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?