Matthew Kaddatz
April 21, 2006
Contemporary World Theology
Dear Pastor John Steward,
If you thought Baskin-Robbins has too many flavors then you will soon find out
they have very few compared to postmodernism. Although postmodernism is wide and
varied, it is unified in that it is a reaction to modernism. It attacks many of the premises
of modernism and asks newer, better questions. Some postmodern theologies rephrase
and answer tough questions the modern period asked of Christianity. Others stray from
orthodox Christian belief. Kevin Vanhoozer’s Postmodern Theology gives examples of
several types of postmodern theology. In this letter I will explain and critique the chapter
on postliberal theology and the chapter on postmetaphysical theology.
Simply put, postliberal theology is theology that is no longer liberal. The term
liberal is much more inclusive than one might think. It includes both traditional
fundamentalist schools of theology and traditional liberal schools of theology. So
postliberalism is not any of that. In Hunsinger’s chapter on Postliberal theology, he
describes Lindbeck’s theology called the “cultural linguistic theory”. Hunsigner says,
“‘Cognitive propostitionalism’ and ‘experiential expressivism’ are the same sort of thing,
but the ‘cultural linguistic theory’ is not” (45). Cognitive propositionalism is simply a
fancy word for what you would think of as conservative theology, while experiential
expressivism is what you might call liberal theology. Lindbeck is doing something
different with his cultural linguistic theory. The postliberal reads the Bible as analogy
rather than literally or expressively (47). It is clear that an expressive and literal readings
of the Bible are opposed to each other, while reading the Bible as analogy is something
different.
So what does all of this look like? Hunsinger says, “postliberalism merely
retrieves patristic and medieval insights that were often eclipsed during modernity by the
polarized clash between liberalism and fundamentalism” (47). This is important because
we can now say God is just, however, God’s justice is perfect and unlike the justice that
we know. Our understanding of justice helps us understand God yet God’s justice is
much bigger than our understanding. This avoids literalism’s tendency to emphasize a
fully knowable being thus disregarding his transcendence. It also avoids expressivism’s
temptation to make God totally transcendent thus avoiding the fact he is knowable (47).
So, postliberalism offers an option that embraces both God’s transcendence and God’s
ability to be known which is truly a more Biblical picture of God. He is described as
infinite and eternal yet revealed through the person Jesus Christ. It frees theology from
the assumptions of liberal theology and allows Christianity to have its own assumptions.
Not only does postliberalism offer a more Biblical solution but it solves a debate that has
been splitting the church. I know the more liberal members of our church have often felt
alienated by our Churches more conservative theology. With postliberalism we can
abandon this division and embrace a more accurate reading of the Bible through analogy.
Our Church has embraced a conservative theology because liberal theology
becomes pluralistic and removes the excusive claims of Christ. We are then critiqued by
the world as being judgmental and exclusivist. Postliberalism helps us realize this
critique is false because “religions are inherently exclusive in the sense that one can not
adhere to more than one at the same time” (54). The pluralist is creating an excusive
religion that is saying we are wrong. This levels the playing field, forcing everyone to
realize then enter the discussion bias with their own set of assumptions. Although we are
exclusivist, we should not be exclusivist to the extent that salvation is denied to the nonChristian (56). This cuts dialogue with the non-Christian and salvation is not our
judgment. We must be in dialogue with other religions so that they can truly experience
and see the power of the risen Christ in us.
Now let’s take a look at postmetaphysical theology. Much like postliberal
theology is beyond liberal, postmetaphysical theology is beyond metaphysics. It shows
how metaphysics are bad and should not be used to construct a proper theology of God.
Jean-Luc Marion says, “postmetaphysical theology…responds to a Christian God and
Father who, as absolute love or charity, and according to that charity’s ‘essential
anachronism’ would remain beyond all historical or cultural determination even while
abandoning himself fully to history in Christ” (58). What Marion is trying to do is
remove God from human thought and language so that God can exist beyond that. He is
afraid that our conceptions of God make God into an idol. Marion is working from an
extra-metaphysical notion of “God without Being” which does not mean he does not
exists but that human thought cannot understand God existence (58). Marion believes
that “the withdrawal from the divine would perhaps constitute his ultimate figure of
revelation” (62). He is trying to say that anytime we attempt to say something about God
we are in fact making him an idol. “God ceases to be the God of a living religious
practice” (61). So it is useless to have any metaphysical account of who God is because
it will inevitably corrupt God.
If we have a metaphysical conception of God then God is an idol. It is important
for our church not to view God as idolatrous so we much make Marion’s
postmetaphysical account of God seriously. This means preaching a God who is the God
of Patriarch, prophets and Jesus, not the God of the philosophers. When we do this we
avoid Nietzsche’s critique that God is dead. We can say the God of the philosophers is
dead but not our God, he is alive and in our Church. He has revealed himself to us
throughout history climaxing in the person Jesus Christ. Postmetaphysical theology will
also allow us to have new apologetics. Atheists argue against a metaphysical God. Well
if the God we preach is not metaphysical then we do not have to respond to their critique.
We have to show them that the Christian God is something different and he exists and
reigns in the Church. That sounds more like what Paul is doing in Athens.
In Christ,
Matthew