Lindbeck’s New Program for Theology: A Reflection

LINDBECK'S NEW PROGRAM FOR THEOLOGY: A REFLECTION GEORGE LINDBECK HAS WRITTEN an important and what promises to be an influential book. In a sense he has written two books. One study (as the title indicates) is on the nature of doctrine. There his original and suggestive 'rule-theory' reading of doctrine is developed. The second study (as the sub-title indicates) is yet more ambitious . Here Lindbeck articulates a new paradigm (a culturallinguistic paradigm ' borrowed ' principally from Wittgenstein and Geertz) . This paradigm is geared to understanding religions as analogous to languages and cultures as well as to understanding theologies as largely grammatical enterprises. No minor ambition this. The book, therefore, is not simply a modest programmatic statement of the new ' Yale school 'however couched in the typically modest and cautious prose we have all become accustomed to from Lindbeck. I will forego summary of the argument of the book as a whole, and instead confine my remarks to three major moves in this argument. Two issues I shall discuss at some length: viz. Lindbeck's interpretation of the major alternative model for theology as 'experiential-expressive'; and, second, Lindbeck's own ' cultural-linguistic ' approach to 'truth' claims in theology. A third issue I will discuss very briefly-viz. his suggestive interpretation of doctrine by means of rule-theory. All these issues are clearly major strands in the overall argument. It must be clearly stated, however, that, even if Lindbeck is erroneous (as I shall suggest he is) in his interpretation of what he names ' experiential-expressive ' theologies, he might still claim that his cultural-linguistic model for theology nonetheless is more adequate than alternative models. He could still claim, for example, that a cultural-linguistic model is more 460 LINDBECK'S NEW PROGRAM FOR THEOLOGY 461 comprehensive in its scope or more attuned to some contemporary social-scientific and some linguistic philosophical analyses of religion than alternative models. Similarly, even if his model has problems which this present book does little to resolve (e.g. on truth-claims) , Lindbeck could still claim that the interpretation of doctrine, as principally second-order rules not first-order referential propositions, could still stand. My own beliefs, indeed, can be summarized as follows: first, Lindbeck's analysis of the alternative model he names 'experiential-expressive ' is seriously, even fatally, flawed; second, his own ' cultural-linguistic ' model needs to manifest far more than the present work does its ability to handle the question of truthclaims in theology to avoid (as he himself sees) the obvious charges of 'relativism', 'confessionalism ', and even 'fl.deism'; third, Lindbeck's interpretation of the nature of doctrine is nonetheless both original and suggestive, although questions on the non-propositional character of the 'rules' he enunciates are, to me at least, not yet clear. To state my own conclusions thus bluntly should not indicate that even I (' experiential-expressivist ' as Lindbeck clearly believes I am) should be unable to learn from this learned and careful programmatic work. Indeed, I believe, as my second and third beliefs cited al;>ove suggest, that, even if my other criticisms are correct, Lindbeck has nevertheless aided us all by his interpretation of doctrines as principally second-order rules rather than simply first-order propositions. If that is true, then the title of the book (The Nature of Doctrine) and thereby the sections of the book on doctrine are his most important and enduring contribution. The sections discussing the subtitle ('Religion and Theology in a Post-Liberal Age ') are the most problematic. To provide a. new paradigm for interpreting doctrine is a major contribution. It is an especially welcome contribution from George Lindbeck, the major theological contributor in North America to genuine ecumenical dialogue among the major confessions. Although Lindbeck's interpretation of doctrine clearly does cohere with his interpretation of religion and theology, I fail to see how his grammati- 462 DAVID TRACY cal reading of doctrine entails a grammatical reading of theology or a cultural-linguistic reading of religion. But just this question of ' coherence ' or ' entailment ' between the title and sub-title of this programa.tic work seems to me the greatest puzzle of Lindbeck's argument as a whole. In fact...