Talk:Postliberal theology

From Theopedia

Nonfoundationalism for postliberals?

Can someone provide a reference for this within the article? In my experience I find that many who are called postliberal would happily admit a single, universal foundation for truth. However, they would not agree with a single, universal foundation for understanding truth. Culture, etc., does not define truth but generates our understanding it. Wouldn't this be the crux of the difference between "postmodern" and "postliberal"? This generation can produce good and bad understandings (i.e. understandings which ultimately agree or disagree with the Source and intent truth). I would be particularly interested in quotes from Lindbeck (or non-self proclaimed[?] post liberals like Barth and Hauerwas) which which espouses nonfoundationalism as defined in the article. Jason Gabler 16:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have this book, try looking it up on Google books - I read this in the "Postliberal Theology" articleby James Foder in The Modern Theologians, 3rd ed. (Blackwell, 2005), p. 231. He says postliberal theology "adopts a non-foundational epistemological posture" who are not committed to "ground those claims on purportedly universal principles or structures that can be accessed in a 'neutral' and 'objective' (i.e., framework-independent) manner." Does this help? Jordan Barrett (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

it helps some. But there are two issues. One is my possible misreading of the article text. I read "From this line of thinking develops the idea that there can be no universal foundation for truth" as meaning such an idea as integral to nonfoundationalism and therefore integral to postliberal theology. Am I understanding the article properly? The other issue is "not committed to "'ground those claims'" depends upon the claims in question. It is my understanding that postliberal theology does not start with truth as being up for grabs, as postmodernism does.

I am not sure where McGrath stands but I would gather that Foder is coming from a non-postliberal camp. I think the article should start with postliberal theologians defining postliberal theology. Far to often opponents view one another with a myopia that cripples their objectivity. I suppose I have yet another reason to go back through my Hauerwas books. Jason Gabler 21:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am definitely with you in allowing a group to define their own views. However, I am not against an "outsider" giving his/her personal understanding of common beliefs/themes that can be found in a certain group. And to note, this part of the article is not polemical, but its goal is to inform and give a brief survey of postliberal theology in general. He refers mainly to George Lindbeck, Hans Frei, and Stanley Hauerwas and mentions a few others (not McGrath - though I don't know where he'd fall here either). Lastly, I started this article a while back when I knew almost nothing. I still know very little about postliberal theology, and so feel free to make some changes. If you want, I can use the chapter from the 2nd edition which is written be William Placher, a postliberal himself. He also says that postliberalism is "non-foundationalist" and that they reject the claim that "knowledge is grounded in a set of non-inferential, self-evident beliefs" (p. 344). He then analyzes the same three guys mentioned above, but adds Ronald Thiemann. Jordan Barrett (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)