What do you think?
Rate this book
The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age
"The Nature of Doctrine," originally published in 1984, is one of the most influential works of academic theology in the past fifty years. A true classic, this book sets forth the central tenets of a post-liberal approach to theology, emphasizing a cultural-linguistic approach to religion and a rule theory of doctrine.
In addition to his account of the nature of religion, George Lindbeck also addresses the relationship between Christianity and other religions, the resolution of historic doctrinal conflict among Christian communities, and the nature and task of theology itself. This is a work that all theologians and advanced students should know.
This twenty-fifth anniversary edition includes an English translation of the foreword to the German edition and a complete bibliography of Lindbeck's work.
In addition to his account of the nature of religion, George Lindbeck also addresses the relationship between Christianity and other religions, the resolution of historic doctrinal conflict among Christian communities, and the nature and task of theology itself. This is a work that all theologians and advanced students should know.
This twenty-fifth anniversary edition includes an English translation of the foreword to the German edition and a complete bibliography of Lindbeck's work.
170 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1984
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
September 11, 2018
This was a pretty heavy book. Not literally heavy, as its only 120 pages. It was a slow-going and challenging read. And it has been very influential in theology for the last few decades. Lindbeck puts forth a "post-liberal" view of theology. He discusses two different approaches to theology. First is the cognitive one, with a focus on propositional truth and ideas. This would be the conservative or even fundamentalist view: the Bible provides data from which we formulate our beliefs about God. Speaking of which, growing up conservative, this would be my background. I've read a bit of "post-conservative" theology in the past, but Lindbeck is the first post-liberal I've read (though I've seen this work mentioned).
Anyway, the second approach is the emotive-expressivist (if I recall the name right, the book is in my basement right now and I don't feel like retrieving it!). This is the view that roots theology in experiences of God. All humans have a feeling of dependence on something beyond, something transcendent. This view often then emphasizes similarities in religions because people across cultures have similar experiences.
Lindbeck puts forth a cultural-linguist understanding where theology functions more like grammar. Essentially, theology takes place locally and contextually. We cannot assume all religious experiences are the same, for all take place in cultures and religions that explain them differently. To learn theology is not to read some propositions either. Instead you must live in the community. Thus, there may be those who practice faith well but cannot necessarily articulate theology; just as some read well but don't know how to explain the rules of grammar. Lindbeck dives into a lot from this, from inter-denomination discussions to inter-religious ones.
Overall, this is a challenging and good book for those interested in theology. I want to go back to my shelf and look up some of the references to Lindbeck. I deeply resonate with a different way of doing theology than the old conservative/liberal dichotomy. If you do too, then check this one out.
Anyway, the second approach is the emotive-expressivist (if I recall the name right, the book is in my basement right now and I don't feel like retrieving it!). This is the view that roots theology in experiences of God. All humans have a feeling of dependence on something beyond, something transcendent. This view often then emphasizes similarities in religions because people across cultures have similar experiences.
Lindbeck puts forth a cultural-linguist understanding where theology functions more like grammar. Essentially, theology takes place locally and contextually. We cannot assume all religious experiences are the same, for all take place in cultures and religions that explain them differently. To learn theology is not to read some propositions either. Instead you must live in the community. Thus, there may be those who practice faith well but cannot necessarily articulate theology; just as some read well but don't know how to explain the rules of grammar. Lindbeck dives into a lot from this, from inter-denomination discussions to inter-religious ones.
Overall, this is a challenging and good book for those interested in theology. I want to go back to my shelf and look up some of the references to Lindbeck. I deeply resonate with a different way of doing theology than the old conservative/liberal dichotomy. If you do too, then check this one out.
December 12, 2024
One of the most helpful reads for me. Much needed.
“Meaning is constituted by the uses of a specific language rather than being distinguishable from 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” (100).
“A scriptural world is thus able to absorb the universe. It supplies the interpretive framework within which believers seek to live their lives and understand reality…traditional exegetical procedures assume that Scripture created its own domain of meaning and that the task of interpretation is to extend this over the whole of reality” (103).
“…provided a religion stresses service rather than domination, it is likely to contribute more to the future of humanity if it preserved its own distinctiveness and integrity than if it yields to the homogenizing tendencies associated with liberal experiential-expressivism. 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” (114).
“Meaning is constituted by the uses of a specific language rather than being distinguishable from 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” (100).
“A scriptural world is thus able to absorb the universe. It supplies the interpretive framework within which believers seek to live their lives and understand reality…traditional exegetical procedures assume that Scripture created its own domain of meaning and that the task of interpretation is to extend this over the whole of reality” (103).
“…provided a religion stresses service rather than domination, it is likely to contribute more to the future of humanity if it preserved its own distinctiveness and integrity than if it yields to the homogenizing tendencies associated with liberal experiential-expressivism. 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” (114).
October 20, 2022
Lindbeck discusses different ways of theorizing (thinking of) doctrine.
The first is propositionalism. This view considers doctrines as truth claims about reality. Many who consider themselves orthodox believers conceive of doctrines in this way.
Second is experiential-expressivism. The idea here is that doctrines function as symbols. They symbolize the inner experience of the Divine. This theory of doctrine is very popular amongst liberal theologians who emphasize the individual part of religious belief.
The third is the theory Lindbeck proposes: a cultural-linguistic approach. Here, religions are seen as ways of living and speaking. Doctrines serve as rules regulating how people go about their lives and interpret their experience in light of God.
I found this theorization very interesting. I had been inclined towards the second theory, that doctrines are symbols of an inward experience. Yet Lindbeck's model helps to avoid the pitfalls that experiential-expressivism contains.
The first is propositionalism. This view considers doctrines as truth claims about reality. Many who consider themselves orthodox believers conceive of doctrines in this way.
Second is experiential-expressivism. The idea here is that doctrines function as symbols. They symbolize the inner experience of the Divine. This theory of doctrine is very popular amongst liberal theologians who emphasize the individual part of religious belief.
The third is the theory Lindbeck proposes: a cultural-linguistic approach. Here, religions are seen as ways of living and speaking. Doctrines serve as rules regulating how people go about their lives and interpret their experience in light of God.
I found this theorization very interesting. I had been inclined towards the second theory, that doctrines are symbols of an inward experience. Yet Lindbeck's model helps to avoid the pitfalls that experiential-expressivism contains.
August 13, 2026
Within the last week or so there has been an online conversation about how the Protestant Mainline's future appears to be denuded of substantial theological contributions. For decades after the Second World War, luminaries like Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, Hans Frei, Langdon Gilkey, Stanley Hauerwas, Walter Brueggemann, Robert Jenson, Douglas John Hall, Katherine Sonderegger, and Kathryn Tanner produced constructive works that demanded to be wrestled with, even by those working in different schools of theology like conservative evangelicalism or Roman Catholicism (there is a reason theology nerds have been so attentive to news of Sonderegger's next volume in her systematic theology). But many of these figures have already passed away or are in their twilight years and there are signs that the future of Mainline theology will be dominated by postcolonialism, liberationism, and voices from the Majority World.
One subset of the Protestant Mainline's theological contributions has been postliberalism (not everyone listed above would be a part of this school of theology) yet this movement too, appears to be fading. The late George Lindbeck (1923 - 2018) was one of its major figureheads and promoters and The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age is a key articulation of this theological framework.
Lindbeck divides theology into two basic theories of religion. Conservative Christians tend to fall into the "cognitive-propositional" camp, which emphasizes assent to doctrines that reflect truths about objective realities; this has largely been the historically prevailing way religion has been conceived. The other camp is that of "experiential-expressivism," which favours the believers' inner world; Friedrich Scheleimacher is a representative of this mode of thought. Lindbeck puts forward a different theory of religion - "cultural-linguistics." For Lindbeck, this means that religion is more akin to a language or culture that shapes one's experiences, discourse, and practices. It is embedded locally and within a community. Lindbeck uses rules for driving as a metaphor. It is necessary to drive on the correct side of the road in order to avoid accidents but which side of the road is "correct" will vary across communities; UK drivers go on the left, American drivers go on the right.
This book is concise but dense. Lindbeck showcases how postliberalism approaches contentious doctrines such as the Roman Catholic Church's Marian dogmas and papal infallibility. Lindbeck's proposal has generous, ecumenical aims (he suggested a cultural-linguistic theory of religion is not limited to Christianity alone but can have ramifications for the global village of faith) and he regularly engages in conversation with the likes of Karl Rahner and Bernard Lonergan, even while critiquing Rahner's concept of the "anonymous Christian" as being comparable to imperialism. Lindbeck writes:
In this same vein, Lindbeck posits that sometimes the most faithful thing for a Christian to do for their non-Christian neighbour is not to necessarily convert them but to encourage them into becoming a better Muslim if they are Muslim or a better Buddhist if they are Buddhist.
In these days when doubt - even among Christians - seems to be valourized, I appreciated Lindbeck's words on this:
I found the final chapter to be the most compelling and overall, this is an important book for students of theology to read (I read Jonathan Wilson's copy!). As mentioned above, the Protestant Mainline provoked Christians of different traditions to engage and respond to their theological proposals. One such example is that Kevin Vanhoozer's work on "canonical-linguistics" is in many ways a response to Lindbeck's "cultural-linguistics."
One subset of the Protestant Mainline's theological contributions has been postliberalism (not everyone listed above would be a part of this school of theology) yet this movement too, appears to be fading. The late George Lindbeck (1923 - 2018) was one of its major figureheads and promoters and The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age is a key articulation of this theological framework.
Lindbeck divides theology into two basic theories of religion. Conservative Christians tend to fall into the "cognitive-propositional" camp, which emphasizes assent to doctrines that reflect truths about objective realities; this has largely been the historically prevailing way religion has been conceived. The other camp is that of "experiential-expressivism," which favours the believers' inner world; Friedrich Scheleimacher is a representative of this mode of thought. Lindbeck puts forward a different theory of religion - "cultural-linguistics." For Lindbeck, this means that religion is more akin to a language or culture that shapes one's experiences, discourse, and practices. It is embedded locally and within a community. Lindbeck uses rules for driving as a metaphor. It is necessary to drive on the correct side of the road in order to avoid accidents but which side of the road is "correct" will vary across communities; UK drivers go on the left, American drivers go on the right.
This book is concise but dense. Lindbeck showcases how postliberalism approaches contentious doctrines such as the Roman Catholic Church's Marian dogmas and papal infallibility. Lindbeck's proposal has generous, ecumenical aims (he suggested a cultural-linguistic theory of religion is not limited to Christianity alone but can have ramifications for the global village of faith) and he regularly engages in conversation with the likes of Karl Rahner and Bernard Lonergan, even while critiquing Rahner's concept of the "anonymous Christian" as being comparable to imperialism. Lindbeck writes:
There is something arrogant in supposing that Christians know what nonbelievers experience and believe in the depths of their beings better than they know themselves, and that therefore the task of dialogue or evangelism is to increase their self-awareness. The communication of the gospel is not a form of psycho-therapy, but rather the offer and the act of sharing one's own beloved language - the language that speaks of Jesus Christ - with all those who are interested, in the full awareness that God does not call all to be part of the witnessing people (p. 61).
In this same vein, Lindbeck posits that sometimes the most faithful thing for a Christian to do for their non-Christian neighbour is not to necessarily convert them but to encourage them into becoming a better Muslim if they are Muslim or a better Buddhist if they are Buddhist.
In these days when doubt - even among Christians - seems to be valourized, I appreciated Lindbeck's words on this:
Certitude, it is supposed, must be able to overcome universal doubt. Actually, however, as many thinkers unite in reminding us, certitude always comes first. It is the precondition for doubt. To doubt what is generally accepted is unreal and unreasonable, an emotion or a pathology, unless there are statable reasons for doubting (such as, for example, a conflict in evidence or in authorities). Atheists agree with church people that the affirmations in the Apostles' Creed are authentically Christian beliefs. That agreement, unless one has specifiable reasons for raising questions in regard to particular articles, makes it foolish to doubt that these are indeed normatively Christian (p. 102).
I found the final chapter to be the most compelling and overall, this is an important book for students of theology to read (I read Jonathan Wilson's copy!). As mentioned above, the Protestant Mainline provoked Christians of different traditions to engage and respond to their theological proposals. One such example is that Kevin Vanhoozer's work on "canonical-linguistics" is in many ways a response to Lindbeck's "cultural-linguistics."
November 27, 2019
I found Lindbeck's description of doctrine as akin to language and grammar compelling and potentially productive for Christian thought. I especially appreciated his breakdown of the propositionalist model, the expressivist model, and the postliberal model. This comparison was extremely helpful and enlightening.
I'm not so sure he fully delivered on everything that he seems to set out to do, particularly with regard to some of his eccumenical concerns, but I'm not as familiar with these sorts of conversations.
I'm not so sure he fully delivered on everything that he seems to set out to do, particularly with regard to some of his eccumenical concerns, but I'm not as familiar with these sorts of conversations.
January 24, 2018
I found this book among the most helpful I've read on post-liberal/narrative theology which is based on a cultural-linguistic understanding of religion. Very clearly articulated, Lindbeck is able to state his case so that those not particularly well-versed in philosophy and/or theology are able to follow the flow of his argument. That's a skill not shared by many theologians. Lindbeck presents narrative theology as a faithful alternative to the problematic cognitive/propositional (conservative) and experiential-expressive/ (liberal) theories of religion and doctrine. A most worthwhile read for those interested in this sort of thing.
June 26, 2024
CAN “REGULATIVE” OR “RULE THEORY” ADVANCE ECUMENICAL ENDS?
George Arthur Lindbeck (1923 –2018) was an American Lutheran theologian, who taught at Yale Divinity School from 1952 until his retirement in 1993. He was best known as one of the fathers of postliberal theology; he was a “delegate observer” to the Second Vatican Council and since then has been an important part of ecumenical dialogue, especially between Lutherans and Catholics. He also wrote The Church in a Postliberal Age]].
He wrote in the Foreword to this 1984 book, “This book is the product of a quarter century of growing dissatisfaction with the usual ways of thinking about those norms of communal belief and action which are generally spoken of as the doctrines or dogmas of churches. It has become apparent to me… that [we]… lack adequate categories for conceptualizing the problems that arise. We are often unable, for example, to specify the criteria we implicitly employ when we say that some changes are faithful to a doctrinal tradition and others unfaithful… We clearly need new and better ways of understanding their [doctrines’] nature and function. The problem… extends to the notion of religion itself… [A] postliberal, way of conceiving religion and religious doctrine is called for. Although the focus of this book is on intro-Christian theological and ecumenical issues, the theory of religion and religious doctrine that it proposed is not specifically ecumenical, nor Christian, nor theological. It rather derives from philosophical and social-scientific approaches; and yet… it has advantages… for Christian---and perhaps also non-Christian---ecumenical and theological purposes.
“What is new about the present work… [is its] use of this theory in the conceptualization of doctrine, and the contention that this conceptualization is fruitful for theology and ecumenism… Thus the following pages … are on one level simply a contribution to the theory of religion and religious doctrine… but they are also intended as prolegomena to a book I have long been trying to write on the current status of the doctrinal agreements and disagreements of the major Christian traditions. The basic thesis… presupposes no special ecumenical concerns… and yet the ecumenical implications are developed in greater detail than would have been the case if the book were written by someone not engaged… in efforts to overcome Christian division.” (Pg. 7-8)
He explains, “There would be less skepticism about ecumenical claims if it were possible to find and alternative approach that made the intertwining of variability and invariability in matters of faith easier to understand. This book proposes such an alternative… It has become customary in a considerable body of anthropological, sociological, and philosophical literature … to emphasize … those respects in which religions resemble languages together with their correlative forms of life … The function of church doctrines that become most prominent in this perspective is their use…as communally authoritative rules of discourse, attitude, and action. This general way of conceptualizing religion will be called … a ‘cultural-linguistic’ approach, and the implied view of church doctrine will be referred to as a ‘regulative’ or ‘rule’ theory.” (Pg. 17-18)
He points out, “In terms of the basic New Testament eschatological pictures, non-Christians… would seem not yet to be confronted by the question of salvation… Only through the message of the coming kingdom, of God’s Messiah does … the true future of the world, become real for them, and only then does either final redemption of final damnation become possible… The decision between these two views depends, it seems, not on exegesis, but on the systematic historical framework within which one interprets the biblical data. The same indecisive conclusion is reached, it seems, if one appeals, not to the letter of Scripture, but to the fundamental spirit or attitude of the early Christians toward unbelievers. Christians in the first centuries appear to have had an extraordinary combination of relaxation and urgency in their attitude toward those outside the church… The early Christians… said too little about these matters to provide a basis for deciding between our two options or for some other alternative.” (Pg. 58)
He observes, “The novelty of rule theory… is that it does not locate the abiding and doctrinally significant aspect of religion in propositionally formulated truths, much less in inner experiences, but in the story it tells and in the grammar that informs the way the story is told and used… it is not the lexicon but rather the grammar of the religion which church doctrines chiefly reflect.” (Pg. 80-81) Later, he adds, “The experience of love, conditioned as it is by psychic and cultural factors, may vary, but insofar as it is authentically shaped by the story of Jesus it qualifies as Christian.” (Pg. 83)
He outlines, “In the … concluding section… I shall briefly compare regulative and propositional approaches and suggest that the former has advantages… This contention is not necessary to the main thesis of this book (which is concerned simply with the availability, not the superiority, of a rule theory of doctrine and the associated cultural-linguistic view of religion), but it does seem to be a conclusion implied by the total argument.” (Pg. 91-92) Later, he adds, “through the ancient [creeds] may have continuing value, they do not on the basis of rule theory have doctrinal authority. That authority belongs rather to the rules they instantiate… it is at least plausible to claim that Nicaea and Chalcedon represent historically conditioned formulations of doctrines that are unconditionally and permanently necessary to mainstream Christian identity. Rule theory… allows (though it does not require) giving these creeds the status that the major Christian traditions have attributed to them, but with the understanding that they are permanently authoritative paradigms, not formulas to be slavishly repeated.” (Pg. 95-96)
He notes, “Does this mean, then, that the ‘sola scriptura’ … or papal and conciliar infallibility… are simply incompatible with a rule theory of doctrine?... To draw this conclusion would be to forget the importance of situation and the possibility of conditional doctrines. The Orthodox view is appropriate when the church is undivided, whereas both Roman Catholics and Protestants have sought to define authorities, ultimate courts of appeal, that would be operationally effective when the church is divided.” (Pg. 102-103) He adds, “Thus the Roman, Reformation, and Orthodox positions on infallibility continue to be irreconcilable in the present situation. Rule theory neither reconciles them nor legislates that one is to be preferred to the others. This means, however, that rule theory should be doctrinally acceptable to Roman Catholics as well as to members of other communions… it provides a framework within which ecumenical agreements and disagreements can be meaningfully discussed.” (Pg. 104)
He argues, “It is at least an open question whether any religion will have the requisite toughness for this demanding task unless it at some point makes the claim that it is significantly different and unsurpassably true; and it is easier for a religion to advance this claim if it is interpreted in cultural-linguistic rather than experiential-expressive terms. Thus it may well be that postliberal theologies are more applicable than liberal ones to the needs of the future.” (Pg. 127) But he adds, “both liberal and postliberal outlooks have no difficulty in reading the signs of the time in such a way as to justify their own practicality.” (Pg. 128)
He suggests, “Postliberals are bound to be skeptical, not about missions, but about apologetics and foundations.” (Pg. 129) He adds, “The postliberal method of dealing with this problem is bound to be unpopular among those chiefly concerned to maintain or increase the membership and influence of the church… This method… Instead of redescribing the faith in new concepts, it seeks to teach the language and practices of the religion to potential adherents. This has been the primary way of transmitting the faith and winning converts for most religions down through the centuries.” (Pg. 132)
He concludes, “The ultimate test in this as in other areas if performance. If a postliberal approach in its actual employment proves to be conceptually powerful and practically useful to the relevant communities, it will in time become standard… There is no way of testing the merits and demerits of a theological method apart from performance.” (Pg. 134)
This is a “major” work of contemporary theology, that will be “must reading” for those seriously studying modern theological trends.
George Arthur Lindbeck (1923 –2018) was an American Lutheran theologian, who taught at Yale Divinity School from 1952 until his retirement in 1993. He was best known as one of the fathers of postliberal theology; he was a “delegate observer” to the Second Vatican Council and since then has been an important part of ecumenical dialogue, especially between Lutherans and Catholics. He also wrote The Church in a Postliberal Age]].
He wrote in the Foreword to this 1984 book, “This book is the product of a quarter century of growing dissatisfaction with the usual ways of thinking about those norms of communal belief and action which are generally spoken of as the doctrines or dogmas of churches. It has become apparent to me… that [we]… lack adequate categories for conceptualizing the problems that arise. We are often unable, for example, to specify the criteria we implicitly employ when we say that some changes are faithful to a doctrinal tradition and others unfaithful… We clearly need new and better ways of understanding their [doctrines’] nature and function. The problem… extends to the notion of religion itself… [A] postliberal, way of conceiving religion and religious doctrine is called for. Although the focus of this book is on intro-Christian theological and ecumenical issues, the theory of religion and religious doctrine that it proposed is not specifically ecumenical, nor Christian, nor theological. It rather derives from philosophical and social-scientific approaches; and yet… it has advantages… for Christian---and perhaps also non-Christian---ecumenical and theological purposes.
“What is new about the present work… [is its] use of this theory in the conceptualization of doctrine, and the contention that this conceptualization is fruitful for theology and ecumenism… Thus the following pages … are on one level simply a contribution to the theory of religion and religious doctrine… but they are also intended as prolegomena to a book I have long been trying to write on the current status of the doctrinal agreements and disagreements of the major Christian traditions. The basic thesis… presupposes no special ecumenical concerns… and yet the ecumenical implications are developed in greater detail than would have been the case if the book were written by someone not engaged… in efforts to overcome Christian division.” (Pg. 7-8)
He explains, “There would be less skepticism about ecumenical claims if it were possible to find and alternative approach that made the intertwining of variability and invariability in matters of faith easier to understand. This book proposes such an alternative… It has become customary in a considerable body of anthropological, sociological, and philosophical literature … to emphasize … those respects in which religions resemble languages together with their correlative forms of life … The function of church doctrines that become most prominent in this perspective is their use…as communally authoritative rules of discourse, attitude, and action. This general way of conceptualizing religion will be called … a ‘cultural-linguistic’ approach, and the implied view of church doctrine will be referred to as a ‘regulative’ or ‘rule’ theory.” (Pg. 17-18)
He points out, “In terms of the basic New Testament eschatological pictures, non-Christians… would seem not yet to be confronted by the question of salvation… Only through the message of the coming kingdom, of God’s Messiah does … the true future of the world, become real for them, and only then does either final redemption of final damnation become possible… The decision between these two views depends, it seems, not on exegesis, but on the systematic historical framework within which one interprets the biblical data. The same indecisive conclusion is reached, it seems, if one appeals, not to the letter of Scripture, but to the fundamental spirit or attitude of the early Christians toward unbelievers. Christians in the first centuries appear to have had an extraordinary combination of relaxation and urgency in their attitude toward those outside the church… The early Christians… said too little about these matters to provide a basis for deciding between our two options or for some other alternative.” (Pg. 58)
He observes, “The novelty of rule theory… is that it does not locate the abiding and doctrinally significant aspect of religion in propositionally formulated truths, much less in inner experiences, but in the story it tells and in the grammar that informs the way the story is told and used… it is not the lexicon but rather the grammar of the religion which church doctrines chiefly reflect.” (Pg. 80-81) Later, he adds, “The experience of love, conditioned as it is by psychic and cultural factors, may vary, but insofar as it is authentically shaped by the story of Jesus it qualifies as Christian.” (Pg. 83)
He outlines, “In the … concluding section… I shall briefly compare regulative and propositional approaches and suggest that the former has advantages… This contention is not necessary to the main thesis of this book (which is concerned simply with the availability, not the superiority, of a rule theory of doctrine and the associated cultural-linguistic view of religion), but it does seem to be a conclusion implied by the total argument.” (Pg. 91-92) Later, he adds, “through the ancient [creeds] may have continuing value, they do not on the basis of rule theory have doctrinal authority. That authority belongs rather to the rules they instantiate… it is at least plausible to claim that Nicaea and Chalcedon represent historically conditioned formulations of doctrines that are unconditionally and permanently necessary to mainstream Christian identity. Rule theory… allows (though it does not require) giving these creeds the status that the major Christian traditions have attributed to them, but with the understanding that they are permanently authoritative paradigms, not formulas to be slavishly repeated.” (Pg. 95-96)
He notes, “Does this mean, then, that the ‘sola scriptura’ … or papal and conciliar infallibility… are simply incompatible with a rule theory of doctrine?... To draw this conclusion would be to forget the importance of situation and the possibility of conditional doctrines. The Orthodox view is appropriate when the church is undivided, whereas both Roman Catholics and Protestants have sought to define authorities, ultimate courts of appeal, that would be operationally effective when the church is divided.” (Pg. 102-103) He adds, “Thus the Roman, Reformation, and Orthodox positions on infallibility continue to be irreconcilable in the present situation. Rule theory neither reconciles them nor legislates that one is to be preferred to the others. This means, however, that rule theory should be doctrinally acceptable to Roman Catholics as well as to members of other communions… it provides a framework within which ecumenical agreements and disagreements can be meaningfully discussed.” (Pg. 104)
He argues, “It is at least an open question whether any religion will have the requisite toughness for this demanding task unless it at some point makes the claim that it is significantly different and unsurpassably true; and it is easier for a religion to advance this claim if it is interpreted in cultural-linguistic rather than experiential-expressive terms. Thus it may well be that postliberal theologies are more applicable than liberal ones to the needs of the future.” (Pg. 127) But he adds, “both liberal and postliberal outlooks have no difficulty in reading the signs of the time in such a way as to justify their own practicality.” (Pg. 128)
He suggests, “Postliberals are bound to be skeptical, not about missions, but about apologetics and foundations.” (Pg. 129) He adds, “The postliberal method of dealing with this problem is bound to be unpopular among those chiefly concerned to maintain or increase the membership and influence of the church… This method… Instead of redescribing the faith in new concepts, it seeks to teach the language and practices of the religion to potential adherents. This has been the primary way of transmitting the faith and winning converts for most religions down through the centuries.” (Pg. 132)
He concludes, “The ultimate test in this as in other areas if performance. If a postliberal approach in its actual employment proves to be conceptually powerful and practically useful to the relevant communities, it will in time become standard… There is no way of testing the merits and demerits of a theological method apart from performance.” (Pg. 134)
This is a “major” work of contemporary theology, that will be “must reading” for those seriously studying modern theological trends.
January 23, 2019
George Lindbeck graduated with a B.D. from Yale University in 1946. He had completed his doctorate in 1955 and had already served on the faculty of Yale Divinity School for several years. Lindbeck’s work had predominately been around theology and philosophy until he served as an official Lutheran observer for the Second Vatican Council. After serving as an observer for the council, Lindbeck’s work transitioned to ecumenical matters. In The Nature of Doctrine Lindbeck argues that the best way for religions to be evaluated in regard to truth, in an attempt to create dialogue between opposing religions, is to employ the cultural-linguistic method to analyze their truth claims.
Lindbeck’s work is scholarly and requires a fairly high comprehension level of its reader. Lindbeck appears to be writing to theological students at the university level or nontheological readers with higher educational backgrounds. The book is formulated from a series of lectures that Lindbeck delivered in 1974 at Gonzaga University which seems to support the intended audience having a scholarly background. The work is presented in a logical and comprehensive manner, but the extensive vocabulary of theological and Latin phrases requires a background in theological study.
This was one of the most challenging and rewarding books I have read in regard to dealing with assigning propositional and ontological truth to concepts and doctrine. Lindbeck identifies the three predominant methodologies to interpreting truth in theological issues, and introduces a fourth that he advocates, as: 1) classic-propositional, 2) experiential-expressive, 3) the two-dimensional (cognitive-experiential) of Roman Catholicism and 4) Lindbeck’s cultural-linguistic approach. Classic-propositional is the fundamentalist or conservative (literal) approach to everything theological and doctrinal. Traditional orthodoxy would adhere to the classic-propositional approach. Experiential-expressive is the approach of liberalism. This approach focuses on the experiences a person has within a faith community. Experiential could be defined as metaphysical and existential. The two-dimensional approach seeks to use both propositional truths and faith experiences to analyze the truthfulness of a doctrine or proposition. Finally, Lindbeck introduces his cultural-linguistic approach that pursues religions as linguistic in nature.
Initially, I was somewhat confused by Lindbeck’s assumption that religion could be evaluated using a linguistic regulatory method to assign truthfulness to religions based on the cultures where they were established. However, as he began inductively presenting the case over the six chapters and afterwards of the book I began to agree with Lindbeck’s conclusion of its ability, both of theological and nontheological religious studies, to determine the reliability of the truthfulness of religious beliefs within a stated faith. Ultimately, Lindbeck was not defining truth as propositional truth, like that of God’s sovereignty or salvation in Christ alone, but rather if the statements were fundamentally true with regard to intratextuality of a faith’s Holy writ. Lindbeck, true to the lectures from which the work was derived, builds with each chapter the ability to use cultural-linguistic methodology over increasingly deeper doctrinal statements. For instance, he begins with an abject example, i.e. “The car is red.” to demonstrate how this methodological approach works and culminates with assigning propositional and ontological truths as well as their applications on topics as theological stepped as Nicaea and Chalcedon.
The greatest analogy within the text is the comparative analogy of religion to language. He profoundly defends this analogous relationship throughout the entirety of the text. For instance, how can two religions have a constructive dialogue if they are speaking two different languages? It should be noted, Lindbeck is writing from a Christian perspective concerning a method that he argues can be transferrable to all religions and fields of study. If we are going to have constructive conversations with others, we must at least begin by understanding the languages we are speaking. Lindbeck argues, and I agree, that if solus Christus is a propositional truth we must engage others in their language with the hopes that the Holy Spirit will open their eyes and ears to the one true language, Christ.
Finally, the cultural-linguistic approach to the Nature of Doctrine simply asks the theological student to consider the cultural and environmental factors that are involved in a religion’s statements of faith. If someone of another faith is living out the truth found in the intratextuality of the faith’s Holy writ. they are essentially living out truth, just not the propositional and ontological truth found only in the Christian Scriptures. Conversely, if a Christian is not living according to the standards of Scripture they are living falsely. The cultural-linguistic method, as in the previous statement, is not concerned with which religion is superior, but rather how one practically lives out their faith is, in itself, a determining factor of the nature of the stated doctrine. The greatest argument Lindbeck made for this reader on the validity of a cultural-linguistic approach was the question of which comes first, knowledge of a religion or experience of religion. For Lindbeck, and myself, faith comes by hearing. Therefore, our experiences are based on our knowledge (language abilities) of our faith.
Lindbeck’s work is scholarly and requires a fairly high comprehension level of its reader. Lindbeck appears to be writing to theological students at the university level or nontheological readers with higher educational backgrounds. The book is formulated from a series of lectures that Lindbeck delivered in 1974 at Gonzaga University which seems to support the intended audience having a scholarly background. The work is presented in a logical and comprehensive manner, but the extensive vocabulary of theological and Latin phrases requires a background in theological study.
This was one of the most challenging and rewarding books I have read in regard to dealing with assigning propositional and ontological truth to concepts and doctrine. Lindbeck identifies the three predominant methodologies to interpreting truth in theological issues, and introduces a fourth that he advocates, as: 1) classic-propositional, 2) experiential-expressive, 3) the two-dimensional (cognitive-experiential) of Roman Catholicism and 4) Lindbeck’s cultural-linguistic approach. Classic-propositional is the fundamentalist or conservative (literal) approach to everything theological and doctrinal. Traditional orthodoxy would adhere to the classic-propositional approach. Experiential-expressive is the approach of liberalism. This approach focuses on the experiences a person has within a faith community. Experiential could be defined as metaphysical and existential. The two-dimensional approach seeks to use both propositional truths and faith experiences to analyze the truthfulness of a doctrine or proposition. Finally, Lindbeck introduces his cultural-linguistic approach that pursues religions as linguistic in nature.
Initially, I was somewhat confused by Lindbeck’s assumption that religion could be evaluated using a linguistic regulatory method to assign truthfulness to religions based on the cultures where they were established. However, as he began inductively presenting the case over the six chapters and afterwards of the book I began to agree with Lindbeck’s conclusion of its ability, both of theological and nontheological religious studies, to determine the reliability of the truthfulness of religious beliefs within a stated faith. Ultimately, Lindbeck was not defining truth as propositional truth, like that of God’s sovereignty or salvation in Christ alone, but rather if the statements were fundamentally true with regard to intratextuality of a faith’s Holy writ. Lindbeck, true to the lectures from which the work was derived, builds with each chapter the ability to use cultural-linguistic methodology over increasingly deeper doctrinal statements. For instance, he begins with an abject example, i.e. “The car is red.” to demonstrate how this methodological approach works and culminates with assigning propositional and ontological truths as well as their applications on topics as theological stepped as Nicaea and Chalcedon.
The greatest analogy within the text is the comparative analogy of religion to language. He profoundly defends this analogous relationship throughout the entirety of the text. For instance, how can two religions have a constructive dialogue if they are speaking two different languages? It should be noted, Lindbeck is writing from a Christian perspective concerning a method that he argues can be transferrable to all religions and fields of study. If we are going to have constructive conversations with others, we must at least begin by understanding the languages we are speaking. Lindbeck argues, and I agree, that if solus Christus is a propositional truth we must engage others in their language with the hopes that the Holy Spirit will open their eyes and ears to the one true language, Christ.
Finally, the cultural-linguistic approach to the Nature of Doctrine simply asks the theological student to consider the cultural and environmental factors that are involved in a religion’s statements of faith. If someone of another faith is living out the truth found in the intratextuality of the faith’s Holy writ. they are essentially living out truth, just not the propositional and ontological truth found only in the Christian Scriptures. Conversely, if a Christian is not living according to the standards of Scripture they are living falsely. The cultural-linguistic method, as in the previous statement, is not concerned with which religion is superior, but rather how one practically lives out their faith is, in itself, a determining factor of the nature of the stated doctrine. The greatest argument Lindbeck made for this reader on the validity of a cultural-linguistic approach was the question of which comes first, knowledge of a religion or experience of religion. For Lindbeck, and myself, faith comes by hearing. Therefore, our experiences are based on our knowledge (language abilities) of our faith.
May 12, 2026
3.5/5
Helpful in some general ways, but sometimes misses the mark. On the one hand, I agree with Lindbeck that a "cultural-linguistic" approach to religion (i.e., treating a religion as something similar to a language, and doctrines as "grammatical rules") avoids some of the pitfalls of a simplistic "experiential" approach. Religions function as the frameworks in which experiences are not only interpreted, but take place. Experience, after all, doesn't happen in a vacuum, but in an interpretive context. BUT! If we are going to treat Christianity like a language, then we have to keep in mind that languages are not--and never have been--structurally consistent monoliths. The English language, for example, changes significantly based not only on the relevant location but also the time period. Old English is still considered English, even if the modern American would have no clue what an Anglo-Saxon from 750 A.D. was saying. And this is not just because individual words are different between the two, but because their languages' grammars at crucial moments *contradict* one another. Modern English is not merely a structural extension of Old English. Thus, my quandary:
If another person's Christian grammar differs significantly from mine--so much so that I can't carry on a "religious conversation" with them--on what grounds can I dismiss their beliefs as "not Christian?" On a more serious level, it seems obvious to me that the various New Testament authors had very different beliefs regarding important doctrinal issues (employing, as they did, different religious grammars). For example, as Hugo Mendez points out in his Gospel of John: A New History, the Johannine author clashed significantly with the Synoptic authors regarding issues like anthropology, salvation, and Christology. See the problem? Whose grammar do we adopt and whose do we eschew as "faithful Christians?" Or are they both "Christian," even though they contradict each other? If this is the case, then is the internal consistency of religious systems irrelevant? At what level of abstraction do we go to determine the grammatical boundaries between faith traditions?
Also--and finally--Lindbeck did my man Paul Tillich dirty. The way I read Tillich, it's simply wrong to consider him an experiential-expressivist (this is an accusation that Tillich also addresses regarding Schleiermacher in his Systematic Theology). Tillich's theology is primarily ontological rather than phenomenological--it deals more with the "structures of being" rather than the experience of being. This is a crucial distinction that Lindbeck doesn't seem to grasp, resulting in an incorrect portrayal of Tillich as essentially opposed to the "cultural-linguistic" approach. His theology is much more subtle than that.
Just some thoughts.
Helpful in some general ways, but sometimes misses the mark. On the one hand, I agree with Lindbeck that a "cultural-linguistic" approach to religion (i.e., treating a religion as something similar to a language, and doctrines as "grammatical rules") avoids some of the pitfalls of a simplistic "experiential" approach. Religions function as the frameworks in which experiences are not only interpreted, but take place. Experience, after all, doesn't happen in a vacuum, but in an interpretive context. BUT! If we are going to treat Christianity like a language, then we have to keep in mind that languages are not--and never have been--structurally consistent monoliths. The English language, for example, changes significantly based not only on the relevant location but also the time period. Old English is still considered English, even if the modern American would have no clue what an Anglo-Saxon from 750 A.D. was saying. And this is not just because individual words are different between the two, but because their languages' grammars at crucial moments *contradict* one another. Modern English is not merely a structural extension of Old English. Thus, my quandary:
If another person's Christian grammar differs significantly from mine--so much so that I can't carry on a "religious conversation" with them--on what grounds can I dismiss their beliefs as "not Christian?" On a more serious level, it seems obvious to me that the various New Testament authors had very different beliefs regarding important doctrinal issues (employing, as they did, different religious grammars). For example, as Hugo Mendez points out in his Gospel of John: A New History, the Johannine author clashed significantly with the Synoptic authors regarding issues like anthropology, salvation, and Christology. See the problem? Whose grammar do we adopt and whose do we eschew as "faithful Christians?" Or are they both "Christian," even though they contradict each other? If this is the case, then is the internal consistency of religious systems irrelevant? At what level of abstraction do we go to determine the grammatical boundaries between faith traditions?
Also--and finally--Lindbeck did my man Paul Tillich dirty. The way I read Tillich, it's simply wrong to consider him an experiential-expressivist (this is an accusation that Tillich also addresses regarding Schleiermacher in his Systematic Theology). Tillich's theology is primarily ontological rather than phenomenological--it deals more with the "structures of being" rather than the experience of being. This is a crucial distinction that Lindbeck doesn't seem to grasp, resulting in an incorrect portrayal of Tillich as essentially opposed to the "cultural-linguistic" approach. His theology is much more subtle than that.
Just some thoughts.
April 13, 2018
Very few theologians spark a generation(s) of scholarship, much less just one work of those theologians. Yet George Lindbeck's The Nature of Doctrine accomplished such a feat in less than 150 pages. The Nature of Doctrine is, as Lindbeck confessed, an introduction to what he calls "postliberal theology." Unfortunately, Lindbeck never got around to publish a fuller treatment on his methodology, but some of his students have made great strides on his behalf.
Lindbeck's thesis is as follows: in our postmodern (and postliberal) age, there is need for better religious dialogue. The cognitive-propositionalist (truth-statement and truth-claims) and experiential-expressivist (emotive and subjective) approaches are limited, or at least they do not facilitate religious dialogue well. Instead, the nature of doctrine or religious claims should be cultural-linguistic. Lindbeck draws influence from Wittgenstein (philosopher of language), J.L. Austin (linguist), anthropology, and sociology. In short, the cultural-linguistic approach parallels talking about God and learning a language. Much like how learning a language demands the subject to immerse oneself in another's culture, environment, native speakers, and history, learning how to do theology or say religious claims equally demands the like. In other words, cultural-linguistic approach prioritizes communal or common language about God or religious objects. It's absorbing how people talk about God that forms how to talk about God.
Lindbeck's proposal is attractive and, I think, simple enough for the laity or congregation (the true theologians of a particular church) to get excited about. This is the clear benefit of Lindbeck's postliberal or cultural-linguistic theology. But it is not without some limitations. First, if theology is just a particular community's talk about God, then can theology be reduced to ecclesiology (doctrine of the church)? Theology then is not really about God or Jesus, but how God or Jesus is perceived by this or that church. Second, if theology is cultural-linguistic, then does it have any reality or metaphysical grounding? Put differently, if theology is just language, then does it matter if that language is historically accurate -- e.g., Jesus actually rose from the dead? I don't see how postliberal theology can demand this from its followers. Thus, Lindbeck's postliberal or cultural-linguistic theology must be supplemented, I think, to make it a thicker and more grounded way of doing theology.
cf. www.sooholee.com
Lindbeck's thesis is as follows: in our postmodern (and postliberal) age, there is need for better religious dialogue. The cognitive-propositionalist (truth-statement and truth-claims) and experiential-expressivist (emotive and subjective) approaches are limited, or at least they do not facilitate religious dialogue well. Instead, the nature of doctrine or religious claims should be cultural-linguistic. Lindbeck draws influence from Wittgenstein (philosopher of language), J.L. Austin (linguist), anthropology, and sociology. In short, the cultural-linguistic approach parallels talking about God and learning a language. Much like how learning a language demands the subject to immerse oneself in another's culture, environment, native speakers, and history, learning how to do theology or say religious claims equally demands the like. In other words, cultural-linguistic approach prioritizes communal or common language about God or religious objects. It's absorbing how people talk about God that forms how to talk about God.
Lindbeck's proposal is attractive and, I think, simple enough for the laity or congregation (the true theologians of a particular church) to get excited about. This is the clear benefit of Lindbeck's postliberal or cultural-linguistic theology. But it is not without some limitations. First, if theology is just a particular community's talk about God, then can theology be reduced to ecclesiology (doctrine of the church)? Theology then is not really about God or Jesus, but how God or Jesus is perceived by this or that church. Second, if theology is cultural-linguistic, then does it have any reality or metaphysical grounding? Put differently, if theology is just language, then does it matter if that language is historically accurate -- e.g., Jesus actually rose from the dead? I don't see how postliberal theology can demand this from its followers. Thus, Lindbeck's postliberal or cultural-linguistic theology must be supplemented, I think, to make it a thicker and more grounded way of doing theology.
cf. www.sooholee.com
May 6, 2025
I couldn’t help but see many resemblances between the method of the postliberals and the Pentecostal theological framework. Emerging out of the reconstructive reading of the book of Acts, Pentecostals acknowledge the importance of narrative, seeing it as a primary source of rules. In discussing the baptism of the Holy Spirit, Pentecostals refer to the account of Acts 2, arguing for its authoritative role.
Second, Pentecostals are deeply concerned about praxis, as the empowerment of the Spirit implies a radical obedience to the Great Commission. The community that was formed by
the Spirit in the Book of Acts has served as a blueprint for a community that Pentecostals strived to replicate in contemporary society. Third, the postmodern notion of languages has close connections with Pentecostal
ecclesiology, which has many forms and shapes. The account of many nations and tongues in Acts 2 echoes in the many expressions of Pentecostal and Charismatic theologies around the globe. Fourth, Pentecostals rely on the Spirit, expecting him to apply the knowledge of Scripture
in a way that forms and develops a disciple. Community is built and edified by the gifts of the
Spirit, and no Pentecostal would deny that his/her praxis is a result of the work done by the third person of the Trinity.
What is evident is that the postliberal method can find a fruitful ground in Pentecostal churches. This can be especially relevant for Pentecostal churches like the ones in Russia, which often face criticism from the Russian Orthodox Church, particularly regarding the lack of
apostolic succession. Understanding the sufficiency of its language and unwavering commitments to praxis can bolster Pentecostals in restricted contexts, allowing them to be an
embodiment of what happened in Acts 2. On the other hand, the church in the West can also benefit from this method as it encourages believers to seek affirmation in the Word of God, not external sources that only leave them thirsty for more.
Second, Pentecostals are deeply concerned about praxis, as the empowerment of the Spirit implies a radical obedience to the Great Commission. The community that was formed by
the Spirit in the Book of Acts has served as a blueprint for a community that Pentecostals strived to replicate in contemporary society. Third, the postmodern notion of languages has close connections with Pentecostal
ecclesiology, which has many forms and shapes. The account of many nations and tongues in Acts 2 echoes in the many expressions of Pentecostal and Charismatic theologies around the globe. Fourth, Pentecostals rely on the Spirit, expecting him to apply the knowledge of Scripture
in a way that forms and develops a disciple. Community is built and edified by the gifts of the
Spirit, and no Pentecostal would deny that his/her praxis is a result of the work done by the third person of the Trinity.
What is evident is that the postliberal method can find a fruitful ground in Pentecostal churches. This can be especially relevant for Pentecostal churches like the ones in Russia, which often face criticism from the Russian Orthodox Church, particularly regarding the lack of
apostolic succession. Understanding the sufficiency of its language and unwavering commitments to praxis can bolster Pentecostals in restricted contexts, allowing them to be an
embodiment of what happened in Acts 2. On the other hand, the church in the West can also benefit from this method as it encourages believers to seek affirmation in the Word of God, not external sources that only leave them thirsty for more.
December 21, 2024
A powerhouse of a book with significant flaws.
I have many thoughts on Lindbeck’s The Nature of Doctrine. The biggest flaw, in my opinion, lies in the foundation of Lindbeck’s thesis: the assumption that doctrines are primarily meant to be ecumenical. Lindbeck argues that if a doctrine cannot communicate effectively outside its community, it is inherently flawed. This leads him to relegate the propositional nature of doctrine to a secondary role. However, this raises a question: if doctrines are not fundamentally true—regardless of the change they inspire—why should they regulate a community?
Lindbeck provides two examples to support his framework: math in poetry and a tribe with limited words for colors. For math, he suggests that poetry can shape how a math problem is understood, but this doesn’t make the math problem any less true. Similarly, he references a tribe with a limited color vocabulary that struggles to distinguish certain colors. Yet, I’m color blind, and my inability to see a color doesn’t negate the color’s existence.
To his credit, Lindbeck acknowledges that doctrines have a propositional nature, but he insists that this is not the starting point for understanding doctrine. This approach, however, falters—like many liberal theological systems—when it encounters the question of the Resurrection: Did Jesus rise from the dead? The Resurrection demands a historical and propositional answer (I cribbed this from Vanhoozer’s Ricouer book). Lindbeck wrestles with this but ultimately emphasizes the way the Resurrection transforms us, rather than addressing its propositional truth as a first-order concern.
Perhaps I’m more of a propositionalist than I realized.
Lastly, if you know any current theologians working within a postliberal framework, please let me know.
I have many thoughts on Lindbeck’s The Nature of Doctrine. The biggest flaw, in my opinion, lies in the foundation of Lindbeck’s thesis: the assumption that doctrines are primarily meant to be ecumenical. Lindbeck argues that if a doctrine cannot communicate effectively outside its community, it is inherently flawed. This leads him to relegate the propositional nature of doctrine to a secondary role. However, this raises a question: if doctrines are not fundamentally true—regardless of the change they inspire—why should they regulate a community?
Lindbeck provides two examples to support his framework: math in poetry and a tribe with limited words for colors. For math, he suggests that poetry can shape how a math problem is understood, but this doesn’t make the math problem any less true. Similarly, he references a tribe with a limited color vocabulary that struggles to distinguish certain colors. Yet, I’m color blind, and my inability to see a color doesn’t negate the color’s existence.
To his credit, Lindbeck acknowledges that doctrines have a propositional nature, but he insists that this is not the starting point for understanding doctrine. This approach, however, falters—like many liberal theological systems—when it encounters the question of the Resurrection: Did Jesus rise from the dead? The Resurrection demands a historical and propositional answer (I cribbed this from Vanhoozer’s Ricouer book). Lindbeck wrestles with this but ultimately emphasizes the way the Resurrection transforms us, rather than addressing its propositional truth as a first-order concern.
Perhaps I’m more of a propositionalist than I realized.
Lastly, if you know any current theologians working within a postliberal framework, please let me know.
January 2, 2023
I read this book for a homiletics course.
It is incredibly dense and is one of those that you would be well served to take your time with to allow time to really work through the complex concepts being covered. If you can avoid it, don't try to force it into a couple of days before you have to have it finished and be able to write a response to it.
In his argument that we should approach understanding and discussing religion
from the framework of a cultural-linguistic model, Lindbeck asserts that by shifting away
from cognitive- propositional and experiential-expressive models we can more
adaptively maintain important doctrines while also being in authentic ecumenical or
interfaith dialog. He explains that in a cultural-linguistic model we are able to approach
doctrine as something similar to grammatical rules for how we express and experience
faith, rather than as absolute rules or subjective interpretations of experience.
It is incredibly dense and is one of those that you would be well served to take your time with to allow time to really work through the complex concepts being covered. If you can avoid it, don't try to force it into a couple of days before you have to have it finished and be able to write a response to it.
In his argument that we should approach understanding and discussing religion
from the framework of a cultural-linguistic model, Lindbeck asserts that by shifting away
from cognitive- propositional and experiential-expressive models we can more
adaptively maintain important doctrines while also being in authentic ecumenical or
interfaith dialog. He explains that in a cultural-linguistic model we are able to approach
doctrine as something similar to grammatical rules for how we express and experience
faith, rather than as absolute rules or subjective interpretations of experience.
March 30, 2026
Lindbeck, one of the fathers of postliberal theology (alongside Hans Frei), discusses the nature of doctrine by discusses various strategies for understanding and appropriating doctrine. After critiquing various approaches such as the propositional one (i.e., truth claims about objective reality), Lindbeck takes the position that doctrine is, at root, a language game after the manner of Wittgenstein. This, however, does not mean for Lindbeck that doctrine is meaningless. Rather, it establishes the grammar for how we are to speak about God in Christ. Though there are various reasons why I demur from Lindbeck, he is clearly versed in theology and philosophy and thus provides a trenchant defense of his position. The bonus of this edition is an excellent introduction to the book by Bruce Marshall and an afterward by the author. This is essential reading for anyone desiring to better understanding (post-)modern theology.
June 23, 2018
One of those classics I finally read. And one that was part of the milieu of other theologians who have deeply influenced my own thinking.
For Lindbeck, learning a religion is like learning a language, a skill that you develop. Take this sentence for instance, "In short, intelligibility comes from skill, not theory, and credibility comes from good performance, not adherence to independently formulated criteria."
I long ago adopted this basic framework--skill and communal practices and not propositional belief. And the non-foundationalist epistemology.
I'm glad there are people who think so deeply as this and develop the basic theory that undergirds what I do.
For Lindbeck, learning a religion is like learning a language, a skill that you develop. Take this sentence for instance, "In short, intelligibility comes from skill, not theory, and credibility comes from good performance, not adherence to independently formulated criteria."
I long ago adopted this basic framework--skill and communal practices and not propositional belief. And the non-foundationalist epistemology.
I'm glad there are people who think so deeply as this and develop the basic theory that undergirds what I do.
April 10, 2026
Another sore loser. "Religion is dead. Long live [blathering interminably about] religion." Imagine being a salesman selling a box without knowing what's inside - except there is no box, of course. Lindbeck's language (with phrases like "it is at least plausible") oozes admission that he does not at all know what is in the box - yet he insists on selling it. Could be poison - I aver that it is. Could be satanism - he does not know.
August 9, 2018
A lot of things here worth looking, and it appears that Lindbeck has already spoken of the problems and tensions we encounter at present. Good reading for anybody who wants to enter to systematic or fundamental theology.
January 19, 2019
Ground breaking exploration of doctrine as grammar.
October 23, 2019
Read for class, skimmed.
Want to Read
June 24, 2020Said to be important by newbigin
February 1, 2022
A good introduction to a greater work, sadly that greater work has not been published.
August 28, 2022
Stunningly impenetrable for a novice such as I.
July 28, 2025
This is a significant book for the future of Western Christianity.
September 28, 2026
Intelligent and highly readable. Lindbeck adds new insight for an age struggling with how to do ecumenism right.
December 28, 2012
I have been meaning to read this book for many years. After all, Lindbeck is considered one of the central figures in what is known as post-liberalism, and it has long seemed that I have an affinity for that perspective. I intended to read it during my sabbatical in the fall of 2013, but ended up reading other materials. I can say that I've finally read it, and yes I do have an affinity for what he calls the "cultural-linguistic" model of theology. This model understands theology/faith to be like languages. We speak specific languages, which we learn and which help form us.
Lindbeck's book, this being the 25th anniversary edition, suggests that there are three basic models -- propositional, experiential-expressive, and cultural-linguistic. Although he gives some attention to the propositional model, that is not the focus of his concern. Being that this is post-liberal theology, he addresses himself to the theological model to which postliberalism responds. That would be the experiential-expressive model of liberalism. In this model, faith describes an inner experience of divinity, one that is shared in essence with other religious traditions, such that the different religions are simply different expressions of what is held in common. The cultural-linguistic model suggests that this simply doesn't work, that religions have a particularity that simply doesn't translate. While the liberal intention of making the faith intelligible to the culture makes sense and is attractive, it doesn't allow the faith itself to speak. Thus, he proposes an understanding of the Christian faith (and religion in general), in which the direction of formation moves from outer to inner. Therefore the point is to draw the world into the biblical world, not the other way around.
This is a challenging book, but I think it makes a lot of sense, even if I too am attracted to the progressive/experiential model!
Lindbeck's book, this being the 25th anniversary edition, suggests that there are three basic models -- propositional, experiential-expressive, and cultural-linguistic. Although he gives some attention to the propositional model, that is not the focus of his concern. Being that this is post-liberal theology, he addresses himself to the theological model to which postliberalism responds. That would be the experiential-expressive model of liberalism. In this model, faith describes an inner experience of divinity, one that is shared in essence with other religious traditions, such that the different religions are simply different expressions of what is held in common. The cultural-linguistic model suggests that this simply doesn't work, that religions have a particularity that simply doesn't translate. While the liberal intention of making the faith intelligible to the culture makes sense and is attractive, it doesn't allow the faith itself to speak. Thus, he proposes an understanding of the Christian faith (and religion in general), in which the direction of formation moves from outer to inner. Therefore the point is to draw the world into the biblical world, not the other way around.
This is a challenging book, but I think it makes a lot of sense, even if I too am attracted to the progressive/experiential model!
August 4, 2011
It's important, if not ultimately persuasive. The death of god theologians were doing their thing and every one thought they were hip. Lindbeck published a small book with a rather boring title which subsequently shook the very foundations of neo-liberal theology. If Karl Barth delivered a mortal blow to liberalism, Lindbeck nailed the lid shut on the coffin.
Lindbeck identifies three types of doctrinal theory: propositionalist (conservative), express-symoblic (liberal), and cultural-lingusist. Lindbeck points out problems with the first two and then expounds upon his cultural-lingusist system.
Lindbeck argues that true doctrine is best understood in its "speech." He means by this that doctrine is to be "lived out" and practiced in the community. Note the subtle argument. He is not saying, ala conservative evangelicals, that you need to live out your doctrine (e.g., application), but that doctrine itself is best understood in its communal performance (e.g., liturgy).
Lindbeck's system is by no means air-tight not self-evident, and he hints as much.
Conclusion and critique:
I am not convinced Lindbeck avoids the same critique that Langdon Gilkey delivered to (and subsequently finished) neo-Orthodoxy: if the whole point of doctrine is linguistic and communal, and has no reference to reality, then what does it really matter? If I want a good story and beauty, then why not go to Tolkien, for example?
Lindbeck identifies three types of doctrinal theory: propositionalist (conservative), express-symoblic (liberal), and cultural-lingusist. Lindbeck points out problems with the first two and then expounds upon his cultural-lingusist system.
Lindbeck argues that true doctrine is best understood in its "speech." He means by this that doctrine is to be "lived out" and practiced in the community. Note the subtle argument. He is not saying, ala conservative evangelicals, that you need to live out your doctrine (e.g., application), but that doctrine itself is best understood in its communal performance (e.g., liturgy).
Lindbeck's system is by no means air-tight not self-evident, and he hints as much.
Conclusion and critique:
I am not convinced Lindbeck avoids the same critique that Langdon Gilkey delivered to (and subsequently finished) neo-Orthodoxy: if the whole point of doctrine is linguistic and communal, and has no reference to reality, then what does it really matter? If I want a good story and beauty, then why not go to Tolkien, for example?
July 10, 2010
Linkbeck's conclusions are the starting point for a lot of the theology books I have enjoyed reading. Now I finally know some of the alternative views of understanding religion (propositional and experiential-expressive) and I know what the "liberal" in "post-liberal" means (understanding all religion as starting from essentially the same human experiences that we all share).
I have seen the word "intratextual" thrown around in other places and know I finally know what that means too; this quote sums it up nicely: "Intratextual theology redescribes reality within the scriptural framework rather than translating scripture into estrascriptural categories. It is the text, so to speak, which absorbs the world, rather than the world the text." (page 118)
I learned another fun new word: fissiparousness, used to describe Protestantism in contrast to Roman Catholic authoritarianism (page 103).
I have seen the word "intratextual" thrown around in other places and know I finally know what that means too; this quote sums it up nicely: "Intratextual theology redescribes reality within the scriptural framework rather than translating scripture into estrascriptural categories. It is the text, so to speak, which absorbs the world, rather than the world the text." (page 118)
I learned another fun new word: fissiparousness, used to describe Protestantism in contrast to Roman Catholic authoritarianism (page 103).
May 10, 2025
Outstanding book! Lindbeck's theory of doctrine/religion makes so much sense that I can't believe I've never heard anything like it before. The idea that religion supplies the framework necessary to contextualize or comprehend any experience of transcendence, and is therefore the antecedent to any meaningful encounter with the Divine seems obvious in retrospect: how can you understand something bigger than yourself if you don't have a prism bigger than yourself to receive it through? Also his understanding of how scripture works in the life of a believer fits much better with my experience than the Tillich/Niebuhr "correlative" approach (which itself fits better than the fundamentalist / propositionalist approach): you learn scripture first, and then interpret your life through that lens. Another book that feels as if I'm being taught to see in color after being used to only see in black and white.
August 9, 2014
Working through this book for the second time I find myself asking the same questions that I brought to it six or seven years ago. Lindbeck's proposal that we think of religions and religious doctrines in terms of cultural/linguistic systems seems very helpful for understanding how religion functions now. What it doesn't do, at least for me, is give an adequate explanation of religious origins. I don't mean by that simply that he doesn't speak to how religions initially come into existence, but rather, why is it that in evangelistic religions like Christianity, the Gospel is proclaimed as a series of truths to be believed before it is a language to be spoken and a culture to be embraced. Still, it's not just an important book, but also a helpful one, and I'm enjoying interacting with Lindbeck's ideas again.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews