Part 1
I like reading Linbeck.* I used to say that I love Lindbeck but I ran into two snags:
- I had no idea what people did with Lindbeck. I did not realize that it often led to retreat into a neo-Catholic expression.
- I did not (and still do not) fully understand that there is some inherent wrinkle in his idea that language creates our religious experience that implies a one-way limitation of language – not allowing our experience to change language and that somehow limits God. Like I said, it is a philosophical wrinkle that is a bit technical for me.
Having said all that …
What I am a big fan of is his critique of language. He has a riveting analysis of the way that religious language functions in our communities and personal experiences. I was prone to like Lindbeck because of my deep appreciation for Nancey Murphy’s book “Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism”. I was primed for what Linbeck brings to the table.
To become religious–no less than to become culturally or linguistically competent–is to interiorize a set of skills by practice and training. One learns how to feel, act, and think in conformity with the religious tradition that is, in its inner structure, far richer and more subtle than can be explicitly articulated. The primary knowledge is not about the religion, nor is that the religion teaches such and such, but rather how to be religious in such and such ways. p. 35
Then I found out that saying you appreciate the post-Liberal approach is like saying you cheer for the New York Yankees in Boston. I get the concern with the descendants of Lindbeck’s work … but I am still suspicious that he is right about how language works in our faith communities.
Fast Forward: I was reading some stuff to get ready for the 2012 Emergent Village Theological Conversation and I stumbled onto a section of Whitehead’s thoughts on religious language.** I got to a section called “Doctrine and History”. After dealing with the fact that language does not have a one-to-one correlation and that all language thus requires interpretation, the author explains:
“The language of a tradition and the central doctrines that reflect and support that language are the prime turbulence of the particular mode of existence characterizing that tradition. Furthermore, as human existence is shaped in specialized ways during the course of history, experiences occur that are not possible to persons shaped by other traditions.”
I resonate with the idea that a person is shaped by the language one is groomed and conditioned by – and that would both empower and naturally shape the experiences that one has and the interpretation of those experiences … even (or especially) the religious experiences.
It just makes sense that because religious in a communal endeavor – one is always a part of a community that has a tradition and set of practices/beliefs – that it determines, at some level, both the types of experiences one has , can have and how one translates or interprets those experiences.
This is a vital assertion for the 21st century! We no longer live in the monopoly of Christendom or the frameworks of the Colonial Era where one tradition imported and imposed foreign expectations and alien interpretations on another.
With works like “The invention of world religions” by Masuzawa and “God is not One” by Prothero (among many others) we are entering a time in world history (and thus church history) where we need to come to terms with two things that both Lindbeck and Whitehead are pointing out:
- Language is both inherited and powerful in shaping our experiences and subsequent interpretations of those experiences.
- Language used in doctrines like ‘the Church’ and ‘Eucharist’ actually facilitate the ability to have certain experiences that are simply not available to those outside the community or language game. Practices like Yoga or Ramadan would be the same for those in different traditions. That is why North American Christians who do yoga are not having the same experience as those in India.
We live in an era where the realities of inter-religious education, cross-denominational communication and trans-national citizenship are going to challenge all of our inherited traditions and conceptual frameworks.
If we are unwilling to do so and insist on simply repeating the same rote answers week after week under the misguided impression that we are being faithful to the tradition … we are in danger of an irrelevance that leads not only to extinction but ultimately failure to accomplish our great commission.
* George Lindbeck wrote “The Nature of Doctrine” and along with Hans Frei (author of “Eclipse of the Biblical Narrative”) is credited with starting the Yale School of thought. One of the most famous proponents of which is Stanley Hauerwas famous for his books like “Peaceable Kingdom” , “Resident Aliens” as well as other things.
** Alfred North Whitehead was a 20th century philosopher who is credited for helping to come up with what became Process-Relational thought.
I think you mean Lindbeck, not Linbeck. Then again, perhaps this misspelling says something interesting about the function of language!
Tom
no. unfortunately it just says “don’t click through spell check like a zombie before you’ve had coffee”.
thanks for the help
First, thanks Tom for that insightful joke. Very post-linguistic this whole name thing.
Bo, I’ve always appreciated Lindbeck and Frei’s approach because it seemed, in only their post-liberal way, to soften the philosophical and hermeneutical rigidity that fundamentalism inherently brings to Evangelicals. In other words, I felt as though Lindbeck and Frei allow Evangelicals to keep their passionate love of Gospel with a critical approach to semantics and linguistics – especially in regards to Hermeneutics. So, while getting your critique, I do see significant positives in their approach.
Narrative theology, while a little faddish, still brings the runners home in my opinion.
God’s grace.
OK … I just need to ask an honest follow-up question. IS you phrase ” … allow Evangelicals to keep their passionate love of Gospel…” code for any of the following:
- keeping their demonology by pretending to have a pre-modern epistemology?
- keep a surface reading of Scripture without engaging Scholarship (Historical-Critical, etc.) ?
- whatever you would call what Mark Driscoll is up to?
If so, I just want to ask for some clarification. If not, then I agree with you and thanks for the comment!
-Bo
Bo.
Thanks so much for your linguistic sensitivity and care for all things Shibboleth.
Not entirely sure what you mean by “pretending” to keep a pre-modern epistemology and I’m not altogether sure what Mark Driscoll is up to simply out of chosen ignorance. But if you are asking me if I am attempting to use a “code” that only the insiders might understand…
NO.
I like narrative theology. A lot. And Frei and Lindbeck helped make it what it is.
Hope that helps you theology nerd.
I’ve always thought a true post-liberalism should be post-critical a la Paul Ricoeur rather than what it has turned into.
@AJ 1) that was a great answer. 2) I also adore a Narrative approach. It saved me from simply abandoning my Josh McDowell roots and walking away. 3) more specifically I am asking about if Evangelicals are allowed to ‘hide’ inside their language “silo” and do not have to engage the outside world of scholarship, hermeneutics, and other things that endanger a ‘simple’ reading of the BIble.
@ David That is as VERY interesting idea. 1) what post-lib has become is odd. I was truly shocked to learn of it. Not at all what I expected as one who came 30 years late to the party 2) Do you feel that a post-foundationalist approach is sufficient? I like the work of John Franke and F. LeRon Shultz.
-best regards
Bo
I’ve periodically bugged Tripp about some Lindbeck love on HBC…and here we go. Love the thoughts here, critiques and all. Comments are great too!
I stumbled upon Lindbeck via the same Nancey Murphy book, and his quotes about biblical literacy, and “…rather, suffering should be cruciform, and hopes for the future messianic.” It flipped the direction of typology (as he calls it) from pulling down types and squishing Christianity into them, to -sourcing- types from the Biblical narrative. At the time, as an idealistic Bib. Languages student, it was a welcome antidote to the creep of purpose-driven church that was quite pervasive at the time. And perhaps a way to work with the traditions of Western Christianity we can’t totally escape, while simultaneously sloughing off the pop-psychology and christendom bits as external grammar-or relegating them to the two other approaches he outlines (expressivist and foundationalist).
It also seemed like a bit of a challenge in terms of Biblical literacy, that the cultural-linguistic framework seemed to require a higher level of literacy, that Lindbeck himself doesn’t see much in the Church. Challenging in a “sporty” way…?
The middle-end of Nature of Doctrine is where he hits on the untranslatability of some interreligious dialogue-or, really on the fact that to really speak to another religion asks the dialogue to happen in the language/grammar of that particular religion. We can see the opposite view by the way a lot of Christians approach conversations with Islam, ignoring any internal grammar that Islam might have to bludgeon it with Western Christian assumptions. You summarize this well at the end of your article here. Lindbeck’s goal was ecumenism (at least between Prot-Catholics), and while he leaves open a bit (or a lot) of ontological questions (especially concerning other religions), it at least opens dialogue in a no-nonsense way: it’s a lot harder to find common ground than just assuming correctness and waiting for the other side of things to adapt to your language. Maybe a good analogue is how many Americans approach foreign languages…”why don’t they just speak English here in Paris?!?!”
I’ve always been intrigued by the extension of the grammar analogy-he hints at that more than the vocabulary analogy of language-and that could be a clue to further growth in the post-lib direction. Vocabulary as an analogy still seems to lead to fairly propositional or foundational epistemologies (where meaning is more 1:1), and grammar points to a deeper structure that while more diffuse at times, tends to show a “longer obedience in the same direction,” if you will.
I keep thinking of Gob Bluth learning “circumvent” from Michael…”he’s trying to ‘cirsumvent’ you”
So sorry for the long post. Like unkinking the hose.