McClendon's Approach to Doctrine: Doctrine as Practice

Chapter 1: a. iii The present approach
Again, a short summary: JWM describes doctrine as a practice. He notes elements of Catholic and Protestant notions of doctrine that are noteworthy, including first, that Christian teaching isn't arbitrary, a free invention of the teacher (postmoderns beware), but a response to God's authority. Even so, he says two, there is a reserve regarding our ability to communicate God's authority/truth. Comment: I think this is helpful. What we say about God has some meaning, but we should recognize the limits of our ability to communicate it. This should change our language in how we talk about doctrine. And three, there is a role for the Christian community in that it is both the setting and the
agent of Christian teaching. (28)

The Practice of Doctrine Defined
By definition, a practice has ends in mind, a telos, a goal toward which we move as we engage in the practice. It requires practitioners who use practice specific means in the pursuit of these ends. The practice isn't done so arbitrarily but involves sets of rules which help the practitioners reach these ends, using these means.
(see Alasdair MacIntyre in "After Virtue" for background on 'practice')

Some interesting notes on the above terms
Practitioner- one who is intentionally involved in the practice (not just a casual reader of the bible for instance). He notes that conversion is implicit in the practice. One cannot teach Christian doctrine apart from living this faith, different from teaching ABOUT religion.

MEANS- he grants the cognitive, referential role of convictions about numerous 'doctrines' like creation, atonement, etc., but notes that such doctrines often have narrative parable paradigmatic example as their origin.

RULES: What can meaningfully be declared in Christian discourse (see Lindbeck on doctrine as being language that follows the 'grammatical rules' of the Christian faith). Example, in baseball, there are rules to follow, the failure of which results in being called "out" or being told to leave the field because we're playing some other game. What we commonly refer to as a 'doctrine' is often the grammatical rule that tells us the boundaries we have in discussing the topic.

P32: Big debate with some ethicists like Stanley Hauerwas, who seem to accept McClendon's position on doctrine as a practice. The charge is that some are 'dualists' who see doctrine as one thing and action as another thing. McClendon (and I think Hauerwas too) sees himself as 'practical' whereby REAL doctrines constitute community life in such a way that they are LIVED OUT. This echos the Paulin/James debate on faith-works.

Comment: Thus, I understand this to mean that a doctrine partially proves itself to be a valid Christian doctrine to the extent that it visibly is lived out in the community and affects how it lives its life together.

Discussion:

What do you think about the idea that there are 'rules' of Christian doctrinal discourse?
What examples might we point to as 'rules of discourse.'?
George Lindbeck's "The Nature of Doctrine" might be helpful here.
What do you think the 'ends' of Christian doctrine are?

For my friend, Dr. Thompson, do you think such an approach is gender neutral?

Having Gotten a Little Ahead, Let's Back Up

The book under discussion here is part 2 of a 3 part systematic theology by James Wm McClendon. Jim was a teacher at Fuller Seminary for many years before his death a few years ago. He and his wife, Nancey Murphy, were powerful influences on my life and thinking. EthicsPart 1 of his set is on the topic of ethics and I don't have the time to get into this book now.

Witness This is part III of his series and it has all to do with the postmodern shift in thinking that has occured. Again, for anyone in Emergent who wants to see cutting edge thinking as it relates to the Church and faith, go here now.

Why Doctrine Now?
Frankly, there are a lot of people fumbling around this whole postmodern meteoric blast into the church which has spawned a great deal of energy into thinking anew. But it would behoove all of us interested in doing so to watch the masters do it, if there are masters in fact doing it. The 'doing it' I'm referring to, of course, is postmodern theological reflection. Jim McClendon is a heavyweight. He was working on these issues before most in emergent were even born. In Doctrine, he gives an example of someone who is putting pen to paper doing the very theology, in a very different way, than most people do today. It is important not only to listen to his voice, but to watch how he goes about his work.

In the words of a friend, "I'm tired of reading about theological postmodernity. I want to see someone do theology. I want to grapple with theological ideas."

So that's what this is all about for me, and hopefully for a few others.

Part 1: What is Doctrine?

This is a review of the 1st half of Chapter 1 only:

Chapter 1: What is Doctrine

1. JMc outlines catholic and protestant approaches to doctrine. Doctrine = a church teaching that must be taught for the church to be the church here and now.
2. Doctrine is a first order task; it comes first BEFORE theology. That is, theologians receive Church teaching/doctrine first, then study and interpret it. They don’t make up doctrine and market it to church. Ie. Mother comes before the child.
3. Catholic view of doctrine is closely associated with propositions, revealed to church, interpreted by church (cf. pope central role) to the people. Similar to foundationalism, all knowledge rests on these propositions, which is why the catholic church vehemently defends these propositions.
4. Liberal Protestant view in modern times: religion=feelings or awareness, but not = to knowing or doing, therefore, doctrine = accounts of our religious affections (Schleiermacher). Therefore, unity of the church is measured by its “shared awareness” of God.

Commentary:
The catholic view above is not dissimilar at all from fundamentalist protestants, and many modern evangelicals. Truth is seen as static and unchanging from generation to generation, or at any rate, extremely slow in changing. It seems to me that this accounts in large measure why some people see such incongruity with our context today and some church teaching. Cf. women in church, slavery in recent past, etc.

If the church is to emerge into the postmodern context with the rest of the world, this will be the primary ‘battleground’ or ‘love-ground.’ How can those of us within the large Christian tradition dialogue with those who believe with all their heart that truth is static.

Starting ideas:
1. take our faith and commitment to live a truthful life with all the seriousness that our fundamentalist brothers and sisters do. Short of seeing our seriousness, they won’t even engage in a conversation.
2. Allow ourselves to be persuaded by some of their heartfelt convictions, while modeling for them dialogue that is loving.
3. We are not from Mars and they are not from Venus. We do have commonalities and should start with those in conversation. Asking anyone to take great leaps or grand switches in their thinking is remarkably unreasonable. We wouldn’t do it. They won’t do it. Conversions are usually long processes of change and only appear to be dramatic at the point a switch in paradigms is made.

On Being a Lay Theologian

Alright, this is a serious blog, despite the titillating title. It is intended for theological discussion on a host of issues as they arise, however, it is primarily intended to get people to read what I want them to read and to discuss it at a time of my own choosing.

Here's how it will work. If you want to join the conversation, you'll have two ways to do so. 1) you can read the book at hand and make original postings reflecting your reading of that book. If you choose to do this, you will become a co- administrator of the site and can post at any time. 2) if you want to read the blog without reading the text at hand, you can participate by comments only. If you chose to make comments that are equal to or greater in moronic-tude than my own comments, they may very well be erased.

There is great debate today about Truth and who owns it. I am not an expert in the topics to be discussed, but that is not a requirement for good theology to be practiced. There may well be some who end up reading this with far more theological education than I have now, or will ever have. But truth is about persuasion and dialogue. We all stand where we stand and do our best to stand there with integrity. Hopefully in participating together in this conversation, we may find times to mutually influence one another and by doing so, find ourselves further down the road of understanding.