I wrote in the last post that I was a fan of Bob Webber. However, his underlying assumptions begin to come out in Ancient Future Faith in a way I hadn't seen. One of Webber's suggested methods for dealing in a postmodern world incorporated the ideas of George Lindbeck. This means, unfortunately, that Webber is hinting he agrees with the rejection of the very notion of "propositional truth", that rejection being the hallmark of postmodern thought. It involves the rejection of the idea that there is an objective reality that can be known and described and replaces that with the idea that truth is formed by a community. That community's unique set of beliefs become truth in that context.
According to Webber, Lindbeck “…posits the ‘cultural-linguistic’ concept of conceptualizing the significance of classical theology for the postmodern world. This approach to theology is an alternative to the modern conservative insistence on propositional truth and the liberal view of doctrines as expressive symbols. Lindbeck regards both conservative and liberal constructs of truth as ‘extratextual’ because they search for the ‘religious meaning outside the text or semiotic system either in the objective realities to which it refers or in the experience it symbolizes. The propositionalists insist the language of doctrine corresponds with an exact objective truth while the expressionists locate the value of the truth of the doctrine in the subjective experience of the believers without any need to correspond to an external objective truth. Rejecting both of these concepts, Lindbeck describes the ‘cultural-linguistic’ view of doctrine as ‘intratextual’. That is, the meaning is constituted by the uses of a specific language rather than being distinguishable from it. In other words, its truth value is determined by how it ‘fits into systems of communication or purposeful action, not by reference to outside facts” p30
I am curious here. Lindbeck seems to be saying that "liberal" and "conservative" are equally misguided in terms of epistemology. They are one and the same, in fact. They formulate different conclusions, but begin with the same misunderstanding of reality. I find that a bit disconcerting and I think, inaccurate.
But the last pharase, that meaning is "constituted" by how it fits into a system of communication "not by reference to outside facts" raises an eyebrow. Is Lindbeck saying, and is Webber agreeing, that a "fact" such as the empty tomb in the first century is not something on which meaning can be built? If the empty tomb were not a fact, would it still provide genuine meaning for the community? Is meaning completely divorced from objective reality?
This is the problem that seems to be creeping into theological thought in almost every tradition, mainline, evangelical, emergent. It is the idea that meaning is a sort of corporately held subjective social contract. All "facts" are "interpreted", so it is not the facts that really matter, only the interpretation. Webber applies this kind of thought to the Creed:
“For example, the truth value of the Nicene Creed is not to be found in words that correspond with an exact reality, but in words that truthfully signify the religious reality of the Trinity in the system of thought…in which it is articulated.” P30
I have an immediate problem with the term "exact reality". I doubt any traditional conservative believes words correspond exactly to reality, that "Trinity" adequately describes the nature of God. But most people, (I think it safe to say, for most of human history) work from the assumption that there is a measure of reasonable correspondence between language and an external something that is real. When I say "tree", nobody who heard my voice will likely conjure in their minds an image of "rock". Words do not convey exact reality, but neither do they convey nothing at all about reality. There has to be a connection.
Webber seems to buy into Lindbeck's distinction between that which is "extratextual" or objective and that which is "intratextual", or consistent within the inner logic of the community.
“In modernity, we always sought for truth that could be somehow verified outside the community of faith. Lindbeck refers to this quest as 'extratextual’. That is, using reason and logic, we expected to prove that the framework of faith could be demonstrated to be true through historical or scientific research. Both liberals and conservatives wanted statements of faith to have a proven correspondence with reality.” P185
I think he misses a mark with this connection of "objectivity" to liberalism: “This led liberals to the process of demythologizing Christian doctrine and relegating doctrines to pious experiential expressions of faith” p185
Come now. It was reason that "led" liberals to deny the supernatural in scripture? Could there not have been something more involved? Unbelief? Negative moral influences? Faulty logic? Naturalistic assumptions?
At any rate, for Webber, what ultimately matters is not the Scripture as a historical record of Apostolic teaching that can be objectively grasped, what matters is the community which defined the "rule of faith" which the scripture supports and serves. As long as that rule is consistent and has a history of guiding the community, we do not need, nor should we desire, evidence. Truth is found not in objective reality, but in the shared heritage of the community of faith.
"Lindbeck identifies the ancient regula fidei as ‘intratextual’. That is, it makes sense within its own story. Its sense is not determined by outside factors, but by the system of thought it intends to communicate. The point is that Christianity is not provable outside itself through the scientific method. One must come to the Christian faith believing that it is true and embrace it as such without any dependence on data outside the faith. Christianity requires trust, a believing embrace, a willingness to step inside its story apart from any dependence on historical, scientific, or rational persuasion. Once a person steps into the stream of faith, the community introduces that person to the rules of discussion." P185
This is precisely why I cringe a bit whenever I hear Christian leaders speak of scripture as a “narrative” these days. Of course scripture is a narrative. Of course it tells the story of salvation. But I always fear they mean that Christianity is “story” only, and has no tether to history.
To say Christianity “makes sense within its own story” is to say nothing that would require any concept of faith that I have ever understood. Internal consistency is not necessarily related to truth. Humpty Dumpty is internally consistent, but not true, not historical, nor salvific.
Faith, as Webber seems to be describing it, is not a "conviction of the truthfulness" of something as suggested in my lexicon, and understanding is not a prerequisite for faith. Rather one "just believes" by being immersed in a community, being exposed to its symbols and traditions, and understanding comes later after that non-rational "faith" is rooted. It is this subtle severing of the connection between faith and reason that I have, in my own small way, battled against for 25 years. And now it seems to be overtaking the Western Evangelical church. I did not see that strain in Webber earlier, now it greatly troubles me.
No comments:
Post a Comment