Be Careful What You Say

I’ve just finished reviewing a number of articles and chapters concerning James Wm. McClendon, Jr. His theology is based largely on speech, specifically the thoughts of Austin and Ayer. Speech carries meaning which can vary depending upon the context and the culture of the speaker/listener. McClendon tries to pull out what he calls the “narrative” of the local community in his own work. Some may claim that such an approach is non-foundational (foundationalism being a theory of knowledge which claims that how one knows can be justified and the claims of justification must stop somewhere). McClendon comes from the school of thought which claims that language is a mirror of reality, and that community/reality will vary with context.
Why would I use such a theologian? Because Baptists are low church folk. Baptists are folk who look to the local church and the individual as the source of theology. Some may claim they look to the Bible, but they approach the Bible out of a specific context and within a specific community. Thus the scriptural interpretations one arrives at are influenced by that community. So we need to find out what Baptist are saying and have been saying to discern the reality of a Baptist theology.
This is still a little bit vague, but that is because I am still mulling over what I have read. Today I am going to start to work on an outline – the process of doing this will help to focus my thoughts.

Thick Headed?

In preparation for my second chapter, I have been reading articles about Clifford Geertz, as well as some of Geertz’s own writings (specifically some chapters from The Interpretation of Culture). There are two areas in Geertz’s work which interest me. One is his definition of religion:

A system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men [sic] by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

It is an interesting and compelling definition from an anthropological standpoint. Geertz claims that all religions, through their symbols and signs, reach to a metaphysical reality. This is interesting, but not central to my work. Granted there is a bit of overlap with Lindbeck, and the idea of Sacred Consciousness, but I need to avoid the black hole of thoughts if I am to ever complete the expletive dissertation.

The second aspect of Geertz that I find compelling is his understanding of the “Thick Description.” Granted this is taken from Ryle’s thoughts, Geertz applies it to anthropology in a way that can great help and inform theology. Basically, Geertz is arguing that context is the text – that only within the context of a culture can something be understood and to gain that understanding one must have a “thick description” of the culture. His example (actually Ryle’s) is the wink. A thin description would observe a twitch of one eyelid. A thick description would consider the different messages that are conveyed with a wink. Geertz claims that through a thick description of culture one can interpret the signs and symbols of that culture. (I would like to note that Wittgenstein is still in the background – his writings have influenced Geertz… can anyone escape Wittgenstein?)

This is helpful for me to focus on the Baptist community/movement as a text. I am trying to understand the role, symbol, and significance of the minister in a Baptist community. One cannot simply gain such an understanding by observing worship on any given Sunday – that only offers a small piece of the experience. One must engage the community to discern the meaning and practices of the community. If I am to do a theology that is social, that is reflective of the movement of the people, then my analysis must arrive from a thick and not thin description. Geertz has shown me the path upon which I can walk as I venture further and further into the Baptist movement. Watch out for the blood-sucking mosquitoes!

Next up – McClendon and narrative theology…whee!!!

theological smack-down: realists vs. pragmatists

It has been a while – but such is life. I have been reading a heck-of-a-lot (that is a doctoral term for “heaping pile”) of articles about Lindbeck, specifically his work Nature of Doctrine (see earlier posting, “the grammar of Baptists”, December 24, 2006). I intend on using Lindbeck’s linguistic approach to theology as a way to discern Baptist theology from within the context of the community. As I read the articles, two major themes of concern arose. (1) the critique from the realist camp. Lindbeck claims that truth is intrasystamitic – it exists within the context of the community as can be discerned from the language games of that community. The realists response looks for a truth that transcends the individual communities. When considering conversations between other faith traditions, this becomes a very real issue. Lindbeck does offer some ontological truths – monotheistic faith, historical specificity and Christological maximalism – these are the “first order” doctrines culled from the Nicene Creed. Lindbeck also seems to claim that God does exist, that there are ontological truths upon which all reality rests, yet then returns to the specificity of the community as the place where these truths can be ascertained. This makes the realists nervous, muttering accusations of non-foundationalism towards Lindbeck’s general direction.
(2) the pragmatists are nervous because of Lindbeck’s desire to claim some ontological truths. They applaud the “thick description,” cultural linguistic approach to theology agreeing with the Wittgensteinian emphasis upon language as an epistemology. We can only know what we say, and truths will vary from community to community. Hence when Lindbeck claims some basic truths, the pragmatists fingers wag in Lindbeck’s direction accusing him of being disingenuous.
(note – I am not citing anyone specifically in this summary, but if you (the reader) would like some specific articles to read concerning either critique, send me a comment.
As I enter into the room of arguments, pontification and illumination, I have to ask myself how I shall allow Lindbeck to influence my own work being aware of the various critiques. Towards the realists I say, “relax.” My work is intended to be focused on a specific community – the Baptist movement. I am not comparing Baptist ordination with others, except to show differences (for example I am comparing Baptist ordination with Catholic). I am not trying to find a meta-ordination for all of Christianity, so I am not specifically looking for ontological truths about ordination. Yet to the pragmatists I say, “get your act together.” While I am considering the Baptist movement, I am not going to assume that each specific church has its own truths and never the two shall meet. While each church does express itself in its own way (further stirring the mud of the ecclesiological pool), each church is a part of a larger Baptist movement. Within that movement one can find “first order” doctrines and “second order” doctrines. I am going to claim that there are some truths within the Baptist movement which transcend the local church to the greater movement. One of the challenges before me is discerning 1st order from 2nd order “doctrines” within the Baptist movement, and how they are expressed within the local church. Lindbeck offers a good approach to doing Baptist theology. Aware of the concerns that others have with Lindbeck, I feel confident that I can go forward and articulate the “cultural-linguistic” theology as it exists within the Baptist movement.
Next up, Geertz (“thick description”)… yum!