The title of Westphal’s book leapt out at me because it was precisely the title that I had contemplated on using if I ever got around to extending and expanding my critique of Baptist communitarianism. Expanding that critique needed to begin with an introduction in layman’s terms to the hermeneutics of Hans Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricouer -- a very tall order -- along with an explanation of the liberal political philosophy of John Rawls and then contrast those thinkers with the communitarian thought of Alasdair MacIntyre, Stanley Hauerwas and their Baptist disciples. I’ve never had time to devote to such a project. Now, if anyone should desire to take up that project, the most challenging part of the task has already been done in superb style and with brilliant insight by Merold Westphal.
Here is one draught from a book filled to the brim with penetrating analysis and productive insight:
Viewed as political theory, communitarianism is dangerous, for in such a role it would make the state the principal teacher of morality. Reflecting an anxiety in the face of cultural pluralism and a nostalgia for a more nearly homogeneous society, it forgets the dangers that liberalism was designed to address and opens the way to intolerant and even violent domination of minorities by cultural majorities or even of majorities by militant minorities.Westphal goes on to discuss "the church as conversation" based on the model of political liberalism and informed by the communitarian model as a "useful heuristic."
But we are not doing political theory [Westphal discusses political liberalism and communitarianism as models for the church], and in fact communitarianism is a far better model for the church than it is for the state. Churches derive their identity from their theologies, which are comprehensive doctrines with substantial metaphysical and moral dimensions; so they are, from a communitarian perspective, well suited to be the moral teachers of their members and to bear moral witness to the larger society in which they find themselves.
I give this book the highest possible recommendation. Two thumbs up and eight fingers too. It is essential reading for all free and faithful Baptists and for all thoughtful evangelical Christians.
8 comments:
I think the book did a thorough job of showing why there cannot be one, single, absolute interpretation of biblical texts.
Although, he asserts that it is not necessarily the case that one interpretation is as good as any other. He rejects absolute relativism, but does not seem to say how to decide between interpretations. I get the impression that your decision is going to be based upon your own place in tradition, culture, history, etc. Sounds like relativism to me. Maybe that is the best we can do is to decide what is best for "us".
His discussion of the groups that interpret biblical texts - academics, pastors, laity - made sense but seemed weak and incomplete. How are these groups going to come together in conversation? Should academics even influence how the laity interpret the Scriptures? Are the academic interpretations better than the laity's? How is the laity going to support academic work at interpreting Scriptures if the two are so different in their approaches and often so different in their conclusions?
W I,
Thanks for your comments. I have three responses:
1. What you label "relativism" would be better described as "perspectivalism."
2. I doubt that Westphal was trying to present an exhaustive list of interpreters.
3. Your questions all seem to reflect a preoccupation with a post-modern legitimacy crisis regarding the authority of the Academy. I think academicians are going to have to leave the shelter of their collegial communities and start learning how to communicate effectively with the laity.
Dr. Prescott,
While I seldom find much to agree with regarding Christianity and religion on the internet, I do agree with your responses. Most particularly with your comment about scholars communicating with the laity. In some way, academics need to communicate clearly, in a straightforward mannner, candidly, and honestly.
The author does say "all intepretation is perspectival and no interpretation is presuppositionaless"
What bothered me the most was, while he admits that the "layperson is usually not in a very good position to ask" ..... "what did the human author say to the original community of readers or hearers?" and to ask these questions "requires a significant measure of scholarly expertise", he seems to imply that they laity should just skip over these questions and focus on "what is God saying to me here and now in this passage?"
This suggestion seems to bring him back to what he has already rejected: an intuitive approach that results in "I just see what is planly there"
I am surely putting too fine a point on this issue, but I think his book needs a little more rigor in his final chapters.
BTW, have you reviewed or read "The Future of Faith" by Harvey Cox. I thought there was some good stuff here. There is an interesting review of it at www.ecumenicalchristianperspective.blogspot.com
Dr Prescott:
I am not sure if you are aware of this blog or not: www.wildernesspreacher.blogspot.com.
The most recent post is about reading and interpreting scripture. While it is not technical or philosophical in its approach, it has very good practical advice and presents a sound perspective. Check it out!
W. I.,
I've been out of town and away from my computer for the past couple days.
I have not read Harvey Cox's new book. I'll read the review you suggest.
I have read wildeness preacher now and then and have found several of his blogs helpful.
After reading, "Whose Community, Which Interpretation", I have also ready "The Future of Faith" by Harvey Cox and also "Transforming Christian Theology" by Philip Clayton. While the three books do not have the same goals, they share similar persepctives and touch on some of the same topics. Of the three, I would most recommend "Transforming Christian Theology"
It is less philosphical than "Whose Community, Which Interpretation" and much more practical and clearly stated without being simplistic or naieve.
Clayton's book integrates faith and belief much better than Harvey Cox and his model for the main sources of theology as being the Bible, tradition, reason and experience is a model that is understandable and acceptable to the postmodern mind
More of my reactions to Philip Clayton's book can be found at www.ecumenicalchristianperspective.blogspot.com. One can also find there a short video by Philip Clayton himself discussing his book and also a video by E Frank Tupper's discussion of the book.
A similar perspective as "Whose Community? Which Interpretation?" appears to be more succinctly and elegantly stated in the introduction to Linda McKinnish Bridges' commentary "1 & 2 Thessalonians". Interestingly enough, she makes reference to another writer M.M. Bakhtin and his work entitled "The Dialogic Imagination (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981) I have not read Bachtin's work, but it may be worth checking out.
Post a Comment