The Nature of Doctrine

This is a very dense, pedantic, highly-specialized read. For those interested specifically in studying narrative/postliberal theo in depth - this is a good one. But I would not recommend it as anything but academic. Several other works have been written since this book's publication, which use this foundation as a launching point. These are often more accessible, and less theoretically oriented. I am very glad to have read it, but please consider yourselves warned. other than that, i'd rather not repeat the other reviewers.

Ben Kickert. Review of George A Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion Theology in a Postliberal Age (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1984). In 1984 George A. Lindbeck presented a new approach to viewing religion and doctrine in his book The Nature of Doctrine. As the subtitled indicates, it was his desire to provide a "framework for discussion" (10) that was compatible with the emerging postliberal movement. What he came up with is non-theological approach that advocates a cultural-linguistic view of religion and a rules-based understanding of doctrine. He then evaluates his proposal in light of various test cases. This review will assess the usefulness of this approach and evaluate the book as a whole. The author makes his personal religious convictions clear. He is a Christian, with a great interest in unity in the midst of diversity (7-8). He wants to be able to adequately address not only divergent beliefs, but the dynamic nature of beliefs (9). In order to do this, he calls for a paradigm shift on behalf of theologians and students of religion (8). Lindbeck admits the approach he lays out is mostly theoretical, but invites others to evaluate it (11). The book is laid out in 6 chapters. The first serves as an introduction while chapters 2-3 address the cultural-linguistic approach. Chapters 4-5 deal with rules theory of doctrine while chapter 6 outlines a larger theological framework. In his introductory chapter, Lindbeck critiques the approaches to religion that were dominant in his day. He describes two major methods: the cognitive and the experiential-expressive. The former focuses on truth claims as the primary determinate of religion while the later uses experiences. The author also looks at a third approach that seeks to synthesize these two. In light of his goal, the author rejects these and turns instead to an understanding that views religion in terms similar to culture or language. He expands this discussion in chapter 2 and argues for the superiority of a cultural-linguistic approach. The non-theological framework he presents contends that like culture "religions produce experience" (33) rather than being the explainer of experience. Furthermore, like language, it must be learned and interiorized; only then can a person full participate through expression and experience (35-37). This is a complete reversal of the experiential-expressive model. Chapter 4 evaluates whether this non-theological theory of religion can be religiously useful by looking at the concept of superiority of religions, their interrelationship, salvation for non-adherents and the overarching concepts of religious truth. The author concludes a superior religion is categorically true, rightly utilized, and corresponds to ultimate reality (52). From here religions can regard themselves as different without judging superiority. In regards to the salvation question, Lindbeck take a universalist approach. Chapter 4 moves to the

This book is essential for a number of reasons. 1. It is perhaps the most lucid presentation of post-liberal theology and one could also say the radical orthodoxy school of cambridge. 2. It's short. Many of the ideas here are difficult, but they are argued well while giving a sympathetic hearing to skeptical outsiders. This is a work that deserves to be read multiple time until one gets a handle on the exact line of argument. As such, it is a groundbreaking, methodological work. It's indispensible for anyone interested in doing any kind of theological dialogue, whether inter-faith or intra-faith. I write this as a Christian student of Islamic studies who found the cultural-linguistic model of religion and religious discourse endorsed here by Lindbeck illuminating for my own studies of Islam and investigation of inter-faith questions.

This work is a small classic in the `postliberal' movement which originated under the influence of Lindbeck and Hans Frei. Other theologians who bear some of the same characteristics include Placher, Hunsinger, Thiemann, Tanner, Kelsey, and Hauerwas. Postliberals emphasize the specificity of Christianity (and all religions) and a Christological and intratextual method of theology that finds the meaning of Christian language within Scripture. This meaning is given in the praxis of the church and the task of the systematic theologian is to give a normative self-description of the community as well as to discern deficiencies and distortions in communal practices. New proposals are primarily pragmatic in that they aim to `build up the body of believers.' Accusations of relativism and fideism naturally follow the postliberal denial of a universal ground of knowledge and their stress on internal description over external description (usually philosophy). However, Lindbeck believes the cultural/linguistic model will generate more conversation with other disciplines than the usual models (cognitive and experiential) since many historians, sociologists, anthropologists, and philosophers also employ approaches that utilize a cultural and/or linguistic scheme. Postliberal theology is open to rational testing, but reasonableness is assessed by its ability to provide an intelligible interpretation, in its own terms, of the relevant practical and cognitive data of Christian believers. Ad hoc apologetics is preferred over systematic. The main argument of this book is twofold: religion (Christianity included) as a cultural/linguistic community and a regulative view of doctrines. The religion provides a frame of interpretation that shapes life, thought, and actions of the believer. Basic patterns of the religion are interiorized through worship, proclamation, and instruction. Doctrines serve as rules that regulate the communities' discourse, attitudes, and practices. Lindbeck's work reflects aspects of Wittgenstein, Geertz, and Peter Berger among others. One word of warning: this book is meant to be provocative and not definitive. If you are not already sympathetic to the cultural/linguistic approach (or unsympathetic to the cognitivist or experiential approaches) you will probably not be convinced. The Nature of Doctrine initiated an ongoing conversation and simply seeks to establish the viability of a cultural/linguistic framework and rule theory of doctrine for ecumenical, interreligious, and non-religious discussions. What follows are some points in the book that I found interesting. A religion is described as one large proposition. Does it as a whole (discursive and nondiscursive symbols, practices, action, etc.) correspond to God's will (for Christians)? The basis for interreligious dialogue is that other religions may contain potential actualities and realities explored that may not fall within the scope of Christianity but

Lindbeck begins this important work by presenting three approaches to understanding the nature of religion which in turn are accompanied by three understandings of what doctrine is. The first he calls the cognitive, the view that religion is mostly concerned with knowledge and beliefs. It is understood in comparison with science. Doctrine, on such an understanding. consists of informative propositions. A second model is the Experiential Expressive. Personal consciousness and feeling are central here. Doctrine in this conception consists of symbolizations of inner states of mind and feeling. The third model, and the one Lindbeck finds most helpful, he calls the cultural linguistic. Using this model, doctrines are seen as analogous to grammatical rules. Lindbeck's position is motivated, first (and from a personal perspective) by his long time ecumenical interests. A cognitive view of religion and doctrine makes doctrinal change (needed in some form for ecumenism to work) hard to conceive, while an EE approach tends to minimize all distinctions between groups, short-circuiting the dialogue. The second major influence on Linbeck is postmodern philosophy of language, Wittgenstein and Austin in particular. Lindbeck's use of these two, especially of Austin, seems superficial. Austin is famous for his discussion of the performative dimension of language. Lindbeck seems to have read only the first few chapters of How to Do Things With Words - never reaching the point where Austin rejects a hard division between performatives and conatives (descriptive or truth claiming). In spite of its philosophical weaknesses, this is a book that must be reckoned with by all who would write in the field.