走向後自由主義神學

基本上，我對這一章的整體看法是，一，林貝克提出一個文化語意進路的後自由神學 postliberal theology，與他之前提出的文化語意進路的宗教理論，及文化語意進路的教義觀，本應是不同的東西，但他卻在這章把三者說成彷彿是同一樣東西。這令他在這章想表達的觀點，難以理解，缺乏說服力。二，為突顯文化語意進路的後自由神學，林貝克一如以往，要批評自由神學以經驗為先，也要批評傳統神學以命題為先。然而，在神學建構過程裡，是否那麼容易判斷“以經驗為先”和“以命題為先”？畢竟，“以經驗為先”和“以命題為先”意義十分含糊。我十分懷疑這點，若這懷疑成立，至少在這一章所定義出來的後自由神學，其實沒有甚麼獨特性，犯不上稱為一個新學派。

我今次不寫詳細的撮要了，只是按一些要點寫評論。

【林貝克的論點】：

Here Lindbeck's purpose is to show that his theory is useful in other areas of theological studies rather than doctrines. He claims that, without this, his theory is still unacceptable. He gives himself three targets: faithfulness, applicability, and intelligibility.

評論：林貝克在這裡初次提出的文化語意進路下的神學，為何卻說到好像等同於之前幾章講的文化語意進路下的宗教理論和文化語意進路下的教義觀？他有沒有想過，這三者其實並不相同，不能隨便混為一談？

It is surprising to see that Lindbeck claims that in the previous chapter she was presenting three theories about theology but not about religion or about doctrine. (pp.112-113) He is either too careless in wording or have deeper theoretical confusion.

'The problem, as we have noted in earlier chapters, is that each type of theology is embedded in a conceptual framework so comprehensive that it shapes its own criteria of adequacy.' (p. 113)

So, now he has given us three theories about religion, three theories about doctrines and three theories about theology. This is theoretical possible that he could do three things in one shot. However, the substance of worry is that Lindbeck apparently making identity claim, i.e., the x theory of A is just the x theory of B. (x: cultural-lingustic, experiential-expressive, cognitive-propositional. A, B, C: religion, doctrine, theology). If he is implicitly making this identity claim, he is begging the question. He does not have to show how useful his cultural-linguistic approach is useful to theology because , to him, its usefulness on religion and doctrine has long been proven. If now they are all the same, then its usefulness on theology can automatically be taken as proven as well.

In other words, it could be challenged what exactly is the cultural-linguistic theory of theology that is distinct from a cultural-linguistic theory of religion and a cultural-linguistic theory of doctrines. Without such clarification, the whole chapter 6 doesn't make much sense.

【林貝克的論點】：

Section I Faithfulness

He argues that meaning is to be 'constituted by the uses of a specific language rather than being distinguishablefrom it. Thus the proper way to determine what "God" signifies, for example, is by examining how the word operates within a religion and thereby shapes reality and experience rather than by first establishing its propositional or experiential meaning and reinterpreting or reformulating its uses accordingly.' (p. 114).

評論：究竟在甚麼意義下神學活動才是採用了經驗表達進路或認知命題進路？這三分恰當嗎？

This is a very poor way of making the contrast. If it could be said to have three such distinct approach, if we put ourselves into the shoes of the other two approaches, we do not see them 'first establishing ["God's"] propositional or experiential meaning and reinterpreting or reformulating its uses accordingly.' For example, a medieval theologian who knows a lot about Plato and Aristotle also knows a lot about , of course, the bible. When he comes to construct a philosophically intelligible interpretation of the Christian faith, he takes his understanding of the bible (and from the church) to be the raw data and find out some propositional truth in them. Then he eventually gets some propositions which he calls Truth of God. Does this mean that he first establishes some propositions and then sort of forces the Christian God into the category of those propositions? Not at all!

OK, 'first' may not be understood as a temporal term regarding how a theologian constructs their views. Maybe it only means taking something (proposition or experience) as the foundation of their theories. But again, we can have the above question as whether it is really so. And, from an argumentative point of view, since Lindbeck defines, without a trace of hesitation, his opponents as always taking propositions or experience as primary and interpret everything out of them, Lindbeck's present criticism to them is actually a circular reasoning.

To use a more mundane example, let us consider 10 believers, each of which in their lives experienced God as a very powerful agent capable of evening changing the weather. When they come to share their experience and understanding of God, they naturally come to the conclusion that "Our God is an omnipotent God and it confirms what we learn in the Bible. Amen." Is this claim of omnipotence guilty of being based on propositions or experience? Are they justified in inferring some attributes of God from their godly experience and cognition? Is the meaning of God in their thought intratextual or extratextual? Since the word or concept 'omnipotence' is arguably not present in the text of the Bible, does it mean that the language of the bible is not comprehensive? It is easy to talk in fancy and mushy ways. But when it comes to real-life example, many of those talks could turn out to be empty.

【林貝克的論點】：

Arguing that meaning must be located within the texts, Lindbeck goes on to say that the language of religion is too comprehensive everything else should be understood through its lenses. "Further, such works shape the imagination and perceptions of the attentive reader so that he or she forever views the world to some extent through the lenses they supply." (pp. 116-117). "Intratextual theology redescribes reality within the scriptural framework rather than translating Scripture into extrascriptural categories. It is the text, so to speak, which absorbs the world, rather than the world the text." (p. 118)

評論：文本內與文本外，究竟是怎樣區分的呢？

What I commented above actually can just be used to comment this. The notion of confining meaning or theology to intratextual business is very vague. In case of the 10 believers above, are they going extratextual at all? How to judge? And the way he defines the criterion of faithfulness does not rule out the ten believers to come to a conclusion that God is omnipotent because they are still focusing on God's character depicted in the stories of Israel and of Jesus and in their real experience which is seen through the lenses of such narratives.

Let me discuss one more issue here. Nowadays we have scientific knowledge and a lot of other views, like the theory of relativity and the view of democracy. These are alien to the biblical language. How is a Christian going to make sense of them? Should we take them very lightly just because they are not clearly suggested by an ancient text which is more concerned about religious matters? How can such a text absorb the world of science and contemporary social system as democracy? Actually, it may not be a possible way out to claim that one is about religion and the others are not, because religious language is supposed to be so comprehensive that it should shape the perception and experience of other human experience.

評論：若沒有清楚區分，林貝克的神學稱得上為一個新學派的開端嗎？

Maybe Lindbeck's original proposal is much more humble. He simply would like to argue that too many theologians doing their theologies in a way that is, metaphorically speaking, not close to the text of the bible and he gives a call back to the bible. "It is easy to see how theological descriptions of a religion may on this view need to be materially diverse even when the formal criterion of faithfulness remains the same. The primary focus is not on God's being in itself, for that is not what the text is about, but on how life is to be lived and reality construed in the light of God's character as an agent as this is depicted in the stories of Israel and of Jesus"(p. 121). If so, I don't think it deserve to be called a distinct theory of theology. It's just an internal correcting call among theologians with similar vision and attitudes regarding what theology is about (based on the bible more, to understand the world with our biblical faith, etc.)

評論：文化語意進路下的後自由神學（林貝克說的那種），是否真的比別的模式優越？已不是第一次，當我們看到林貝克說他的建議如何優於其他進路，原來那個理由並不是如此明顯地可接受的。

Look at the three benefits of an intratextual view of theology on pp. 122-123. First, a postliberal theology does not care much about historicity but the character of God in the history-like narrative. But it seems that the so-called experiential-expressive or cultural-linguistic approaches could also accommodate this view. (Some of them are stuck in historicity debate but it is not a necessary feature of those two 'approaches'.)

The second advantage of postliberal theology over the others two suggested by Lindbeck looks very similar to the first one. By judging that the literary genre of John is not that of veridical history, he simply takes John's message as communal confession rather than a true self-description made by Jesus. Then, how is this different from the experiential-expressive (i.e., liberal) approach of taking many "historical" accounts as meaning something else? The only difference seems to be that, regarding those "something else" meant by those quasi-historical accounts, Lindbeck charges that liberal people think of something too remote from the biblical text but he does not. Yet 'remoteness' is hard to define.

His third point is that cultural-linguistic approach does not get stuck on typological or figurative purposes (p. 123) and cultural-linguistic approach can still allow for "analogical extension" that lets us think about whether the Holocaust have to do with Mt. Sinai. In this way, he claims that cultural-linguistic approach can incorporate "the postbibilcal worlds into the world of the Bible in much the same fashion as did the tradition" P. 123). However, there are two questions here. First, as he admits, it is analogical extension and imagination that makes cultural-linguistic approach capable of incorporating the postbiblical world into the world of the Bible. What's so interesting about cultural-linguistic approach then? People can imagine and make analogical extension about almost everything to everything. Second, figurative speech is part of the biblical language. Why should a theory that claims to be faithful to the text ignores figurative studies and denounces them as outdated or wrongheaded? Do you know what analogical extension you and I have?

評論：林貝克建議的神學在甚麼意義下與神學自由主義有分別？

In his concluding remarks of this section, Lindbeck says that the bible is a "foreign text" (p. 124) to the contemporary America such that liberal theology is usually dominant because liberal theology translates the religion into popular categories. But I don't see Lindbeck own proposal fares any better. He stresses many times that his view can ignore the historicity of the biblical account. This shows that he is using the modern categories of historicity and trustworthiness due to history to talk about the bible. And those are concepts foreign or extratextual to the bible.

All in all, it is not clear how Lindbeck own theory is obviously distinct from liberal theology. The claim to be more faithful to the bible sounds presumptuous. Also, it is not clear how capable such a postliberal theology is regarding influencing the contemporary world which is so far away from the biblical world. This is especially so when we compare such ability of liberal theology. I'd rather see Lindbeck admits this and then take up a more traditional look than to unconvincingly claim to have shown similar capability to connect with the contemporary world.

=================================================================
全章和全書的七段總結，沒有甚麼特別再說，林貝克重申，後自由神學支持者甘於在當代社會裡建立基督教群體，不理會甚麼 intellectual respectability 的問題，對他們來說， intratrextuality 才是最重要的。他又重申， The ultimate test in this as in other areas is performance. If a postliberal approach in its actual employment proves to be conceptually powerful and practiacly useful to the relevant communities, it will in time become standard. (p. 134)在最後一段，他寄望將來： It remains an open question, however, whether the intratextual path will be pursued. There is much talk at present about typological, figurative, and narrative theology, but little actual performance. Only in some younger theologians does one see the beginnings of a desire to renew in a posttraditional and postliberal mode the ancient practice of absorbing the universe into the biblical world. May their tribe increase. (p. 135)