Postliberal theology (often callednarrative theology) is aChristian theological movement that focuses on anarrative presentation of the Christian faith as regulative for the development of a coherentsystematic theology. Therefore, Christianity is an overarching story, with its own embedded culture, grammar, and practices, which can be understood only with reference to Christianity's own internal logic.[1]
The movement became popular in the late twentieth century, primarily among scholars associated withYale Divinity School.[2] Supporters challenge assumptions of theEnlightenment andmodernity, such asfoundationalism and the belief in universalrationality,[3] by speaking in terms ofLudwig Wittgenstein's concept oflanguage-games.[4] They argue that the biblical narrative challenges the dominant presuppositions ofliberalism andliberal Christianity, including its emphasis on the autonomous individual.[5]
Postliberal theology arose amongst scholars who either taught or studied atYale Divinity School, such asGeorge Lindbeck,Hans Wilhelm Frei, and alumnusStanley Hauerwas. It is sometimes referred to as the "Yale school" or "narrative theology."[6] The term "postliberal theology" came about shortly after the publication of Lindbeck'sThe Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (1984).[7]
The movement is theologically influenced byKarl Barth,Thomas Aquinas, and to some extent, thenouvelle théologie of French Catholics such asHenri de Lubac. The clear philosophical influence, however, wasLudwig Wittgenstein'sphilosophy of language, themoral philosophy ofAlasdair MacIntyre, and thesociological insights ofClifford Geertz andPeter Berger on the nature of communities.Philosophers of science such asThomas Kuhn andliterary theorists such asErich Auerbach also influenced the new approach.[8]
This movement has influenced other movements, such asradical orthodoxy,scriptural reasoning,paleo-orthodoxy, theemerging church movement, and postliberal expressions ofevangelicalProtestantism andRoman Catholicism. Itsecumenical spirit originates from Lindbeck's work, which was partly animated by his involvement as aLutheran observer at theSecond Vatican Council.[8]
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(December 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Partly a reaction to the trends oftheological liberalism, postliberal theology rootsrationality not in the certainty of the individual thinking subject (cogito ergo sum, "I think, therefore I am") but in the language and culture of a living tradition of communal life. The postliberals argue that the Christian faith be equated with neither the religious feelings ofromanticism nor the propositions of arationalist orfundamentalist approach to religion and theology. Rather, the Christian faith is understood as a culture and a language, in which doctrines are likened to a "depth grammar" for the first-order language and culture (practices, skills, habits) of the church that is historically shaped by the continuous, regulated reading of the scripturalnarrative over time. Thus, in addition to a critique of theological liberalism, and an emphasis upon theBible, there is also a stress upon tradition, and upon the language, culture, and intelligibility intrinsic to the Christian community. As a result, postliberal theologies are often oriented around the scriptural narrative as a script to be performed, understand orthodox dogmas (esp. the creeds) as depth-grammars for Christian life, and see such scriptural and traditional grammars as a resource for both Christian self-critique and culture critique.
The early postliberals followed Karl Barth's view that the bestapologetic is a good systematic, and as such believed that Christians should "not engage in systematic apologetics. Postliberal theologians will makead hoc connections with the philosophy or art or miscellaneous experience of the cultures around them, but they do not believe that any non-Christian framework, philosophical or cultural, sets the context in which Christian claims must be defended." However, later postliberals have qualified this aversion and have seriously tempered its initial concerns over both apologetics and metaphysics.[a] In this way, postliberal theologies have largely replicated earlier 20th-century debates surrounding the notion of the "analogy of being" (cf. Hans Urs von Balthasar,The Theology of Karl Barth). Unlike thepluralistic liberal trend preceding it, postliberal theology also tends to stress the dissimilarities between religious worldviews,[8] and will often strike out against dominant cultural trends.
Scriptural interpretation remains fundamental for postliberal theology. There are at least four key exegetical differences between liberal and postliberal theology. First, liberal interpretation of Scripture is done with a preoccupation with the historical context, whereas postliberal interpretation is "an act of imagination", interpreting the text with the needs of the reading sub-community in the forefront. Liberal theology deals with aiming to understand the text as it would have applied to the past. Using a non-foundationalist approach, postliberal interpretation aims to interpret the text as it should be applied now and in the future. Second, liberal theologians stress dependence on unbiased reason to ensure finding the objective meaning of the text. Postliberal theologians, however, base their approach on the position that reading is impossible without imposing subjective interpretation of the text by the reader, so that such a notion of objective reading disintegrates. Third, "we read texts as bodied interpreters fully situated in some body politic." That is, each and every meaning is, to a certain degree, relative to the reader and their own set of contexts. Finally, because reading is always done with a concern for the sub-community, postliberal interpretation always contains a normative element, encouraging an active response. Liberal interpretation, on the other hand, centre around time- and situation-independent truths that do not necessarily impel the reader to act.[9] More typical of postliberal theologies today, however, is a return to patristic and medieval hermeneutical models for reading scripture theologically, uniting historical-grammatical and spiritual-figurative-allegorical senses into a coherent and faithful understanding of Scripture. The Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible is one example of postliberal scriptural interpretation at work.
Ronald T. Michener argues that there are five characteristics common amongst expressions of postliberal theology:
| This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Postliberal theology" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(December 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Critics of postliberalism often have been concerned with its "post-foundational" aspects. Similar to the criticism ofpostmodern philosophical systems, critics[who?] wonder how one postliberal theology can be measured up against another to determine which is better, more appropriate, closer to truth. Postliberal theology's divorcing itself from historical necessity and objective consideration is viewed negatively by many conservative Christians.[who?] Additionally, critics wonder what implications such allegedly relativistic views, such as the possibility of religious pluralism, might have for Christianity.[11] Though influential on a generation of young pastors, the movement has had a hard time finding grass-roots support within mainline Protestant denominations, many of which face vicious liberal–conservative pressures and rifts, something the movement tends to dismiss as a sign of cultural accommodation. Some critics have suggested that because the movement has largely rejected a "mediating" theology (thus, rendering it mostly inaccessible to laypeople), it is difficult to implement its tenets on the local congregational level, so postliberalism remains largely an academic specialty, much like preceding movements such asneo-orthodoxy. Later postliberal theologies have, however, made mediation a central concern[b] and grassroots groups like theEkklesia Project can be seen to cut across the face of such criticisms.
Debates have been centred on issues ofincommensurability,sectarianism,fideism,relativism, truth, andontological reference. A number of works have sought to resolve these questions to various degrees of satisfaction[c] and the debates continue across the theological disciplines. Furthermore, critics[who?] have maintained that the internal coherence model postliberal theologians assume is difficult to square with developments in modern science which would seem to challenge the tenets of traditional, orthodox Christianity (e.g. the new physics, or evolution). Postliberals respond to such criticisms by arguing that they neglect the ways in which the postliberal view of doctrines as depth-grammars (inscribing the rules of the faith articulated at Nicea and Chalcedon) provide dynamic ways of relating the truths of faith to truths of scientific discovery. Likewise,Bruce D. Marshall and others have developed postliberal approaches to truth that resemble the "moderate realism" of the medieval correspondence theory of truth (e.g. Thomas Aquinas).
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)