does not explicitly interact with them often.28 The imagination is not a

significant theme in this work, but it does show up at a few key junctures: most notably,

he agrees that the Bible captivates the imagination, and that through this captivity it

motivates us to action.29

There is a strong dichotomy in Horton’s work between knowledge as sight

and knowledge as responding to the voice of God.30 On one hand this implies a rejection

of the way imagination is usually thought of as the image-maker, or at least a rejection of

24Ibid., 28.

25Ibid., 642-43.

26Ibid., 846.

27Ibid., 29.

28One example is found on Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 131. Here he references Vanhoozer’s extended discussion of speech-act theory. Other examples are on pages 199 and 208.

29Ibid., 19.

30Ibid., 49.

42

its importance in theology.31 Horton characterizes much of the history of theology as a

series of attempts to achieve a vision of the invisible God as he is, and this is a tradition

to be discarded.

This is not to say that Horton has no place for imagination in theology at all.

On the contrary, his antagonism to the metaphor of sight is balanced by his affinity for

the metaphor of narrative. “The dogma is the drama,” he says, quoting Sayers.32

Christianity is to be embraced as a narrative rather than an abstract system.33 This

narrative truth is related to life by doctrine—with no explicit role for imagination.34

He does not account for the process of synthetic reasoning, but acknowledges

that every academic discipline man undertakes requires integration.35 Creativity is also

not emphasized in his method, but he does note that theology is constrained by reality.36

Perhaps this is meant to counterbalance the liberal theological emphasis on subjectivity

which has loomed so large in the past few centuries. Even so, it would seem to mute

Vanhoozer’s—and more so Ricoeur’s—emphasis on the possible and the eschatological.

The imagination again plays no explicit role in the ability to see unseen truth.

We cannot understand God apart from analogy, which implies a role for imagination.37

Yet again, Horton would have us forswear attempts to see in favor of submitting to the

31Ibid., 81-84.

32Ibid., 13.

33Ibid., 14-19. I take it this is his point in distinguishing narrative from metanarrative—however potentially misleading his redefinition of the latter term may be. For Horton, Christianity should never be conceived of as something beyond narrative which is ultimately most true in its abstraction, but should be seen as the true narrative.

34Ibid., 21.

35Ibid., 27.

36Ibid., 30.

37Ibid., 54-55.

43

voice of the King.38 He discusses worldview and paradigms, but does not explain the role

of imagination in them.39 The Gospel is responsible for tuning our presuppositions;

perhaps added to the Bible’s ability to capture the imagination, one can infer a

connection.40

The emphasis in willing and accomplishing Christian behavior is still on

knowledge for Horton. To know truly is to not only think correctly, but to feel and do

correctly all in one simultaneous act.41 Mere imitation of Christ is not enough for Horton

because he worries that one can imitate without being changed at the essential level.42 The

metaphor he prefers here is that of the community theater which reenacts locally the

grand original performance found in Scripture.43 Here again he seems to be very much in

line with Vanhoozer’s conclusions, but without accounting for imagination in the

process.

This metaphor also serves as an example of his style. Like Vanhoozer, he

makes frequent use of metaphor in his writing—more so than Grudem. However, he

comes nowhere near the kind of intertextual metaphor that characterizes Vanhoozer’s

work.

Summary

Much of what Vanhoozer attributes to the imagination in theology is still

present in theological works that afford little to no recognition of its existence. Synthetic

38Ibid., 50.

39Ibid., 35.

40Ibid., 75.

41Ibid., 94-95.

42Ibid., 24.

43Ibid., 32.

44

reasoning is always assumed but never explained. In texts that deal with contextual or

philosophical issues, worldview is key and informed by faith, but the translation of belief

that the world is a certain way to seeing it a certain way is glossed over. Likewise, the

role of cognitive assent in changing behavior is always acknowledged, but the process of

how thought becomes action is rarely if ever fleshed out. At every turn the conclusions

appear to be very much the same, but the process is left alone.

At this point one might think that the preceding survey has vindicated neglect

of the imagination rather than its necessity, and depending on what one finds most

important in theology, it might be safe to do so. However, the compatibility of

Vanhoozer’s account of the imagination with these theological works at very least

indicates that there is room enough for inclusion. Yet the real insight that Vanhoozer’s

view adds to these is that these various components are related, and that tapping into the

imagination gives greater ability to aid reason, worldview, and application.

45

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

This work has argued for the value of Vanhoozer’s view of the imagination as

“synoptic vision” in evangelical theology, specifically because it bridges significant gaps

left by more rationalist theological methods. Among all the definitions of imagination

found in the history of Christian thought, Vanhoozer’s is consistent with Scripture and

reason and avoids pitfalls like those Maimonides mentioned—being out-of-touch with

reality or hostage to empirical evidence. Instead of promulgating unreality or mere

appearance, the synoptic vision provides access to that which is most real, a combination

of those things visible and invisible, seen and unseen.

In its application, Vanhoozer’s view of the imagination emphasizes the mind’s

ability to synthesize and the importance of that ability, making room for both creativity

and rationality in theology where there has often been imbalance. It connects this

emphasis on construction and synthesis with the essence of worldview, the way reality is

imaginatively interpreted by the light of faith. Finally, it points out the weakness between

correct thinking and correct action. By invoking the imagination, we invest thoughts with

emotion and propel them onward to the will where they will have the weight to make a

difference. By including synoptic vision in theological method, one does not necessarily

change its conclusions to any radical degree but dramatically improves its efficiency.

Those who adopt it will no doubt find a greater potential for impact.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

47

Primary Sources

Adam, A. K. M. et al. Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Kirk, J. Andrew, and Kevin J. Vanhoozer, eds. To Stake a Claim: Mission and the Western Crisis of Knowledge. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1999.

Marshall, I. Howard, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Stanley E. Porter. Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

Meadors, Gary T, ed. Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in Hermeneutics and Theology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Disputing about Words? Of Fallible Foundations and Modest Metanarratives.” In Christianity and the Postmodern Turn: Six Views. Edited by Myron Penner. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. First Theology: God, Scriptures & Hermeneutics. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. 10th anniversary ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Nothing Greater, Nothing Better: Theological Essays on the Love of God. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2001.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “On the Very Idea of a Theological System: An Essay in Aid of Triangulating Scripture, Church and World.” In Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology. Edited by A. T. B. McGowan. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Once More Into the Boarderlands: The Way of Wisdom in Philosophy and Theology after the ‘Turn to Drama.’ ” In Transcending Boundaries in Philosophy and Theology: Reason, Meaning and Experience. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Martin Warner. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007.

48

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Pilgrim’s Digress: Christian Thinking on and about the Post/Modern Way.” In Christianity and the Postmodern Turn: Six Views. Edited by Myron Penner. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Trinity in a Pluralistic Age: Theological Essays on Culture and Religion. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 1997.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “What is Everyday Theology? How and Why Christians Should Read Culture.” In Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Charles A. Anderson, and Michael J. Sleasman. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Craig G. Bartholomew, and Daniel J. Treier, eds. Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier, and N. T. Wright, eds. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Daniel J. Treier, and N. T. Wright, eds. Theological Interpretation of the New Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J., James K. A. Smith, and Bruce Ellis Benson, eds. Hermeneutics at the Crossroads. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2006.

Books

Anselm of Canterbury. “An Address (Proslogion).” In A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham, edited by Eugene R. Fairweather, translated by A. C. Pegis. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Aristotle. “Nicomachean Ethics.” In The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, Vol. 2. Edited by Jonathan Barnes. Translated by W. D. Ross and J. O. Urmson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.

Aristotle. “On the Soul.” In The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, Vol. 1. Edited by Jonathan Barnes. Translated by J. A. Smith. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.

Augustine. “Letters of St. Augustin.” In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

49

Avis, Paul. God and the Creative Imagination: Metaphor, Symbol and Myth in Religion and Theology. New York: Routledge, 1999.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.

Davies, J. G. The Theology of William Blake. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948.

DeWitt, Norman Wentworth. Epicurus and His Philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954.

Edwards, Jonathan. Freedom of the Will. 2nd. ed. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 1. Edited by Paul Ramsey. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.

Feuerbach, Ludwig. The Essence of Christianity. Translated by George Eliot. New York: Harper & Brothers Pub., 1957.

Glare, P. G. W., ed. Oxford Latin Dictionary, Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982.

Green, Garrett. Imagining God: Theology and the Religious Imagination. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989.

Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994.

Grimes, Ronald L. The Divine Imagination. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1972.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

Horton, Michael. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

John of the Cross. “The Ascent of Mount Carmel.” In The Collected Works of Saint John of the Cross. Rev. ed. Translated by Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriguez. Washington, DC: Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1991.

John of Damascus. “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.” In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Vol. 9. 2nd ed. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Translated by S. D. F. Salmond. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. 2nd ed. Translated by F. Max Mueller. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1907.

Kierkegaard, Soren. Practice in Christianity. Translated and edited by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.

Lewis, C. S. The Magician’s Nephew. New York: HarperCollins, 1994.

50

Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon, Vol. 2. Edited by Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968.

Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by A. S. Pringle-Pattison. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 5th ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2011.

Plato. “Republic.” In The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Edited by Vincent B. Leitch et al. Translated by Robin Waterfield. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2001.

Plato. “Theaetetus.” In Plato: Complete Works. Edited by John M. Cooper. Translated by M. J. Levett and Myles Burnyeat. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.

Pseudo-Clement. “The Recognitions of Clement.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers. 2nd ed. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Translated by Thomas Smith. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Searle, Alison. The Eyes of Your Heart: Literary and Theological Trajectories of Imagining Biblically. Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2008.

Stockitt, Robin. Imagination and the Playfulness of God: The Theological Implications of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s Definition of the Human Imagination. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

Thiel, John E. Imagination and Authority: Theological Authorship in the Modern Tradition. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1991.

Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae, Vol. 11: Man. Edited by John M. T. Barton and Victor Guazzelli. Translated by Timothy Suttor. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970.

Veninga, Jennifer Elisa. “Fictitious Worlds and Real Unrealities: The Aesthetic Imagination in Soren Kierkegaard and Hebert Marcuse.” In God’s Grandeur: The Arts and Imagination in Theology. Edited by David C. Robinson. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006.

Articles and Essays

Anonymous. “Christianity Today Book Awards 2006,” Christianity Today. June 2006.

Stafford, Tim. “The New Theologians.” Christianity Today. 8 February 1999.

51

Unpublished Works

Adamson, Peter. “Nothing to Fear: Epicureans on Death and the Gods.” History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps Web site. MP3 audio file. http://www. historyofphilosophy.net/sites/default/files/MP3/HoP 057 - Nothing to Fear – Epicureans on Death and the Gods.mp3 (accessed May 9, 2012).

Anonymous. “Kevin Vanhoozer, Ph.D.” Wheaton College Web site. http://wheaton.edu/ Academics/Faculty/V/Kevin-Vanhoozer (accessed July 8, 2012).

Dahl, Roald and David Seltzer. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. DVD. Directed by Mel Stuart. Burbank, CA: Warner Bros., 1971.

Donato, Chris. “Welcome Back Vanhoozer.” Trinity International University Web site. http://news.tiu.edu/2011/11/09/welcome-back-vanhoozer (accessed July 8, 2012).

Maimonides, Moses. The Guide for the Perplexed, 2nd ed. Translated by M. Friedlander. (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Calvin College, 1904), under “Book II, Chapter XXXVI,” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/maimonides/guide.vi. xxxvii.html (accessed May 10, 2012).