Amazon.com: The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age: 9780664246181: George A. Lindbeck: Books
The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age Underlining Edition
by George A. Lindbeck (Author)
4.6 out of 5 stars 32 ratings
Product details
Publisher : Westminster John Knox Press; Underlining edition (January 1, 1984)
Language : English
Paperback : 142 pages
Customer reviews
4.6 out of 5 stars
----
Top reviews from the United States
Michael
4.0 out of 5 stars Cognitive Propositional!
Reviewed in the United States on December 4, 2011
Verified Purchase
Lindbeck categorizes doctrine as one of the following three:
Cognitive Propositional. This is the understanding that doctrines make truth claims about objective reality. Propositionalism finds certitude in Scripture and emphasizes the cognitive aspect of faith and religion. This has been the traditional approach of Orthodox Christian belief. Synthesizing these Scriptural truths and doctrines is also a part of this method. Thinkers in this group remain critical of post-foundational approaches.
Experiential Expressive. This method, which emphasizes religious feeling, was thought to have found universal objectivity for religious truth. While it was presupposed that all religious feeling had a common core experience, it was discovered that there was no clear evidence that this was the case. Further difficulty with this approach was found in specifying distinctive features of religious feeling, such that “the assertion of commonality becomes logically and empirically vacuous” (18).
Cultural Linguistic. This is Lindbeck's method. It's design is ecumenically minded but has fostered a larger discussion pertaining to its use in theological method. At the risk of sounding too reductionistic it might be said that this alternative seeks to understand religion as a culture or a semiotic language. Religion shapes the entirety of life, not just cognitive or emotional dimensions. A religion is a “comprehensive scheme or story used to structure all dimensions of existence” (21). And “its vocabulary of symbols and its syntax may be used for many purposes, only one of which is the formulation of statements about reality. Thus while a religion's truth claims are often of the utmost importance to it (as in the case of Christianity), it is, nevertheless, the conceptual vocabulary and the syntax or inner logic which determine the kinds of truth claims the religion can make” (21).
In terms of measuring religions for truth, categorical truth is what is to be accepted, which may or may not correspond to reality (37). Truth, in this regard, is what is meaningful (34). Lindbeck uses a map metaphor in which the knowledge provided by the map is only “constitutive of a true proposition when it guides the traveler rightly” (38). This dynamic understanding of truth is not answerable to static propositional truth claims. Religioin must be utilized correctly to provide ontology, or meaning (38).
The possibility of salvation as solus Christus is said to conform to this approach. “One must, in other words, learn the language of faith before one can know enough about its message knowingly to reject it and thus be lost” (45). Lindbeck has in mind here fides ex audit and envisions a post-mortem offer of salvation.
In readdressing propositional truth, it is said that religious sentences have first-order or ontological truth or falsity only in determinate settings (54; recall the map metaphor). Understood in this way, the Cultural Linguistic approach proves to successfully supply categorical, symbolic, and propositional truths.
Rule Theory maintains that what is “abiding and doctrinally significant” about religion is not found in inner experience or their propositional truth, but “in the story it tells and in the grammar that informs the way the story is told and used” (66). In order to make sense of religious experiences they must be interpreted within an entire comprehensive framework.
Lindbeck presents a softer view of doctrine, which is less truth-claiming, and more about community rules. Doctrines, thus, may be reversible or irreversible, unconditional or conditional, temporary or permanent.
Read less
8 people found this helpful
---
Rev. Ron Hooker (Yale Graduate)
5.0 out of 5 stars The Nature of Doctrine
Reviewed in the United States on May 2, 2014
Verified Purchase
Professor Lindbeck's timeless work is experiencing a bit of a revival. It is a great book for
well-educated Clergy and Lay Scholars. I was fortunate to have had him as a Professor. He was one of most outstanding at Yale. I shall always be thankful that for three decades,
I was able to read and re-read this great book! Rev. Ron Hooker (Yale Graduate)
Not often is such a great Reformation Scholar, Professor, and Faithful Christian, to be
found in one person. He is one of the last Vatican II Official Observers still living.
2 people found this helpful
---
Ben Kickert
5.0 out of 5 stars Postliberal approach to religion and theology
Reviewed in the United States on December 10, 2008
Verified Purchase
Ben Kickert. Review of George A Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion Theology in a Postliberal Age (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1984).
In 1984 George A. Lindbeck presented a new approach to viewing religion and doctrine in his book The Nature of Doctrine. As the subtitled indicates, it was his desire to provide a "framework for discussion" (10) that was compatible with the emerging postliberal movement. What he came up with is non-theological approach that advocates a cultural-linguistic view of religion and a rules-based understanding of doctrine. He then evaluates his proposal in light of various test cases. This review will assess the usefulness of this approach and evaluate the book as a whole.
The author makes his personal religious convictions clear. He is a Christian, with a great interest in unity in the midst of diversity (7-8). He wants to be able to adequately address not only divergent beliefs, but the dynamic nature of beliefs (9). In order to do this, he calls for a paradigm shift on behalf of theologians and students of religion (8). Lindbeck admits the approach he lays out is mostly theoretical, but invites others to evaluate it (11). The book is laid out in 6 chapters. The first serves as an introduction while chapters 2-3 address the cultural-linguistic approach. Chapters 4-5 deal with rules theory of doctrine while chapter 6 outlines a larger theological framework.
In his introductory chapter, Lindbeck critiques the approaches to religion that were dominant in his day. He describes two major methods: the cognitive and the experiential-expressive. The former focuses on truth claims as the primary determinate of religion while the later uses experiences. The author also looks at a third approach that seeks to synthesize these two. In light of his goal, the author rejects these and turns instead to an understanding that views religion in terms similar to culture or language. He expands this discussion in chapter 2 and argues for the superiority of a cultural-linguistic approach. The non-theological framework he presents contends that like culture "religions produce experience" (33) rather than being the explainer of experience. Furthermore, like language, it must be learned and interiorized; only then can a person full participate through expression and experience (35-37). This is a complete reversal of the experiential-expressive model. Chapter 4 evaluates whether this non-theological theory of religion can be religiously useful by looking at the concept of superiority of religions, their interrelationship, salvation for non-adherents and the overarching concepts of religious truth. The author concludes a superior religion is categorically true, rightly utilized, and corresponds to ultimate reality (52). From here religions can regard themselves as different without judging superiority. In regards to the salvation question, Lindbeck take a universalist approach.
Chapter 4 moves to the issue of doctrine within religions. It is here the author lays out his approach. He contends, "a rule theory not only is doctrinally possible but has advantages over other positions" (73). The result is a view of doctrine that operates like grammatical rules rather than absolute faith statements. This allows for differences within religions and between religions to stand without the need to reconcile them. This theory is tested in chapter 5 by evaluating three contentious issues: Christology, Mariology and Infallibility. He concludes what matters is not conclusions, but rather what lies behind them; this provides reconcilement for the first two issues, but not the later. For the author, a rules based approach to doctrine is best utilized in relation to behavioral requirements.
The final chapter of this book serves to place cultural-linguistic theory and a rules-based approach to doctrine within the larger framework by evaluating their implications. These views push for an intra-systemic (or intra-textual) approach to meaning wherein the religion gives meaning rather than describes meaning. Within this system, religious text are formative within the communities that adapt them. Religions and sacred texts hold the power to shape communities. This, the author concludes, is a necessary part of the wider society and culture. Lindbeck is essentially arguing for a relativistic view of religions while advocating religious communities resist relativism so they can teach the culture and language of religion. His ultimate conclusion is that the theories he has presented in his book are valuable, but in the end each religion must be true to its roots and message.
In evaluating Lindbeck's proposal, the first issue that must be considered is his approach. He is clear in pointing out that his theory is non-theological. As such, his primary purpose is not to provide a tool for Christians to evaluate their belief systems. Instead, it is his desire to offer a theory of religion that allows an observer to judge and understand a system of beliefs entirely on their own merit. Therefore, before any judgment can be made on conclusions, this method should be evaluated. Since the author is clearly writing from a Christian perspective, one could expect a theory that supports the claims of orthodox Christianity. This book does not set, nor achieve this goal. Lindbeck is much more concerned about unity than about orthodoxy. However, from a non-theistic approach to understanding religion, the approach the author employs is exceedingly useful and relevant.
The primary advantage of Lindbeck's approach to religion lies in its ability to study and evaluate religions intra-systemically without having to evaluate ontological correctness. In effect, each religion can stand alone and be evaluated on it own merits. This is extremely helpful when viewing faith systems objectively, especially from an anthropological viewpoint. In addition to providing a non-judgmental way to evaluate religions, the cultural-linguistic articulated in this book provides fresh insight and perspective on the role religion plays in communal formation and spiritual development. It is certainly important to ask questions about how experiences can be explained through religion, but just as important is an understanding of how religions shapes and informs those experiences. This framework allows individuals to better appreciate the contributions and unique features of a religion. Additionally, the rules based approach to doctrine allows for the dynamicity apparent in most religions. Rather than seek to reconcile transitions, Lindbeck's approach embraces these.
The Nature of Doctrine is not without its limits and shortcomings. In emphasizing ecumenical and interfaith unity, the book has lost some of its value for evaluating and informing traditional, orthodox theologies. For instance, the universalism he argues for is outside the scope of orthodoxy for many evangelical traditions. It could be argued that Lindbeck misses the goal of being religiously useful. This is perhaps most apparent in the concluding chapter; here the author admits his framework explains the assimilation process, but does little to convince those who "share in the intellectual high cultural" (124). In effect, he is concluding cultural-linguistic theory and rules theory of doctrine can explain religions, but may not bolster them. A final shortcoming of the books is one readily admitted to by the author. At the time of it's writing the approach presented was largely untested and thus relied heavily on theory. It is almost as if Lindbeck was throwing out an idea for others to try. Considering the brevity of the book, it seems a more thorough treatment would have possible and useful.
The contributions of Lindbeck cannot be overlooked and should be applauded. The ideas outlined in the pages of this book continue to reverberate 24 years later. The lens the author provides his readers is innovative and practical; however, its practicality is primarily found in external evaluations of religion. One could assume that Lindbeck expected his theories to have been accepted or rejected by this point in history. However, the tension still remains between modern (especially evangelical) thinkers and postmoderns (or postliberals as Lindbeck calls them). Where ever a person falls on that continuum, they would be well served to join the discussion spurred by this book. We may not agree, but hopefully we can better understand each other.
Read less
13 people found this helpful
---
Translate all reviews to English
Jim Harries
5.0 out of 5 stars Cultural-Linguistic models to guide the church
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on August 22, 2016
Verified Purchase
Serving the church in Zambia (1988-1991) I found myself on a steep learning curve. I had to unlearn much that I had previously thought I understood about Africa while I was still in the UK. I resisted doing so then. I have continued to resist doing so since then, having lived in Kenya from 1993. Something deep in my Western upbringing tells me that African people CANNOT BE as different from ‘us Westerners’ as they appear to be.
My battle to discover and to confirm same-ness has not yet ended. One reason it has yet to end, is because of never-ending ways in which it is presupposed. It seems that almost everything that the West does in Africa (well, the parts of Africa with which I am familiar) tries to assume that African people are no different from them. Just as constantly, the above is found to be not-true, resulting in lies, concealment of truth, corruption, ongoing poverty, outside dependency. An individual missionary has to deal with this concealing of truth. They can be forced into denial of what is being observed, latent depression as things do not work as they should, or to being at loggerheads with accepted Western wisdom.
George A. Lindbeck dares go where few tread. His short book The Nature of Doctrine has received wide attention, and been widely criticised. Critics have had three reservations in particular, Marshall tells us: 1. Lindbeck fails to sufficiently support Christian belief, or reason itself. 2. Lindbeck proposes a withdrawal of the church into a ghetto. 3. Lindbeck’s bowing to postmodern relativism has him deny the objectivity of truth.
Lindbeck’s primary concern is ecumenical unity. In pursuit of that unity, he endeavours to unearth the otherwise intangible reasons moderns struggle to accommodate difference. Traditionally, Christian doctrines are considered cognitively to be propositional truths, Lindbeck tells us. That is, Christians, especially theologians, make propositions about truth on the basis that those truths are already established in the spiritual realm. Hence Catholics declare that the bread of the Holy Communion turns into the body of Christ. Protestants deny this. It would seem on this basis that a prerequisite to ecumenical unity is capitulation by one side. How come, then, that some unity is being achieved, for example between Catholics and Lutherans, Lindbeck asks (127)?
An alternative basis for unity arises from contemporary understanding of doctrines as founded in experiential-expressiveness. This founds unity within the common heart of humanity. Because God is actually one, so the argument goes, religions’ efforts at reaching him are merely an inadequate grasping of one truth. Doctrines are symbols that help people to express their deep yearnings. According to these theorists, apparent differences between doctrines among Christian denominations, and even between ‘religions’ like Islam and Hinduism could be resolved if one were only to realise this. This dominant contemporary understanding is “logically and empirically vacuous” Lindbeck tells us (18). No wonder some inter-religious and ecumenical discussions go around in circles.
The cognitive approach that founds itself in propositions, and theories based on experiential-expressiveness, dominate theology. Other disciplines in today’s world run on a third, the cultural-linguistic, approach. For Lindbeck, the failure to take this latter seriously is what is bringing the church into a ghetto. Interaction, as a result, between theologically related disciplines and the university are minimal; the two are seen as mutually inimical. But, explains Lindbeck, taking the cultural-linguistic approach seriously could explain what is happening and enable ecumenical progress in today’s world. That is to say, variations in doctrine are responses to contexts in which the church finds itself. When the context changes, then clearly different responses are required in order to communicate the same truths. One-size declaration does not fit all, shall we say.
Two things at least have me agree with Lindbeck. One is a foundational question; why did anthropology and theology part ways? Anthropology (coming from the biblical Greek term anthropos) has roots in Christian theology. In recent centuries, anthropology has been adversarial to theology. Many in the contemporary world might see anthropology, and secularism in general to be ‘winning’, and the church to be ‘losing’. Rejection by the church of contemporary linguistics and anthropology, Lindbeck states (this is in my own words) has been a rejection of reason, for which the church is suffering.
I see the above in sharper focus as a Christian theologian engaging indigenous African Christianity. That brings me ecumenical challenges somewhat like those faced by Lindbeck. When western theologians behave like juggernauts determined to ignore African particularisms, I acquire empathy with Lindbeck! The above juggernauts choose to ignore language and to ignore culture, thinking that our common humanity gives us sufficient basis for clear communication, which in practice is always the West communicating their pearls of wisdom using Western languages, requiring Africans to ‘adjust’ this wisdom to their context. (It is rather telling that the reverse does not happen.) At the same time that this goes on, a clearly recognised divide continues, centuries on, between White and Black churches even within the USA, right in the heart of the West itself. This vision of cultural superiority enabling open communication is primarily forced by Western hegemony achieved on the back of superior economy.
“Locating … the constant … in a religion … [in] inner experience … result[s] in the identification of the normative form of the religion with either the truth claims or the experiences appropriate to a particular world … [e.g.] Florida” states Lindbeck (70). In so doing, he identifies the abiding ‘sin’ of Western theologians reaching Africa: they end up communicating not the God of the Scriptures, but their home culture. To not-do-so requires use of appropriate categories, hence as pre-requisite, a grasp of indigenous culture, plus use of languages that make sense of that culture. To do this, frankly, as a further pre-requisite, requires a theologian to avoid forcing their agenda using outside funding.
I do consider Lindbeck to be misguided to consider non-Christian traditions to be ‘religions’. His own articulation is clearly and deeply rooted in Christian texts, history and tradition, so why assume it transfers to Islam or Hinduism? Lindbeck’s world, deeply rooted in discussions in Vatican II, now more than 50 years in the past, is rather different from my world in contemporary Africa. Yet the truths he identifies as means for understanding of doctrines that may rescue faith in Jesus from scholarly isolationism and Western imperialism have profound relevance to inter-cultural communication in contemporary times. What Lindbeck is talking about, is the need for contextualised theology.
Read less
3 people found this helpful
----
5.0 out of 5 stars The Nature of Doctrine
Reviewed in Brazil on March 21, 2017
Verified Purchase
Reflexão relevante. O assunto é pertinente e atual. Recomendo também a leitura de "A Gênese da Doutrina" de Alister McGrath.
One person found this helpful
Report abuse
Translate review to English
Young bae Son
5.0 out of 5 stars Good
Reviewed in Australia on November 12, 2015
Verified Purchase
Ono of best basic book for theology...
Report abuse
See all reviews
==
Sep 11, 2018David rated it really liked it
Shelves: theology
This was a pretty heavy book. Not literally heavy, as its only 120 pages. It was a slow-going and challenging read. And it has been very influential in theology for the last few decades. Lindbeck puts forth a "post-liberal" view of theology. He discusses two different approaches to theology. First is the cognitive one, with a focus on propositional truth and ideas. This would be the conservative or even fundamentalist view: the Bible provides data from which we formulate our beliefs about God. Speaking of which, growing up conservative, this would be my background. I've read a bit of "post-conservative" theology in the past, but Lindbeck is the first post-liberal I've read (though I've seen this work mentioned).
Anyway, the second approach is the emotive-expressivist (if I recall the name right, the book is in my basement right now and I don't feel like retrieving it!). This is the view that roots theology in experiences of God. All humans have a feeling of dependence on something beyond, something transcendent. This view often then emphasizes similarities in religions because people across cultures have similar experiences.
Lindbeck puts forth a cultural-linguist understanding where theology functions more like grammar. Essentially, theology takes place locally and contextually. We cannot assume all religious experiences are the same, for all take place in cultures and religions that explain them differently. To learn theology is not to read some propositions either. Instead you must live in the community. Thus, there may be those who practice faith well but cannot necessarily articulate theology; just as some read well but don't know how to explain the rules of grammar. Lindbeck dives into a lot from this, from inter-denomination discussions to inter-religious ones.
Overall, this is a challenging and good book for those interested in theology. I want to go back to my shelf and look up some of the references to Lindbeck. I deeply resonate with a different way of doing theology than the old conservative/liberal dichotomy. If you do too, then check this one out. (less)
flag4 likes · Like · comment · see review
Kendall Davis
Nov 27, 2019Kendall Davis rated it really liked it
I found Lindbeck's description of doctrine as akin to language and grammar compelling and potentially productive for Christian thought. I especially appreciated his breakdown of the propositionalist model, the expressivist model, and the postliberal model. This comparison was extremely helpful and enlightening.
I'm not so sure he fully delivered on everything that he seems to set out to do, particularly with regard to some of his eccumenical concerns, but I'm not as familiar with these sorts of conversations. (less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Jeff
Jan 24, 2018Jeff rated it it was amazing
I found this book among the most helpful I've read on post-liberal/narrative theology which is based on a cultural-linguistic understanding of religion. Very clearly articulated, Lindbeck is able to state his case so that those not particularly well-versed in philosophy and/or theology are able to follow the flow of his argument. That's a skill not shared by many theologians. Lindbeck presents narrative theology as a faithful alternative to the problematic cognitive/propositional (conservative) and experiential-expressive/ (liberal) theories of religion and doctrine. A most worthwhile read for those interested in this sort of thing. (less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Dr Bruce
Jan 23, 2019Dr Bruce rated it it was amazing
George Lindbeck graduated with a B.D. from Yale University in 1946. He had completed his doctorate in 1955 and had already served on the faculty of Yale Divinity School for several years. Lindbeck’s work had predominately been around theology and philosophy until he served as an official Lutheran observer for the Second Vatican Council. After serving as an observer for the council, Lindbeck’s work transitioned to ecumenical matters. In The Nature of Doctrine Lindbeck argues that the best way for religions to be evaluated in regard to truth, in an attempt to create dialogue between opposing religions, is to employ the cultural-linguistic method to analyze their truth claims.
Lindbeck’s work is scholarly and requires a fairly high comprehension level of its reader. Lindbeck appears to be writing to theological students at the university level or nontheological readers with higher educational backgrounds. The book is formulated from a series of lectures that Lindbeck delivered in 1974 at Gonzaga University which seems to support the intended audience having a scholarly background. The work is presented in a logical and comprehensive manner, but the extensive vocabulary of theological and Latin phrases requires a background in theological study.
This was one of the most challenging and rewarding books I have read in regard to dealing with assigning propositional and ontological truth to concepts and doctrine. Lindbeck identifies the three predominant methodologies to interpreting truth in theological issues, and introduces a fourth that he advocates, as: 1) classic-propositional, 2) experiential-expressive, 3) the two-dimensional (cognitive-experiential) of Roman Catholicism and 4) Lindbeck’s cultural-linguistic approach. Classic-propositional is the fundamentalist or conservative (literal) approach to everything theological and doctrinal. Traditional orthodoxy would adhere to the classic-propositional approach. Experiential-expressive is the approach of liberalism. This approach focuses on the experiences a person has within a faith community. Experiential could be defined as metaphysical and existential. The two-dimensional approach seeks to use both propositional truths and faith experiences to analyze the truthfulness of a doctrine or proposition. Finally, Lindbeck introduces his cultural-linguistic approach that pursues religions as linguistic in nature.
Initially, I was somewhat confused by Lindbeck’s assumption that religion could be evaluated using a linguistic regulatory method to assign truthfulness to religions based on the cultures where they were established. However, as he began inductively presenting the case over the six chapters and afterwards of the book I began to agree with Lindbeck’s conclusion of its ability, both of theological and nontheological religious studies, to determine the reliability of the truthfulness of religious beliefs within a stated faith. Ultimately, Lindbeck was not defining truth as propositional truth, like that of God’s sovereignty or salvation in Christ alone, but rather if the statements were fundamentally true with regard to intratextuality of a faith’s Holy writ. Lindbeck, true to the lectures from which the work was derived, builds with each chapter the ability to use cultural-linguistic methodology over increasingly deeper doctrinal statements. For instance, he begins with an abject example, i.e. “The car is red.” to demonstrate how this methodological approach works and culminates with assigning propositional and ontological truths as well as their applications on topics as theological stepped as Nicaea and Chalcedon.
The greatest analogy within the text is the comparative analogy of religion to language. He profoundly defends this analogous relationship throughout the entirety of the text. For instance, how can two religions have a constructive dialogue if they are speaking two different languages? It should be noted, Lindbeck is writing from a Christian perspective concerning a method that he argues can be transferrable to all religions and fields of study. If we are going to have constructive conversations with others, we must at least begin by understanding the languages we are speaking. Lindbeck argues, and I agree, that if solus Christus is a propositional truth we must engage others in their language with the hopes that the Holy Spirit will open their eyes and ears to the one true language, Christ.
Finally, the cultural-linguistic approach to the Nature of Doctrine simply asks the theological student to consider the cultural and environmental factors that are involved in a religion’s statements of faith. If someone of another faith is living out the truth found in the intratextuality of the faith’s Holy writ. they are essentially living out truth, just not the propositional and ontological truth found only in the Christian Scriptures. Conversely, if a Christian is not living according to the standards of Scripture they are living falsely. The cultural-linguistic method, as in the previous statement, is not concerned with which religion is superior, but rather how one practically lives out their faith is, in itself, a determining factor of the nature of the stated doctrine. The greatest argument Lindbeck made for this reader on the validity of a cultural-linguistic approach was the question of which comes first, knowledge of a religion or experience of religion. For Lindbeck, and myself, faith comes by hearing. Therefore, our experiences are based on our knowledge (language abilities) of our faith.
(less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Sooho Lee
Apr 13, 2018Sooho Lee rated it really liked it
Shelves: theology, important-reads
Very few theologians spark a generation(s) of scholarship, much less just one work of those theologians. Yet George Lindbeck's The Nature of Doctrine accomplished such a feat in less than 150 pages. The Nature of Doctrine is, as Lindbeck confessed, an introduction to what he calls "postliberal theology." Unfortunately, Lindbeck never got around to publish a fuller treatment on his methodology, but some of his students have made great strides on his behalf.
Lindbeck's thesis is as follows: in our postmodern (and postliberal) age, there is need for better religious dialogue. The cognitive-propositionalist (truth-statement and truth-claims) and experiential-expressivist (emotive and subjective) approaches are limited, or at least they do not facilitate religious dialogue well. Instead, the nature of doctrine or religious claims should be cultural-linguistic. Lindbeck draws influence from Wittgenstein (philosopher of language), J.L. Austin (linguist), anthropology, and sociology. In short, the cultural-linguistic approach parallels talking about God and learning a language. Much like how learning a language demands the subject to immerse oneself in another's culture, environment, native speakers, and history, learning how to do theology or say religious claims equally demands the like. In other words, cultural-linguistic approach prioritizes communal or common language about God or religious objects. It's absorbing how people talk about God that forms how to talk about God.
Lindbeck's proposal is attractive and, I think, simple enough for the laity or congregation (the true theologians of a particular church) to get excited about. This is the clear benefit of Lindbeck's postliberal or cultural-linguistic theology. But it is not without some limitations. First, if theology is just a particular community's talk about God, then can theology be reduced to ecclesiology (doctrine of the church)? Theology then is not really about God or Jesus, but how God or Jesus is perceived by this or that church. Second, if theology is cultural-linguistic, then does it have any reality or metaphysical grounding? Put differently, if theology is just language, then does it matter if that language is historically accurate -- e.g., Jesus actually rose from the dead? I don't see how postliberal theology can demand this from its followers. Thus, Lindbeck's postliberal or cultural-linguistic theology must be supplemented, I think, to make it a thicker and more grounded way of doing theology.
cf. www.sooholee.com (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
E.
Jun 23, 2018E. rated it it was amazing
One of those classics I finally read. And one that was part of the milieu of other theologians who have deeply influenced my own thinking.
For Lindbeck, learning a religion is like learning a language, a skill that you develop. Take this sentence for instance, "In short, intelligibility comes from skill, not theory, and credibility comes from good performance, not adherence to independently formulated criteria."
I long ago adopted this basic framework--skill and communal practices and not propositional belief. And the non-foundationalist epistemology.
I'm glad there are people who think so deeply as this and develop the basic theory that undergirds what I do. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Earl
Aug 09, 2018Earl rated it it was amazing
Shelves: theology
A lot of things here worth looking, and it appears that Lindbeck has already spoken of the problems and tensions we encounter at present. Good reading for anybody who wants to enter to systematic or fundamental theology.
flagLike · comment · see review
Stephen Drew
Jun 24, 2020Stephen Drew marked it as to-read
Said to be important by newbigin
flagLike · comment · see review
Caleb N
Oct 23, 2019Caleb N rated it it was ok
Read for class, skimmed.
flagLike · comment · see review
Krish Kandiah
Jan 19, 2019Krish Kandiah rated it really liked it
Ground breaking exploration of doctrine as grammar.
flagLike · comment · see review
Micah Enns-Dyck
Apr 23, 2019Micah Enns-Dyck rated it it was amazing
Phenomenal book. Lindbeck's methodological inquiry is captivating, compelling, and honest. This broad strokes of this book seem as pertinent today as they clearly were in 1984. The last chapter is especially inspiring. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Robert D. Cornwall
Dec 28, 2012Robert D. Cornwall rated it really liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: sabbatical-2013, christian, interfaith, philosophy, religion, theology
I have been meaning to read this book for many years. After all, Lindbeck is considered one of the central figures in what is known as post-liberalism, and it has long seemed that I have an affinity for that perspective. I intended to read it during my sabbatical in the fall of 2013, but ended up reading other materials. I can say that I've finally read it, and yes I do have an affinity for what he calls the "cultural-linguistic" model of theology. This model understands theology/faith to be like languages. We speak specific languages, which we learn and which help form us.
Lindbeck's book, this being the 25th anniversary edition, suggests that there are three basic models -- propositional, experiential-expressive, and cultural-linguistic. Although he gives some attention to the propositional model, that is not the focus of his concern. Being that this is post-liberal theology, he addresses himself to the theological model to which postliberalism responds. That would be the experiential-expressive model of liberalism. In this model, faith describes an inner experience of divinity, one that is shared in essence with other religious traditions, such that the different religions are simply different expressions of what is held in common. The cultural-linguistic model suggests that this simply doesn't work, that religions have a particularity that simply doesn't translate. While the liberal intention of making the faith intelligible to the culture makes sense and is attractive, it doesn't allow the faith itself to speak. Thus, he proposes an understanding of the Christian faith (and religion in general), in which the direction of formation moves from outer to inner. Therefore the point is to draw the world into the biblical world, not the other way around.
This is a challenging book, but I think it makes a lot of sense, even if I too am attracted to the progressive/experiential model! (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Jacob Aitken
Aug 04, 2011Jacob Aitken rated it liked it
Shelves: barthian-studies, dialectic, epistemology, hippie-theology, philosophy, postmodernism, sacramental-theology
It's important, if not ultimately persuasive. The death of god theologians were doing their thing and every one thought they were hip. Lindbeck published a small book with a rather boring title which subsequently shook the very foundations of neo-liberal theology. If Karl Barth delivered a mortal blow to liberalism, Lindbeck nailed the lid shut on the coffin.
Lindbeck identifies three types of doctrinal theory: propositionalist (conservative), express-symoblic (liberal), and cultural-lingusist. Lindbeck points out problems with the first two and then expounds upon his cultural-lingusist system.
Lindbeck argues that true doctrine is best understood in its "speech." He means by this that doctrine is to be "lived out" and practiced in the community. Note the subtle argument. He is not saying, ala conservative evangelicals, that you need to live out your doctrine (e.g., application), but that doctrine itself is best understood in its communal performance (e.g., liturgy).
Lindbeck's system is by no means air-tight not self-evident, and he hints as much.
Conclusion and critique:
I am not convinced Lindbeck avoids the same critique that Langdon Gilkey delivered to (and subsequently finished) neo-Orthodoxy: if the whole point of doctrine is linguistic and communal, and has no reference to reality, then what does it really matter? If I want a good story and beauty, then why not go to Tolkien, for example? (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Dwight Davis
Oct 24, 2016Dwight Davis rated it liked it · review of another edition
Overall, I appreciate what Lindbeck is trying to do here: Reframe theological discourse in such a way that it is possible to be relevant to contemporary concerns and culture while at the same time remaining faithful to historic Creedal Christianity. In many ways, this is the primary struggle I have in my own theology and academic life as a Creedal Christian at an institution with little time for classical theological formulations. But, I'm not convinced that Lindbeck is entirely successful. The actual mediating authoritative voice in traditions which validates what is true and unchangeable for that tradition is somewhat murky in Lindbeck's formulation. I'm not entirely clear on who decides what doctrines are open to reformulation and how such a decision is reached. I'm also unclear as to whether radical theologies (i.e. feminist, womanist, liberationist, black) are possible in Lindbeck's system or if they would be to aberrant from the norms of their communities. I thought his last chapter on hermeneutics was somewhat helpful, but also murky.
To be completely fair: I had to read this in one sitting for class this week, so it's entirely possible my confusion and issues with the work will be resolved once I'm allowed more time to digest and re-read portions that were murky to me. In any event, the brilliance and influence of the work are undeniable, even if I do have some (seemingly) significant quibbles with it. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Sarah
Jul 10, 2010Sarah rated it it was amazing
Shelves: theology
Linkbeck's conclusions are the starting point for a lot of the theology books I have enjoyed reading. Now I finally know some of the alternative views of understanding religion (propositional and experiential-expressive) and I know what the "liberal" in "post-liberal" means (understanding all religion as starting from essentially the same human experiences that we all share).
I have seen the word "intratextual" thrown around in other places and know I finally know what that means too; this quote sums it up nicely: "Intratextual theology redescribes reality within the scriptural framework rather than translating scripture into estrascriptural categories. It is the text, so to speak, which absorbs the world, rather than the world the text." (page 118)
I learned another fun new word: fissiparousness, used to describe Protestantism in contrast to Roman Catholic authoritarianism (page 103). (less)
