This is great - thanks for drawing these connections bt Lindbeck and Keller, and how the consequence of "disembodiment" in CP-esque approaches fuels the increasing "dis-embodied" corporate Body. Fascinating. Looking forward to the CP/EE discussion in a future post.
Really enjoyed the essay and your engagement with Keller, Dr. Sanders. I think your connection between how people enter the faith and the sort of church culture they enter is significant. If I understand you correctly, your concern is that apologetic approaches that emphasize “getting your doctrinal ducks in a row” as part of conversion will ultimately create a church culture that is “doctrinal duck conscious,” and perhaps overly so! I resonate with that, and I am looking forward to your insights on other approaches.
I am curious about this statement. You noted, “Once they arrive there is nothing left to do- or if there is, it must be described separately from the means by which they were converted. Individuals go to church because they are Christians, but it is not clear why they must.”
I agree with your critique in isolation from Keller’s broader project. However, if the question is posed from with the fuller context of his work (books, preaching, essays, and church practice/approach to liturgy, see Redeemer’s Worship leader manual from the early 00s), then I don’t believe your approach will hold up.
I’m fairly familiar with Keller’s work, and I think the response to your statement would be something along the lines of: The connection between conversion and community (that is gathered worship) is that the conversion is not merely an intellectual one but wholehearted conversion. The way in and the way forward is grace.
As to persuasion, somewhere in the shorter catechism (Q89 maybe?) it notes that the Spirit convicts and convinces sinners of the gospel, and then comforts and builds people up to grow in grace. Keller held this in relation to the role of persuasion in preaching/apologetics.
So if I am understanding your project correctly, then my “push back” or invitation to conversation (as I tell my students) is that I don’t love reading works in isolation of the corpus, but I think your exploration could succeed if it frames Keller within his broader project by finding a way to acknowledge the way church practice / liturgy at Redeemer in some ways ran counter to the framework you’ve described within Reason for God.
I hope that makes sense! Looking forward to continuing the conversation!
Reasons for God is an apologetic work, and so written intentionally in a cognitive-propositional style. It's purpose is to speak to 'reasons' that are commonly made, in our culture, that are an excuse for denying the existence of God, to take such reasons out of the way of those who may be struggling on the basis of such cultural obstacles to faith in God, and to help those struggling with such 'reasons' to think them through and address them rationally, I believe. I first became acquainted with the book, in a group of graduate students that met led by a campus ministry volunteer, who proposed reading Dawkins book and Keller's book together, section by section (reading them separately would have been better, and what I did later on..).
Many of Keller's other works represent an integration that I believe fits with the cultural-linguistic approach that Lindbeck has proposed. I await your article defining your integration of this third approach to 'doctrine/religion' (and appreciate the clarity that you bring to the description of the first two forms from Lindbeck's framework; your articles were very helpful to my understanding of what Lindbeck writes in his book). My understanding of this third way to 'work out our faith into life (my words for what I believe Lindbeck is discussing using the terms 'doctrine/religion') is based on his definition found about 20% of the way through his book (which is as far as I've gotten at this point):
"The function of church doctrines that becomes most prominent in this perspective is their use, not as expressive symbols or as truth claims, but as communally authoritative rules of discourse, attitude, and action. This general way of conceptualizing religion will be called in what follows a “cultural-linguistic” approach, and the implied view of church doctrine will be referred to as a “regulative” or “rule” theory. A regulative approach has no difficulty explaining the possibility of reconciliation without capitulation. Rules, unlike propositions or expressive symbols, retain an invariant meaning under changing conditions of compatibility and conflict."
Lindbeck, George A.. The Nature of Doctrine, 25th Anniversary Edition: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age . Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
I have read several of Keller's books; I was going to mention two of them, Every Good Endeavor, and Walking with God through Pain and Suffering, as reflective of the integration/synthesis between a faith based on congitive propositional truth that works out into our communal experience/expression in life, which is the kind of synthesis/integration between these two other (limited!) approaches, that were required a different approach for 'ecumenicalism' to succeed.
But as I went to review the books which I read using Kindle (allowing me to highlight and add notes for future reference), I glanced through his book 'Generous Justice', which contains an autobiographical explanation for his particular cultural-linguistic approach. Keller operated in evangelical spheres (and a denomination) which places a heavy emphasis on cognitive/propositional doctrine; but in the final analysis, most individuals operate on the basis of an experiential/expressivist framework for their lives, some individually, others communally, others a blend of both; and there are other frameworks that intersect, particularly this autobiographical lens our experience shapes, through which we view and interpret the external world. Keller's autobiographical narrative helps us see this particular framework that he has approached the practical aspect of 'Generous Justice' as central to our walk of faith in life. So I commend Generous Justice, as a very clear work of Keller's that gives sufficient content to assess what i believe characterizes his dominant approach to doctrine/religion in LIndbeck's usage, or 'faith and life' in the language used in a segment of the 'evangelical' movement that Keller was part of.
A good example of Keller's main style, which I believe fits with the 'cultural-linguistic' form is seen in this excerpt from Generous Justice:
"Justice Is Care for the Vulnerable. Micah 6:8 is a summary of how God wants us to live. To walk humbly with God is to know him intimately and to be attentive to what he desires and loves. And what does that consist of? The text says to “do justice and love mercy,” which seem at first glance to be two different things, but they are not.17 The term for “mercy” is the Hebrew word chesedh, God’s unconditional grace and compassion. The word for “justice” is the Hebrew term mishpat. In Micah 6:8, “mishpat puts the emphasis on the action, chesedh puts it on the attitude [or motive] behind the action.”18 To walk with God, then, we must do justice, out of merciful love. The word mishpat in its various forms occurs more than two hundred times in the Hebrew Old Testament. Its most basic meaning is to treat people equitably. So Leviticus 24:22 warns Israel to “have the same mishpat [“rule of law”] for the foreigner as the native.” Mishpat means acquitting or punishing every person on the merits of the case, regardless of race or social status. Anyone who does the same wrong should be given the same penalty. But mishpat means more than just the punishment of wrongdoing. It also means to give people their rights. Deuteronomy 18 directs that the priests of the tabernacle should be supported by a certain percentage of the people’s income. This support is described as “the priests’ mishpat,” which means their due or their right. So we read, “Defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Proverbs 31:9). Mishpat, then, is giving people what they are due, whether punishment or protection or care. This is why, if you look at every place the word is used in the Old Testament, several classes of persons continually come up. Over and over again, mishpat describes taking up the care and cause of widows, orphans, immigrants, and the poor—those who have been called “the quartet of the vulnerable.”19 This is what the LORD Almighty says: Administer true justice, show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the immigrant or the poor. Zechariah 7:10-11"
Keller, Timothy. Generous Justice: How God's Grace Makes Us Just (pp. 3-4). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
I grew up in a Lutheran system; later, heard what said about Luther struggling with the apparent contradiction between Paul and James; but find what James says to capture the same truth Keller brings out in a way that truly integrates faith with life, in Generous Justice, as well as the other two works mentioned above, here:
"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. James 1:27"
As I mentioned in another comment; I find the series intriguing; as I also commented to another commentor, I believe that i have walked a path that has taken me to a place very similar to what keller describes in Generous Justice; the very articulation of the gospel Jesus began His ministry with, in Luke 4, brings our focus to this 'true religion' that James describes; as He began to engage in 'gospel ministry', Jesus named the people He came for; the poor, the captives, the blind, and the oppressed, to 'proclaim the favorable Year of the Lord' is now HERE with His coming as the promised Messiah! And if we continue into the passage He cites the beginning of; the characterization of His PRESENT reign in a Kingdom not of this world, defines our walk as 'aliens and strangers' whose lives are 'for the good of the city' we live within, as citizens of heaven. And among those Jesus named in the prophesy He authored and read, are a particular group of those captive and oppressed-those struggling because of the serious relational sin of 'abuse'. The church OUGHT TO BE a place that knows how to HELP people struggling with 'relational SIN'; but many times, the church is 'the first place people go for help, but the last place they find it' to quote a well known advocate...
I'd like to see the church return to a place where it is truly a refuge for the hurting in our world, a place of safety and healing and hope.
This is great - thanks for drawing these connections bt Lindbeck and Keller, and how the consequence of "disembodiment" in CP-esque approaches fuels the increasing "dis-embodied" corporate Body. Fascinating. Looking forward to the CP/EE discussion in a future post.
Really enjoyed the essay and your engagement with Keller, Dr. Sanders. I think your connection between how people enter the faith and the sort of church culture they enter is significant. If I understand you correctly, your concern is that apologetic approaches that emphasize “getting your doctrinal ducks in a row” as part of conversion will ultimately create a church culture that is “doctrinal duck conscious,” and perhaps overly so! I resonate with that, and I am looking forward to your insights on other approaches.
I am curious about this statement. You noted, “Once they arrive there is nothing left to do- or if there is, it must be described separately from the means by which they were converted. Individuals go to church because they are Christians, but it is not clear why they must.”
I agree with your critique in isolation from Keller’s broader project. However, if the question is posed from with the fuller context of his work (books, preaching, essays, and church practice/approach to liturgy, see Redeemer’s Worship leader manual from the early 00s), then I don’t believe your approach will hold up.
I’m fairly familiar with Keller’s work, and I think the response to your statement would be something along the lines of: The connection between conversion and community (that is gathered worship) is that the conversion is not merely an intellectual one but wholehearted conversion. The way in and the way forward is grace.
As to persuasion, somewhere in the shorter catechism (Q89 maybe?) it notes that the Spirit convicts and convinces sinners of the gospel, and then comforts and builds people up to grow in grace. Keller held this in relation to the role of persuasion in preaching/apologetics.
So if I am understanding your project correctly, then my “push back” or invitation to conversation (as I tell my students) is that I don’t love reading works in isolation of the corpus, but I think your exploration could succeed if it frames Keller within his broader project by finding a way to acknowledge the way church practice / liturgy at Redeemer in some ways ran counter to the framework you’ve described within Reason for God.
I hope that makes sense! Looking forward to continuing the conversation!
Reasons for God is an apologetic work, and so written intentionally in a cognitive-propositional style. It's purpose is to speak to 'reasons' that are commonly made, in our culture, that are an excuse for denying the existence of God, to take such reasons out of the way of those who may be struggling on the basis of such cultural obstacles to faith in God, and to help those struggling with such 'reasons' to think them through and address them rationally, I believe. I first became acquainted with the book, in a group of graduate students that met led by a campus ministry volunteer, who proposed reading Dawkins book and Keller's book together, section by section (reading them separately would have been better, and what I did later on..).
Many of Keller's other works represent an integration that I believe fits with the cultural-linguistic approach that Lindbeck has proposed. I await your article defining your integration of this third approach to 'doctrine/religion' (and appreciate the clarity that you bring to the description of the first two forms from Lindbeck's framework; your articles were very helpful to my understanding of what Lindbeck writes in his book). My understanding of this third way to 'work out our faith into life (my words for what I believe Lindbeck is discussing using the terms 'doctrine/religion') is based on his definition found about 20% of the way through his book (which is as far as I've gotten at this point):
"The function of church doctrines that becomes most prominent in this perspective is their use, not as expressive symbols or as truth claims, but as communally authoritative rules of discourse, attitude, and action. This general way of conceptualizing religion will be called in what follows a “cultural-linguistic” approach, and the implied view of church doctrine will be referred to as a “regulative” or “rule” theory. A regulative approach has no difficulty explaining the possibility of reconciliation without capitulation. Rules, unlike propositions or expressive symbols, retain an invariant meaning under changing conditions of compatibility and conflict."
Lindbeck, George A.. The Nature of Doctrine, 25th Anniversary Edition: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age . Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
I have read several of Keller's books; I was going to mention two of them, Every Good Endeavor, and Walking with God through Pain and Suffering, as reflective of the integration/synthesis between a faith based on congitive propositional truth that works out into our communal experience/expression in life, which is the kind of synthesis/integration between these two other (limited!) approaches, that were required a different approach for 'ecumenicalism' to succeed.
But as I went to review the books which I read using Kindle (allowing me to highlight and add notes for future reference), I glanced through his book 'Generous Justice', which contains an autobiographical explanation for his particular cultural-linguistic approach. Keller operated in evangelical spheres (and a denomination) which places a heavy emphasis on cognitive/propositional doctrine; but in the final analysis, most individuals operate on the basis of an experiential/expressivist framework for their lives, some individually, others communally, others a blend of both; and there are other frameworks that intersect, particularly this autobiographical lens our experience shapes, through which we view and interpret the external world. Keller's autobiographical narrative helps us see this particular framework that he has approached the practical aspect of 'Generous Justice' as central to our walk of faith in life. So I commend Generous Justice, as a very clear work of Keller's that gives sufficient content to assess what i believe characterizes his dominant approach to doctrine/religion in LIndbeck's usage, or 'faith and life' in the language used in a segment of the 'evangelical' movement that Keller was part of.
A good example of Keller's main style, which I believe fits with the 'cultural-linguistic' form is seen in this excerpt from Generous Justice:
"Justice Is Care for the Vulnerable. Micah 6:8 is a summary of how God wants us to live. To walk humbly with God is to know him intimately and to be attentive to what he desires and loves. And what does that consist of? The text says to “do justice and love mercy,” which seem at first glance to be two different things, but they are not.17 The term for “mercy” is the Hebrew word chesedh, God’s unconditional grace and compassion. The word for “justice” is the Hebrew term mishpat. In Micah 6:8, “mishpat puts the emphasis on the action, chesedh puts it on the attitude [or motive] behind the action.”18 To walk with God, then, we must do justice, out of merciful love. The word mishpat in its various forms occurs more than two hundred times in the Hebrew Old Testament. Its most basic meaning is to treat people equitably. So Leviticus 24:22 warns Israel to “have the same mishpat [“rule of law”] for the foreigner as the native.” Mishpat means acquitting or punishing every person on the merits of the case, regardless of race or social status. Anyone who does the same wrong should be given the same penalty. But mishpat means more than just the punishment of wrongdoing. It also means to give people their rights. Deuteronomy 18 directs that the priests of the tabernacle should be supported by a certain percentage of the people’s income. This support is described as “the priests’ mishpat,” which means their due or their right. So we read, “Defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Proverbs 31:9). Mishpat, then, is giving people what they are due, whether punishment or protection or care. This is why, if you look at every place the word is used in the Old Testament, several classes of persons continually come up. Over and over again, mishpat describes taking up the care and cause of widows, orphans, immigrants, and the poor—those who have been called “the quartet of the vulnerable.”19 This is what the LORD Almighty says: Administer true justice, show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the immigrant or the poor. Zechariah 7:10-11"
Keller, Timothy. Generous Justice: How God's Grace Makes Us Just (pp. 3-4). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
I grew up in a Lutheran system; later, heard what said about Luther struggling with the apparent contradiction between Paul and James; but find what James says to capture the same truth Keller brings out in a way that truly integrates faith with life, in Generous Justice, as well as the other two works mentioned above, here:
"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. James 1:27"
As I mentioned in another comment; I find the series intriguing; as I also commented to another commentor, I believe that i have walked a path that has taken me to a place very similar to what keller describes in Generous Justice; the very articulation of the gospel Jesus began His ministry with, in Luke 4, brings our focus to this 'true religion' that James describes; as He began to engage in 'gospel ministry', Jesus named the people He came for; the poor, the captives, the blind, and the oppressed, to 'proclaim the favorable Year of the Lord' is now HERE with His coming as the promised Messiah! And if we continue into the passage He cites the beginning of; the characterization of His PRESENT reign in a Kingdom not of this world, defines our walk as 'aliens and strangers' whose lives are 'for the good of the city' we live within, as citizens of heaven. And among those Jesus named in the prophesy He authored and read, are a particular group of those captive and oppressed-those struggling because of the serious relational sin of 'abuse'. The church OUGHT TO BE a place that knows how to HELP people struggling with 'relational SIN'; but many times, the church is 'the first place people go for help, but the last place they find it' to quote a well known advocate...
I'd like to see the church return to a place where it is truly a refuge for the hurting in our world, a place of safety and healing and hope.
Bill
I've been trying to trace propositionalism on the opposite end, in secular progressivism--which might be called "propositional polymaltruism":
https://jurassiclocke.substack.com/p/propositional-polymaltruism
But I'll think more now about propositionalism as a dividing point *within* the Christian church! Thanks.