If you can understand this then you should question your sobriety; i.e. more language stuff

Still working on language, grammar and everything else. I’ve read Monk’s book How to read Wittgenstein, which was very informative and have looked again at Lindbeck. I was hoping I could bounce some more thoughts off of you to make sure I am still on the right track.
McClendon speaks of “convictions” and Lindbeck speaks of doctrines. So far it is clear that the two are not the same; doctrines are second order rules and convictions are felicitous statements. I am wondering if Lindbeck’s understanding of doctrine is similar to Wittgenstein’s description of “language games,” specifically that a language game points towards “übersicht” (the understanding which consists in “seeing connections”). If this is the case, than perhaps Lindbeck’s regulative principles is the übersicht towards which all Christian doctrines point. Yet on further reflection it seems to me that this is not what Lindbeck is doing. Instead it seems that Lindbeck is diverging from Wittgenstien’s leading with his articulation of regulative principles and second-order rules. From Monk I was given the impression that Wittgentsein’s description of language games are more amorphous then Lindbeck’s approach. Lindbeck seems to agree with Wittgenstien’s understanding that language shows, and yet Lindbeck still seems to want to explain what language is showing rather than describe what language is showing (hence the regulative principles and the following taximony of doctrines) Yet on the other hand this may be an in-depth (or “thick) description of language within a religious community. Hence a doctrine shows the way in which a community is holding meaning, and the regulative principles are the understandings which consists in seeing the connections.
Lindbeck’s understanding of doctrine seem to have an interconnectivity within the community. Does McClendon’s convictions also have an interconnectivity, or do they stand on their own? Is there a “rule-order” of convictions? Perhaps based upon deeper felicitous statements.
With all of this, what am I trying to say? Within the Baptist community one can find statements with point to something deeper be it a conviction or a doctrine. Doctrines are rules while convictions are agreed upon statements in the community. This is a big difference. A conviction does not need to have an ontological or an intrasystematic truth, they more need to have agreed upon realities. I think the idea of convictions make more sense then doctrines. Yet a doctrine seems to show more how the conviction exists/acts in the community than a conviction. The conviction should have implications. If this is the case then perhaps the conviction is similar to the übersicht and the doctrines are the language games that point to the conviction. This makes sense to me so far.