To See as God Sees

In current religious thought there is much discussion about “postliberalism.” The term is subject to sundry interpretations and may turn out to be as rubbery and confused as the “liberalism” to which it is “post.” Post-liberalism is given its most lucid definition by thinkers such as George Lindbeck and the late Hans Frei of Yale. Liberalism, says Lindbeck, is basically an “emotive/expressive” mode of religion in which it is assumed that different doctrines and stories are essentially expressing the same truths, only in different ways. Post-liberalism, then, is a recapturing of the importance of “cultural/linguistic traditions,” of specific stories, communal memories, and even dogmas. Post-liberalism is suspicious of facile universalizations and is attached to particularities.

The advancement of the post-liberal argument is a most promising project. It underscores the importance of ressourcement, of returning to the sources, in order to revitalize distinctive traditions of interpretation and distinctive ways of construing reality. Much of contemporary religious thought, however, is still following in the footsteps of a liberalism that has its intellectual origins in nineteenth-century Protestantism, notably in post-Schleiermacher German thought. This is dramatically the case with “progressive” Evangelical thinkers and, if this writer’s The Catholic Moment is right, with the dominant voices in the Roman Catholic theological establishment. While the most reflective thinkers are analyzing the ways in which it failed, that old liberalism continues to be attractive to others who understand progress as a process of being liberated from tradition and particularity. This attraction is not limited to Christian thinkers.

RJ

About the Author

Richard John Neuhaus

Featured Tags

In current religious thought there is much discussion about “postliberalism.” The term is subject to sundry interpretations and may turn out to be as rubbery and confused as the “liberalism” to which it is “post.” Post-liberalism is given its most lucid definition by thinkers such as George Lindbeck and the late Hans Frei of Yale. Liberalism, says Lindbeck, is basically an “emotive/expressive” mode of religion in which it is assumed that different doctrines and stories are essentially expressing the same truths, only in different ways. Post-liberalism, then, is a recapturing of the importance of “cultural/linguistic traditions,” of specific stories, communal memories, and even dogmas. Post-liberalism is suspicious of facile universalizations and is attached to particularities.

The advancement of the post-liberal argument is a most promising project. It underscores the importance of ressourcement, of returning to the sources, in order to revitalize distinctive traditions of interpretation and distinctive ways of construing reality. Much of contemporary religious thought, however, is still following in the footsteps of a liberalism that has its intellectual origins in nineteenth-century Protestantism, notably in post-Schleiermacher German thought. This is dramatically the case with “progressive” Evangelical thinkers and, if this writer’s The Catholic Moment is right, with the dominant voices in the Roman Catholic theological establishment. While the most reflective thinkers are analyzing the ways in which it failed, that old liberalism continues to be attractive to others who understand progress as a process of being liberated from tradition and particularity. This attraction is not limited to Christian thinkers.