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!
No comments:
Post a Comment