PLAYWRIGHTS, PROTAGONISTS, PRODUCERS, AND TRINITARIAN THEODRAMATICS
4.2 SCRIPTURE IN THE THEODRAMA: CURRENT PROPOSALS 1 Scripture as Script
Although some scholars construe Scripture as script simply because it seems appropriate within a theatrical model, others articulate specific reasons for using this model. First, just as most scripts present a unified plot and main theme, so does Scripture. If Scripture is a script, then it is not an inchoate collection of literature, but presents a coherent, unified story. For example, Kevin Vanhoozer asserts the plot of Scripture is covenantal and the main idea is the gospel embodied and enacted by Jesus Christ, the main character. Consequently, particular portions of Scripture must be interpreted in light of what Vanhoozer calls the whole “covenant-comedy of cosmic significance.”10
Second, if Scripture is a unified script, then it seems logical to posit the influence of a divine playwright. Scripture is the product of human authors, to be sure, but it is also the work of a divine playwright who communicates through human authors.11 As indicated in the previous chapter, theologians such as Balthasar and Vanhoozer recognize that God is a
10 Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, 53.
11 Again, Vanhoozer is representative of this view. Ibid., 272. Cf. Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology, 26, 478; Vanhoozer, “The Drama-of-Redemption Model,” 160.
dialogical playwright, enlisting the participation of others in creating the script and performing the theodrama, while remaining sovereign over the entire process.
A third motivation for viewing Scripture as a script is the importance of faithful performance—not just perception and understanding—of Scripture. Performing Scripture is not an afterthought, but the inevitable result and the means of interpreting the script.12 Shannon Craigo-Snell suggests that Scripture is in one sense incomplete unless it is performed, just like a theatrical script is incomplete if it remains inert ink on a page.13 Similarly, Allen Verhey suggests the Christian life in its totality is the performance of the biblical script, since God’s people perform Scripture “in the rhetoric and practices of the churches, in their theology and in their worship, in their ethics and in their politics.”14
Fourth, as the unified work of a divine playwright issuing in performance, Scripture as script demarcates the boundaries for faithful perception of and performance in the theodrama. Actors cannot ignore the intentions of the playwright or the way the theodrama is presented in Scripture, simply perceiving and performing in the theodrama as they please. The script demands to be understood and followed; it is not a mere suggestion. Nicholas Lash explains: “What we may not do, if it is this text which we are to continue to perform, is to tell a different story.”15 Or as Michael Horton observes, “Even to speak of intentionally departing from the script is to assume that the script is normative.”16
To claim the biblical script as normative, however, is a loaded statement open to a variety of interpretations. Indeed, most theologians emphasize a fifth element in construing Scripture as script, namely, the variety of interpretations and performances of Scripture. Sandra Schneider compares Scripture to a script with a plethora of potential realizations, and therefore recognizes the essential place of tradition, much like the performance traditions
12 In a chapter entitled “Scripture as Script: Playing our Part,” Eugene Peterson describes
interpreting Scripture as a process of inhabiting the world presented by the biblical script, a process in which understanding and participation are inseparable. Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 69.
13 Craigo-Snell, “Command Performance,” 490–91.
14 Allen Verhey, “Scripture as Script and as Scripted,” in Character Ethics and the New Testament:
Moral Dimensions of Scripture, ed. Robert L. Brawley (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), 19.
15 Or, to be more consistent with the metaphor, we cannot perform a different drama. Lash,
Theology on the Way to Emmaus, 44.
16 Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox
surrounding a particular theatrical script.17 In addition, both Craigo-Snell and Khovacs draw attention to the ongoing interpretation that occurs when a script is studied and performed in rehearsal, thereby cautioning against any final or supremely authoritative interpretations and performances of Scripture.18 Vanhoozer recognizes this inevitable diversity, but desires to maintain Scripture’s role as a norm for the proliferation of interpretative and performance traditions, a claim we will explore in connection with traditional theodramatics.19
Sixth, viewing Scripture as a script highlights the centrality of exegesis and studying the script. For example, Verhey asserts that exegesis and detailed study of Scripture as a script is absolutely crucial in order to understand the play, as long as understanding does not neglect performance as the main point of study.20 In other words, exegesis is not an end in itself, but must be oriented toward faithful performance in the theodrama today.
A seventh and final reason that Scripture as script is a compelling model for many is the communal nature of script interpretation and performance. An individual may have the responsibility to study and understand his or her part, but the process of understanding and performing a scripted play is almost always the work of an entire theatre company. Craigo- Snell acknowledges that interpretation and performance of the biblical script happens within the context of tradition, a community of believers, and society as a whole, a process in which everyone has different roles, gifts, and responsibilities.21 Likewise, Ron Martoia develops this metaphor at length, presenting Christian communities as places for creative conversations and interchanges regarding the meaning of the biblical script and how to perform it in particular contexts, a process resembling improvisation more than scripted performance.22
Before moving on to consider alternative proposals for the role of Scripture in the theodrama, it is important to consider the perspective of Walter Brueggemann, who refers to
17 Sandra Marie Schneiders, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 149–50.
18 Craigo-Snell, “Command Performance”; Khovacs, “Divine Reckoning in Profane Spaces,” 47– 48.
19 Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, 235–36.
20 Verhey, “Scripture as Script and as Scripted,” 25f. Cf. Allen Verhey, Remembering Jesus: Christian Community, Scripture, and the Moral Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 60–61. Vanhoozer defines exegesis as “the disciplined attempt to understand the theo-drama in its canonically scripted version” (Drama of Doctrine, 249) while being clear that exegesis is much more than “mastering information” about the script; it is an imaginative exercise oriented toward participation in the theodrama (Ibid., 285).
21 Craigo-Snell, “Command Performance,” 479.
22 Ron Martoia, The Bible as Improv: Seeing and Living the Script in New Ways (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2010). A general critique of this book is that it lacks consistency in applying the theatrical model, as the juxtaposition of “improv” and “script” in the title implies.
Scripture as script but gleans his metaphor more directly from social psychology than theatre.23 According to Brueggemann, everyone lives according to a social or cultural script
that guides our beliefs and behaviors. Since being scripted is inevitable, the most urgent task is to be formed by the right script: the biblical “counterdrama.”24 Scripture presents a script
for the counterdrama that subverts dominant cultural scripts and reforms our imaginations.25
Performing this script, however, is nothing like rote memorization and repetition, but an act of “guerilla theatre” involving endless “re-enactment, retelling, rehearsing, redescribing [and] reperformance” in new contexts.26 Scripture is not a “fixed, frozen” script, but a script
constantly reread and reinterpreted.27
This cursory glance at Brueggemann’s perspective on Scripture illustrates the extensive diversity among scholars construing Scripture as script. Some, such as Horton and Vanhoozer, emphasize Scripture as the scripted norm for understanding and performing the theodrama today. Others, like Craigo-Snell, Khovacs, and Brueggemann, employ the metaphor of Scripture as script to suggest the collaborative and continually changing process of performing Scripture in new situations. All of these scholars recognize both the unique place of Scripture as script in the Christian life and the role of communities in interpreting and performing that script in new and fresh ways. The difference, therefore, pertains more to what elements of the metaphor they choose to emphasize rather than their awareness of what the metaphor entails. In order to avoid the ambiguities and even confusion inherent in calling Scripture a script, we turn now to consider those who choose to modify the metaphor or abandon it completely.
23 At various points, Brueggemann acknowledges his debt to the theory of transactional analysis
and the work of Erving Goffman, Eric Berne, and Kenneth Burke, all influential in promoting sociological dramaturgy.
24 Brueggemann, The Bible and Postmodern Imagination, 57–91.
25 Walter Brueggemann, The Word That Redescribes the World: The Bible and Discipleship, ed. Patrick
D. Miller (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2006), 3f; Walter Brueggemann, “Counterscript: Living with the Elusive God,” Christian Century 122, no. 24 (2005): 22–28; Walter Brueggemann,
Interpretation and Obedience: From Faithful Reading to Faithful Living (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1991), 110.
26 Brueggemann, Ichabod Toward Home, 120.
27 Walter Brueggemann, The Book That Breathes New Life (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press,
4.2.2 Scripture as Non-Script and Partial Script
In an effort to highlight the improvisational nature of Christian ethics, Wells delineates several weaknesses of viewing Scripture as a script: Scripture does not provide all the answers for contemporary performance, encompass the whole theodrama, or present a golden era to emulate; rather, it leaves room for further discovery and improvisation.28 Because Wells desires consistency in applying improvisation as a model for Christian ethics, Scripture cannot function as a script, although it does reveal the theodrama in which we are improvising. Other theologians and ethicists take a similar position, such as David Cunningham, who calls Scripture “a diverse collection of material” informing Christian improvisation. Similarly, Hauerwas describes Scripture as “the definitive story of God’s way with the world,” but not a story structured like a script.29 In addition, William Spohn insists that Scripture is not a script that gives specific lines and dialogue to enact, but a collection of paradigms with potential to train our imaginations and dispositions for fitting performance.30 Furthermore, Ben Witherington rejects the script metaphor because Scripture is more like testimony to a play already performed rather than a script for a future performance, and proceeds to critique the theatrical model for biblical studies and theology as a whole.31 Among those interested in a theatrical model, therefore, the metaphors of Scripture as script and the Christian life as improvisation seem difficult to reconcile. If participation in the theodrama involves improvisation, then surely Scripture cannot be a script. But if Scripture is not a script, then how does it relate to the Christian life, and why is it necessary?
One way to answer this question is to present Scripture as an unfinished or partial script forming the basis for improvisation. Tom Wright was the original advocate of this position, claiming that Scripture comprises four Acts of a five-Act play, leaving the church responsible to improvise the fifth and final Act in a way consistent both with previous Acts and the prophesied end of the play.32 Consequently, Wright speaks of improvising with a partial
28 Wells, Improvisation, 62–63.
29 David S. Cunningham, Christian Ethics: The End of the Law (Milton Park/New York: Routledge, 2008), 99; Hauerwas, Performing the Faith, 93–94.
30 Spohn, Go and Do Likewise, 135, 154.
31 Ben Witherington, The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the New Testament: The Collective Witness, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: IVP Academic, 2010), 50–51, 438. Ironically, despite this critique, Witherington continues to refer to theatrical improvisation as a model for Christian living.
32 Wright, “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?”; Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 43; Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God, 121–27.
script, and thus shares concerns for the primacy and authority of the biblical script while leaving room for improvisation pursued with “innovation and consistency.”33 Because of his firm commitment to the authority of Scripture, Wright claims regarding Christian living: “No actor, no company, is free to improvise scenes from another play, or one with a different ending.”34 Within this framework, however, there is ample room for creative and innovative performances.35
Kevin Vanhoozer develops a related model, acknowledging his debt to Wright and weaving together the notion of Scripture as script and the Christian life as improvisation. In more recent work, however, Vanhoozer has attempted to clarify his position on Scripture as a script, given the potentially confusing notion of improvising from a script. Even though he still identifies Scripture as a script, he explains that Christians do not actually perform the scripted discourse, but “the theodrama it describes and enacts” or the world the script “presupposes, entails, and implies.”36 Attention to the script is pivotal, but the purpose is not to perform specific lines, but to improvise faithfully in the world the script projects. Vanhoozer’s modified position, therefore, is a variation on Wright’s suggestion that Scripture is a partial script on the basis of which Christians improvise.37 With all of these qualifications, however, is it still helpful to conceive of Scripture as a script? Does Scripture function enough like a script to maintain this metaphor? And if not, is there another model we could employ that maintains the priority of Scripture and other positive elements of the script metaphor while appropriately emphasizing the improvisational nature of interpretation and Christian living?