Post-liberal theology

[Dicky Underpants]

Any takers? I'd like some informed person to explain this to me. I was talking to a graduate in theology from Oxford University yesterday, who gave the impression that this kind of thinking is "quite the thing" in academic theological circles. From what he was saying, it seemed to me a last gasp of the TBs to try and re-instate a traditional Christian faith via the medium of posh-sounding philosophy. The movement apparently started in Yale University, owes a lot to Karl Barth, and plays Ludwig Wittgenstein as its trump card.

 The individual I was talking to apparently believes literally in the biblical miracles. 'Nuff said

[Anchorman]

Why 'nuff said', DU? It's perfectly possible to be reasonably inteeligent (I'm the exception, obviously) and be both evangelical and accepting of the Fospel.

[Dicky Underpants]

Why 'nuff said', DU? It's perfectly possible to be reasonably inteeligent (I'm the exception, obviously) and be both evangelical and accepting of the Fospel.

I'd certainly agree with that. However, my impression (and it's no more than that, and may be entirely wide of the mark) is that certain academic Christians in Yale (or wherever) had a very strong confirmation bias which influenced their faith position, and were looking around for some gobbits of high falutin' philosophy to shore up an already entrenched faith position, as if to say to the world "Look, we're really up to date with our thinking - far more so than the non-believers, and more so than those believers or non-believers who still believe that the well-established Higher Criticism* has much to teach us". I have noticed this appeal to 'up-to-dateness' from a lot of Christians before, and the variety of philsophers/critical thinkers they appeal to have been many and various. 'Post-liberal' seems just another fad in 'up-to-dateness'.

*For my own part, I could only wish that a number of believers and non-believers on this forum were at least acquainted with some of the researches of the 'Higher Criticism'. Wiggi, Rhiannon, Brownie, jeremyp and no doubt yourself are all well-informed; but i wonder how many others are. I didn't mention  NearlySane and bluehillside, since they appear to know everything.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to note that a hundredth of what I don't know would stun all the wildebeests in the world several times over. I have posted from both yourself, DU, and Anchorman recently in the Forum Best Bites because you have written posts that added enormously to my knowledge. For which many thanks.

[Anchorman]

Some of the higher academic theological stuff simply does my head in - niether 'theo' nor 'logical'. Trying to fit the concepts and actions of Christ into a post modern mindset is like trying to herd cats. I've read a few 'strands' of what passes foor thought in various camps, and quite honestly, I think half the time they only write to justify their pay cheque.

[SusanDoris]

Theologists can talk till the cows come home, but not one of them knows, actually knows a single fact about God - or any other imagined religious spirit/entity. They never have done, nor ever will!

[floo]

Theologists can talk till the cows come home, but not one of them knows, actually knows a single fact about God - or any other imagined religious spirit/entity. They never have done, nor ever will!

Absolutely right.

[Rhiannon]

Any takers? I'd like some informed person to explain this to me. I was talking to a graduate in theology from Oxford University yesterday, who gave the impression that this kind of thinking is "quite the thing" in academic theological circles. From what he was saying, it seemed to me a last gasp of the TBs to try and re-instate a traditional Christian faith via the medium of posh-sounding philosophy. The movement apparently started in Yale University, owes a lot to Karl Barth, and plays Ludwig Wittgenstein as its trump card.

 The individual I was talking to apparently believes literally in the biblical miracles. 'Nuff said

Isn't referring to anything as 'post' a way of deminishing it these days? 'Post liberal' is a way of attempting to do away with liberal theology at it by pretending it has been looked at and dismissed as fake or irrelevant. Soon I have no doubt we will be told this is a 'post liberal' society, just as it is a 'post feminist' one.

[Nearly Sane]

Theologists can talk till the cows come home, but not one of them knows, actually knows a single fact about God - or any other imagined religious spirit/entity. They never have done, nor ever will!

So should people like ethicists stop talking about morality?

[SusanDoris]

So should people like ethicists stop talking about morality?

Morality does not have a God/god/spirit/non-existent entity at its heart. Ethicists can discuss morality without any belief in any such god etc, and, presumably, either be believers or not.

[Nearly Sane]

Morality does not have a God/god/spirit/non-existent entity at its heart. Ethicists can discuss morality without any belief in any such god etc, and, presumably, either be believers or not.

Who said anything about discussing morality and god? What facts are there about morality?

[SusanDoris]

Who said anything about discussing morality and god? What facts are there about morality?

Morality is a word which enables us to talk about human behaviour is it not? Human behaviour originated during our evolution as part of our survival traits, unless someone can come up with a better explanation. Is there a reason why you chose to ask about ethicists?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So should people like ethicists stop talking about morality?

I don't want to distract further from the discussion Dicky is trying to have, but is that quite fair? Ethicists make judgments and propositions that are sufficiently trusted by their communities to be adopted, but provisionally. Theologians on the other hand tend to make claims of fact: "God is", "God wants", "sure and certain", "objective" moral rules etc. In short, the former don't claim to "know" in the sense I think Susan means, whereas the latter do.

None of which has anything to do with post-liberal theology though, about which I'd be interested to hear more.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I don't want to distract further from the discussion Dicky is trying to have, but is that quite fair? Ethicists make judgments and propositions that are sufficiently trusted by their communities to be adopted, but provisionally. Theologians on the other hand tend to make claims of fact: "God is", "God wants", "sure and certain", "objective" moral rules etc. In short, the former don't claim to "know" in the sense I think Susan means, whereas the latter do.

None of which has anything to do with post-liberal theology though, about which I'd be interested to hear more.   

Their behaviour, which you seem to have just asserted, is irrelevant to the fact that there are no facts about morals in the same sense as there are no facts about god. So if Susan Doris thinks that the no facts about god line is important then it applies to morals too.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Their behaviour, which you seem to have just asserted, is irrelevant to the fact that there are no facts about morals in the same sense as there are no facts about god. So if Susan Doris thinks that the no facts about god line is important then it applies to morals too.

I haven't just asserted it at all. Here for example is the first definition I found when I just googled "ethicist" (from Wiki):

An ethicist is one whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgment.

More to the point though, ethicists don't make claims of fact; theologians do. There's a qualitative difference between what each claims to "know" as Susan put it. I agree that are no facts about "God", but the point she was making was that there are people who assert that there are.

[Udayana]

...
None of which has anything to do with post-liberal theology though, about which I'd be interested to hear more.   

I think i need a simpler description of what this is or how it works. Can it have any meaning/relevance for any one not already committed to Christianity?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Udayana,

I think i need a simpler description of what this is or how it works. Can it have any meaning/relevance for any one not already committed to Christianity?

Here’s a description I found online (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/paperbacktheology/2011/05/postliberal-theology-for-dummies-like-me.html) that appears to be reasonably accurate.

“It’s tough to summarize what I think postliberalism is in a way that is succinct and yet does not miss the main tenets. I feel sure I’ve failed to strike that balance here, nevertheless I offer a few reflections on what Postliberal theology means to me below.

The Postliberal school of theology (also called the Yale School), would contend that classic Protestant liberalism (Schleiermacher, Troeltsch, Harnack, also called the Tubingen, or Chicago school of theology), and conservative evangelicalism/fundamentalism (Swindoll, Falwell, Piper, MacArthur, Carson, et al), are both built upon the same philosophical foundation which is capital “L” Liberalism. They both embrace the “neutrality” of reason. Evangelical/fundamentalists label it “doctrine,” liberals call it “science.” Protestant liberalism and conservative evangelicalism both make reason or rationality the epistemological center of their universe, thereby replacing God as the center. Of course they both deny this, but it is at the heart of their foundationalist epistemology.

What makes both Protestant liberalism and evangelicalism/fundamentalism somewhat pernicious is that each denies its own subjectivity and claims all of their content to be empirically true. Each claims to contain “true rationality,” and revealed “truth.” To the liberal this is revealed by science, to the evangelical/fundamentalist this is revealed by scripture (which really means their reading of scripture, i.e. their doctrines).

The Postliberal school acknowledges the subjectivity & social mediation of all knowledge and language, and thus takes a narrative approach. We have no foundation (not even reason, science, or doctrine), other than the person of Christ and the story of the people of God as it has be revealed through scripture and history. What is truly universal is not reason, science, or doctrine but Jesus and the gospel. So our focus should be on a narrative reading of the Christian story rather than a systematic theology or scientific discovery (both of which always end up in a big fight anyway – with dissenters burned at the stake, i.e. Rob Bell). Christianity is not a belief system but a new way of being human: what Jesus called the “new humanity,” and Paul called being “in Christ.”

Postliberal theology is typically characterized by a very high Christology (Jesus is very God/very man – 2 natures, one essence). It is Trinitarian, thus it affirms the creeds and the bodily resurrection of Jesus – in contrast to typical liberals who reject miracles. It is also characterized by an emphasis on tradition and story – in contrast to doctrinal/rational accounts of truth like evangelicals/fundamentalists. Postliberal theologies insist upon embodiment of the gospel in concrete communities under the direction of the Spirit. The truth is not simply a doctrine to assent to, nor is it a myth or scientific account of reality. The truth is revealed to us through Christ, the scriptures, the traditions of the church, and human reason – all under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Thus, unless the reality of the gospel is embodied in the church it becomes unintelligible (hence doctrine is unintelligible w/out being embodied in a people, reason is meaningless unless it is somehow embodied in a people).

I will add: it seems to me that Evangelicals/Fundamentalists typically attack postliberals by playing semantic language games and calling them warmed over liberals. This is a ridiculous tack, given the radically different epistemology at work in those two streams of theology. Protestant Liberals typically attack postliberals by saying their ideas are not backed by science and historical discovery. But, again, this assumes that rationality is the only form of knowing, which is simply not true. Anyone who has been in love or been a parent knows that there is a kind of knowing, or a knowledge that goes far beyond what is rationally explainable.

In the end, Postliberal theologians typically call people to take up their cross and actually follow Jesus. They insist that faith (pistis) means much more than rational belief, but means believing allegiance and an active life of Christ followership. They would say that the church should gather around the scriptures and the traditions of the church and allow them to define our reality over and against any other story, be it Rationalism, Americanism, Capitalism, Liberalism, conservative/liberal politics, individualism, consumerism, militarism, nationalism, etc. It essentially contends that Jesus is Lord – there is not other Lord, not even doctrines or science.”

If that’s what it entails it seems pretty potty to me, but it might get the conversation going.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I haven't just asserted it at all. Here for example is the first definition I found when I just googled "ethicist" (from Wiki):

An ethicist is one whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgment.

More to the point though, ethicists don't make claims of fact; theologians do. There's a qualitative difference between what each claims to "know" as Susan put it. I agree that are no facts about "God", but the point she was making was that there are people who assert that there are.

So all theologians make statements of facts? And no ethicists? What about Sam Harris?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So all theologians make statements of facts? And no ethicists? What about Sam Harris?

I expect better of you than a straw man. No-one mentioned anything about "all" - broadly there's a qualitative difference between the statements of ethicists and those of theologians, namely argument vs fact. There are exceptions no doubt from both camps, but Susan commented on the epistemology of theologians claiming to "know" things.

You introduced the statements of ethicists as a comparison, and I merely suggest that it fails.

What about Sam Harris by the way? He makes various arguments, but so far as I know he makes no claim for their conclusions to be objectively true.       

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I expect better of you than a straw man. No-one mentioned anything about "all" - broadly there's a qualitative difference between the statements of ethicists and those of theologians, namely argument vs fact. There are exceptions no doubt from both camps, but Susan commented on the epistemology of theologians claiming to "know" things.

You introduced the statements of ethicists as a comparison, and I merely suggest that it fails.

What about Sam Harris by the way? He makes various arguments, but so far as I know he makes no claim for their conclusions to be objectively true.     

Making unqualified blanket statements implies 'all' . and you are missing the point about this. Susan appears to think that the lack of facts about a subject mean that there is an issue with people talking about it. This is then true of morality.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Making unqualified blanket statements implies 'all' . ...

It does no such thing. It's a commonplace to talk of the characteristics of a group without implying that every member of that group exhibits those characteristics. "Chickens lay eggs" for example is true, but it's entirely possible that some don't.

...and you are missing the point about this. Susan appears to think that the lack of facts about a subject mean that there is an issue with people talking about it. This is then true of morality.

Actually I think it's you who's missing the point, and you're misrepresenting Susan too. She doesn't say that the lack of facts means there's an issue with people talking about something at all. Rather she's challenging the status some attach to their statements - ie, claiming them to be facts ("know") when in fact what they're providing are opinions. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It does no such thing. It's a commonplace to talk of the characteristics of a group without implying that every member of that group exhibits those characteristics. "Chickens lay eggs" for example is true, but it's entirely possible that some don't.

Actually I think it's you who's missing the point, and you're misrepresenting Susan too. She doesn't say that the lack of facts means there's an issue with people talking about something at all. Rather she's challenging the status some attach to their statements - ie, claiming them to be facts ("know") when in fact what they're providing are opinions.

That's not how it reads to me since she seems to query any talking about it. If your reading is right then I am fine with it.

[Dicky Underpants]

Some of the higher academic theological stuff simply does my head in - niether 'theo' nor 'logical'. Trying to fit the concepts and actions of Christ into a post modern mindset is like trying to herd cats. I've read a few 'strands' of what passes foor thought in various camps, and quite honestly, I think half the time they only write to justify their pay cheque.

Anchorman

Just a note of clarification here (for those who can manage to read this kind of thing without nodding off). We both used the word 'higher'. I think you meant it in a general sense, whereas in the critical studies of the last 200 years or so, the words "Higher Criticism" (and also "Lower Criticism") have a specific meaning, nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. The analogy is that of a river. The 'Lower Criticism' is concerned more with the translation and interpretation of the scriptures. Though there are areas of overlap, the 'Higher Criticism' attempts to 'get closer to the source', and attempts to unravel what Jesus may have actually said and believed, what the early Christian groups believed, indeed to determine whether anything authoritative can be said on these things, or whether there was even an historical Jesus at all. As alluded to in bluehillside's quote above, the guiding principle is reason, but the early protagonists of these critical methods never set out to destroy faith.

As well as the big-shots of Protestant Liberalism that blue quoted, notable names in this area of study are D.F. Strauss (who was the first to really stick his neck out), Bultmann, Schweitzer (of course), right down to more modern thinkers such as Geza Vermes, E.P. Sanders, Bart Ehrmann and Barrie Wilson*.
It is such thinkers (along with the fundamentalists and the Protestant Liberals) that 'Post-liberal theologians' think they have completely superseded.

*A writer I only came across recently. He certainly helped clear up a few puzzles I'd had regarding Paul's input into Christianity.

[Dicky Underpants]

Hi Udayana,

Here’s a description I found online (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/paperbacktheology/2011/05/postliberal-theology-for-dummies-like-me.html) that appears to be reasonably accurate.

“It’s tough to summarize what I think postliberalism is in a way that is succinct and yet does not miss the main tenets. I feel sure I’ve failed to strike that balance here, nevertheless I offer a few reflections on what Postliberal theology means to me below.


If that’s what it entails it seems pretty potty to me, but it might get the conversation going.

Thanks for that, blue. As I suspected, it seems to me very much a resumption of a traditional (certainly early Protestant) approach to faith. However, if they're saying that the thinkers of the last 200 years have enthroned reason as king, this is certainly only a half-truth, since many of the early critical thinkers were firm believers, no matter what their researches led them to believe about the trustworthiness of scripture. They also appear to be using (a strange sort of) reason to assert that reason is useless.

[SusanDoris]

I think NS was reading extra motives and meanings in my posts, which I thought were quite simple and straightforward actually!