"Is There a Meaning in this Text?", Conclusion

The conclusion to Vanhoozer's tome answers the question, "What is Vanhoozer doing in this text?"

First, Vanhoozer sought to uncover the philosophical and theological presuppositions of contemporary debates around language, texts, signs, etc. These should be placed on the table and acknowledged. Vanhoozer's own theological presupposition is Trinitarian theology, which he believes is the necessary condition in order to experience meaningful communication. "Speaker (Father), Word (Son), and reception (Spirit) are all interrelated" (456). God's trinitarian communicative action is the "paradigm" for our own communicating. Interpretation is the reception of the author's intention. And there is always interpretation because one cannot live suspicion.

The text, the communicated action of an author with an intention, illocution (force), and efficacy (result) is more like a person than a thing. This is because the words communicated are icons of the speaker. So, the reader is to recognize the face of the other in the text other than their own. Vanhoozer then lays out the sins of interpretation: pride and sloth. The one sees the face of the reader; the other forgoes the hard work of seeing the face of the other. In their place must be humility and conviction: humility and conviction combine to say there is an other to discern, but that the reader may not be able to exhaust this meaning on their own and that reaching understanding is easy.

But Vanhoozer closes not with standing (conviction) or understanding (interpretation), but with following. The final move of the reader is to follow the Text, shaped by the Word and obedient to its call.