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)
