Postliberal Theology.’ After Read- Ing Ronald T

328 book reviews Ronald T. Michener Postliberal Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed (London / New York: Bloomsbury t&t Clark, 2013), viii + 186 pp., us$24.95, isbn hb 978-0-5675-1899-6, isbn pb 978-0-5670-3005-4. This book offers a profound introduction to ‘postliberal theology.’ After read- ing Ronald T. Michener’s book, no one has to be perplexed any more by this umbrella term. As Michener defines it, postliberal theology unifies various theological shapes and occurrences of a “pro-church movement.” “Postliberal theology has always been more a loose connection of narrative theological inter- ests than it is some monolithic agenda. It represents an overarching concern for the renewal of Christian confession over theological methodology. Rather than reliance on a notion of correlative common experience, postliberal theology moves toward the local and particular faith description of the community of the church” (3). Along with the community of the church, postliberal theology stresses the primacy of the realistic and history-like scriptural narratives for theology. Hans Frei wrote the movement’s founding text in his description of The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, which characterizes the history of modern herme- neutics in the 18th and 19th centuries. Frei classified Christian theology according to five types on the basis of distinctive relationships with philosophy (10– 12). This typology is picked up by Michener in a modified way and provides him with identity markers for postliberal theology. Those markers point to a theology which is (1) non-foundationalist, (2) intra-textual, (3) socially centered, (4) respectful of plurality and diversity, and (5) embracing of a generous orthodoxy (i.e., it is ecumenically focused). According to Michener, postliberal theology received its most influential expression in George Lindbeck’s The Nature of Doctrine (1984), where Lind- beck developed his understanding of doctrines as the grammar of faith. Lind- beck’s theory about religion as a cultural-linguistic medium and especially his classification of three different types of theories about religion (the cognitive- propositionalist type associated with orthodoxy, the experiential-expressive type of liberal theology, and the cultural-linguistic type favored by Lindbeck himself) were highly influential for the perception of old and new ways of doing theology. Under the aegis of the Yale theologians Frei and Lindbeck, most of the recent key advocates have been trained in the “Yale School.” Therefore, Michener is well advised to present postliberal theology in its origins as a Yale-centered phenomenon (50–72). But as he correctly points out, its roots go back to the work of its famous ancestors, namely the “church fathers” St Augustine and © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/15697312-00803016 book reviews 329 Thomas Aquinas as well as Karl Barth who is seen as its forefather in the 20th century (40–49). Michener rightly understands the postliberal movement essentially as a Barthian project. But there are, of course, also philosophical, anthropological, and sociological backgrounds to mention, as Michener observes. For example, Lindbeck’s insistence on the similarities of doctrines and the rules of grammar for language makes the influence of Ludwig Wittgenstein evident (20–27). Michener also refers to Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science, Clifford Geertz’ cultural anthropology, and Peter Berger’s and Thomas Luckmann’s sociological impulses. Finally, he shows how Alasdair MacIntyre’s moral philosophy was a shaping influence which had an enormous impact on the community ethics of Stanley Hauerwas, another leading exponent of postliberal theology. Besides the central figures Frei, Lindbeck, and Hauerwas, many other voices of postliberal theology resound in Michener’s book. However, he does not simply reconstruct the history of the Yale School. This book is more than a small but fine piece of theological historiography, for it also re-articulates central problems and criticisms of postliberalism, such as the question of truth, the compound of apologetics, the dialogue over incom- mensurability and religious diversity, as well as the relationship of theology to culture and the public sphere (95–120). Last but not least, in a constructive sec- tion it offers prospects and proposals for postliberal theology today (121–142). In his own words, Michener supports “the postliberal repudiation of rationalism and consider[s] how a chastened view of rationality, coupled with the recovery of intellectual humility, can help point the way forward in doing theology with postliberal sensitivies” (16). Despite its many strong points and especially its helpful clarifications con- cerning the emergence and development of postliberal theology, Michener also ignores a few items. The influence of Brevard S. Childs and his canonical approach to postliberal theology stays inexplicit. By the way, Childs was the first one who made the terms “Yale School” and “New Yale Theology” public (see Brevard S. Childs, “Excursus iii: The Canonical Approach and the New Yale Theology,” The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction, Philadelphia 1984, 541–546.) Also unclear remains the relation between the postliberals and the so called “Evangelical Catholics” (Robert W. Jenson, Carl E. Braaten, David S. Yeago, the young Reinhard Huetter etc.). Michener does not discuss or even deliver a convincing explanation as to why a group of Yale-trained postliberals (Bruce D. Marshall and R.R. Reno) and someone like Reinhard Huetter, who once shared key affinities with the postliberal movement, converted to Roman Catholicism. Might there be any reason and consistency for this step? Does it follow with Journal of Reformed Theology 8 (2014) 311–344.

Load more