Theological liberalism, which had become a fixture in academic circles by the mid-twentieth century, faced a new foe toward the end of the century. Beginning in the 1970s and then coming into full force in the 1980s, “postliberal” theologians began leveling significant critiques of liberal theological sensibilities.
At the forefront of that endeavor was Yale theologian George Lindbeck. His book The Nature of Doctrine provided contours for the emerging postliberal movement and also crystallized its misgivings with theological liberalism. Although Lindbeck’s postliberalism is certainly not without its own shortcomings (some rather severe), it lodged several salient critiques of the liberal theological tradition instantiated in both the academy and mainline Protestantism.
On the Self in Christianity
In many ways, modern theological liberalism developed as a product of the Enlightenment, a philosophical movement in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that eschewed communal tradition as a source of authority over individuals. A famous dictum of this movement, one that typifies its enfranchisement of the self, is René Descartes’ claim, “I think, therefore I am.” Within the Enlightenment worldview, it is not the community that defines a person, but rather his or her own individuality.
While individualism is not necessarily a thoroughgoing evil, one can make a case that contemporary individualistic sentiment goes too far, particularly in Western Christianity. On this point, Lindbeck contends, “Sociologists have been telling us for a hundred years or more that the rationalization, pluralism, and mobility of modern life dissolve the bonds of tradition and community. This produces multitudes of men and women who are impelled, if they have religious yearnings, to embark on their own individual quests for symbols of transcendence. The churches have become purveyors of this commodity rather than communities that socialize their members into coherent and comprehensive religious outlooks and forms of life.”[i]
Lindbeck then perceptively notes, “Society paradoxically conditions human beings to experience selfhood as somehow prior to social influences, and Eastern religions and philosophies are utilized to support what, from a cultural-linguistic perspective, is the myth of the transcendental ego. Selfhood is experienced as a given rather than as either a gift or an achievement, and fulfillment comes from exfoliating or penetrating into the inner depths rather than from communally responsible action in the public world.”[ii]
In other words, liberalism and its theological variety tend to exalt individuality while ignoring or dismissing the reality that individuals are always individuals-in-community, formed and shaped by the tradition in which they live. The church thus becomes a conglomeration of individual selves rather than a community that forms people into the image of Christ.
On the Relevance of Christianity
Another shortcoming of theological liberalism is that it mistakenly sought to present Christianity as culturally relevant by accommodating it to the spirit of the age. On this point, Lindbeck counters, “[P]rovided a religion stresses service rather than domination, it is likely to contribute more to the future of humanity if it preserves its own distinctiveness and integrity than if it yields to the homogenizing tendencies associated with liberal experiential-expressivism. This conclusion is paradoxical: Religious communities are likely to be practically relevant in the long run to the degree that they do not first ask what is either practical or relevant, but instead concentrate on their own intratextual outlooks and forms of life.”[iii]
That is, the church will only be relevant for and within society when it embraces its distinct character. Conversely, the quickest way to become irrelevant is to seek relevance by altering structures of belief and philosophy to align with the prevailing worldview—a common tendency in liberal Protestantism.
On the Reasonableness of Christianity
Finally, theological liberalism sought to establish the reasonableness of Christianity by subjecting it to the judgments of historical-critical investigation and then reinterpreting or dismissing that which did not appear to stand up to scrutiny. Lindbeck, however, explains that what truly makes Christianity reasonable is its ability to make sense of the world around us. He contends, “[T]he reasonableness of a religion is largely a function of its assimilative powers, of its ability to provide an intelligible interpretation in its own terms of the varied situations and realities adherents encounter.”[iv]
Lindbeck’s claim here is similar to C. S. Lewis’ conclusion regarding how the Christian faith proves itself reasonable: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”[v] For Lewis and Lindbeck, Christianity is not reasonable because it meets some kind of external criteria but because it offers a powerful and intelligible interpretation of the world around us.
—————————
Liberalism’s progressive theological tenets have played a significant role in shaping the contemporary cultural landscape in the West. And while Lindbeck may not have been the first or only one to critique such liberal theological trends, his points here serve as a helpful call to reconsider our understanding of Christianity in modern society. Facing the temptation to accommodate Christianity to the spirit of the age, the church ought instead to show forth the relevance and reasonableness of the gospel message while embodying it as a counter-cultural community of faith.
[i] George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1984), 126.
[ii] Lindbeck, Nature of Doctrine, 126.
[iii] Lindbeck, Nature of Doctrine, 128.
[iv] Lindbeck, Nature of Doctrine, 131.
[v] C. S. Lewis, “Is Theology Poetry?” in They Asked for a Paper, by C. S. Lewis (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1962), 165.
Photo by Andrew Seaman on Unsplash