"Is There a Meaning in This Text?", Part II

We now enter into Part II of Vanhoozer's tome, "Is There a Meaning in this Text?" Let me begin with a recap. Part I examines how all participants in the act of reading are deconstructable.
> The author is no longer in control of the text because language is her only means of communication and language is fluid. Further, the author has already been shaped by this fluid language that is an interrelation of signs that refer to nothing beyond themselves. Her intentions are subconscious and not necessary to understanding...

> The book is not a complete whole because the whole world is an interpretation and hence understanding is always progressing and interrelated. Texts are thus separated from their authors, but cannot stand on their own, but require...

> The reader, finally, is in a similar position as the author, without the stability of their own ability to read outside cultural values, linguistically formed. There is no position above the text from which to read; nothing behind the text to guide interpretation. There is only the text and that is all there is. But this text, as noted, is not complete and it does not stand on its own. The reader and text enter into mutual relations that leave no determinant meaning.

So, in light of this contemporary situation, is there a meaning in this text? Vanhoozer argues yes, there is!, and bases this position on an unapologetic theological claim that "God communicates with others ('In the beginning was the Word') and that humans, created in God's image, are likewise communicative agents" (198-99). "The triune God is communicative agent (Father/author), action (Word/text), and result (Spirit/power of reception)" (199). Vanhoozer argues against the above contemporary philosophical hermeneutics theologically because it is based on a theological mistake.