Defining postliberalism

Christian Century, June 2, 1999

I greatly appreciate the dialogue between James Gustafson and William Placher on postliberalism, particularly the former's ability to raise challenging and needed questions, and the latter's observation that we are still far from consensus regarding precisely what it means to be a postliberal Christian ("Just what is `postliberal theology'?," March 24-30; "Being postliberal," April 7; "Liberal questions," April 14). I have worn (or been assigned) that label for some years now, and still sometimes struggle with what the term conveys: there is a great deal of fuzziness, for example, at the boundary between "postliberal" and "confessional" camps within mainline denominations.

I suspect that while the construction of a formal, postliberal theology remains in its early stages, many of us who serve as pastors appropriate the term primarily for the purpose of redefining the culture of the church. Martin Copenhaver and Anthony Robinson are doing this when they speak of reclaiming the central role of scripture, prayer and sacraments within congregations where these core elements of Christian faith and practice had been largely displaced by therapeutic or social-activist paradigms. In this sense, postliberalism is as much a renewal movement as a theological model.

It has been argued that the particular genius of the Protestant mainline at its best has been its ability to maintain the integrity of a clear center in Christ while keeping its peripheral boundaries open and porous. Unlike the more conservative churches, postliberal congregations are not attempting to construct stronger walls of exclusion at the periphery. But we are attempting to reclaim our clear center in the lordship of Jesus Christ, a center that we perceive to have suffered significant erosion from the accommodations made by liberalism.

If, as Gustafson suggests, postliberalism has been more successful at defining itself against its left flank than its right, perhaps it is because the porous periphery has been endlessly celebrated by liberal, mainline Protestantism, while the center has been badly neglected.

John T. McFadden First Congregational (UCC), Appleton, Wis.

One question emerges in light of James Gustafson's affirmation that Friedrich Schleiermacher and Ernst Troeltsch's modern world "is still with us" in a more complex form. It is precisely this "still with us" which many of us strongly question. Is the postmodern in some large sense identifiable, thus requiring a postliberal response, or are we merely witnessing modernity's "silly season" of credulity?

Daniel Griggs First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Kent, Ohio

Gustafson and Placher have helped clarify the shape of the postliberal movement and highlighted the pitfalls. Both have touched on how different theological camps understand the nature of truth, and this, I believe, is the key issue.

One basic position on the nature of truth can be summarized as "there is an absolute truth to which we have relative access." This position preserves the idea of transcendent truth while recognizing that our grasp of it is limited. The limitation appears on our side in human sinfulness and finitude. It may also be part of the way truth interacts with us, like a wheel which works because only part of it touches the road at a given time. Some aspect of the truth can be known, such as God's self-revelation through Jesus Christ. There can still be a variety of views, each grasping some aspect of the truth. Yet the whole truth remains beyond our grasp. Logically, this should lead to an attitude of humility.

This appears to be the position held by postliberal theology, and it is a position I have held for years. I believe God speaks to me, and potentially to all, through Jesus Christ, but I make it a policy not to tell God who God can or can't talk to. I believe salvation is offered to all through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Those who accept this stand in the light of Christ, but those outside that "light" are given over to the mystery of the will of God and may yet be saved. I believe heterosexual monogamy was God's intention for human sexuality in the creation, but I am not willing to say that homosexual or transgendered persons are simply cut off from the grace of God.

Be this orthodox, neo-orthodox, dialectical or postliberal, I hope it is tempered by humility in the presence of a God who remains beyond our understanding.

Kent A. Meyer St. Joseph, Mich.

Gustafson and Placher's exchange is stimulating. But it does little to meet the enormous need for ministries to America's deep spiritual yearnings.

The dialogue demonstrates the limitations of academic theology in understanding and addressing the contemporary church-society scene. To oversimplify: academe worries over exotic issues; the real world lives by consequences of human behavior.

Academic theologies provide stimulating conversations--for academics. The everyday world looks simply at options: What will happen if I do this versus what will happen if I do that? And, if I feel I'm in over my head, I will pray, for that may help. This everyday world which lives an "ethics of consequences" needs a witness to the depth and breadth of spiritual experience, not more argument over exotic religious themes.