Perisseuo wrote:
Regarding Niebuhr, I have some questions. If it doesn't belong here, maybe it can be move to the general forum. I realize it is tangential at best from the intent of the book review.
What is meant by post liberalism?
Except for his book titles, the wikipedia article doesn't mention Jesus Christ. It said that Niebuhr was staunch in his belief in the total sovereignty of God, but did he believe that man needs saving from our sin? In his system, is it possible for man to know God?. Does it become a question of God not being transcendent alone, but immanence as well?.
I assume he and others like him deny much of orthodox Christianity?
The only thing I have read by RN is his Christ and Culture (CC) so I am in no way an expert on him. Niebuhr was a neo-orthodox scholar in the Evangelical and Reformed Church. Niebuhr criticized liberalism for being soft on sin and attacked the major denominations for failing to challenge American societal trends.
In CC, Niebuhr explores: (1) "Christ against culture" (radical Christianity), (2) "Christ of culture" (culture-Christianity, liberalism), (3) "Christ and culture" (synthetic Christianity, Thomism), (4) "CC in paradox," (dualist Christianity, Lutheranism); and (5) "Christ transforming culture" (conversionist Christianity, Augustinianism, Calvinism). While his book never changed my mind about Christ and Culture, he did broaden my views of how this may take place. Thus, I consider it a good book to read for the mature saint.
Niebuhr "acknowledged the necessity for personal transformation through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit" … he also stressed "the radical pervasiveness of sin, the emphasis on substitutionary atonement, the central role of preaching in the communication of the gospel and the enduring but secondary place of historical criticism in shaping the understanding of the biblical text" [Donald G. Bloesch (2008) Evangelicalism Dialog: A Journal of Theology 47 (1), 16-20]. However, in salvation, Niebuhr stresses that we do not act alone, or for ourselves alone. Rather, we act as believers, for a higher purpose, to act in the present moment (history) with real consequences and results alongside eternal reward. In other words, that individual salvation is eschatological with a definite community purpose. He states, "faith in the Absolute, as known in and through Christ, makes evident that nothing I do or can do in my relative ignorance and knowledge,… right without the completion, correction, and forgiveness of an activity of grace working in all creation and in the redemption" (238-239). Moreover, in CC he attempts a fine balance between seeing Christ as part of culture (as the incarnation), and yet being outside culture (as God who sustains culture). However, a problem in CC lies in his distortion of Christ when seen with the intention to make Jesus conform to the best of society. Thus, we are left in CC with a non-authentic view of Jesus - something Barber does not do.
As mentioned above, NR wrote on the conversionist (Calvin, et. al.). He leans toward this view, though he remains "unconcluded and inconclusive." He stresses that this group has a "hopeful view toward culture" (191). With some good insight, he sees that this theological conviction comes from seeing God as creator, knowing that man's fall was from something good, and the view that we see God's dramatic interaction with men in historical human events (194).
Narrative theology = postliberal theology. It began as a late 20th-century theological development. It supported the idea that the Church's use of the Bible should focus on a narrative presentation of the faith as regulative for the development of a systematic theology. It was inspired by a group of theologians at Yale Divinity School, many influenced theologically by Karl Barth, Thomas Aquinas and to some extent, the nouvelle théologie of French Catholics such as Henri de Lubac. The clear philosophical influence, however, was Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophy of language, the moral philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre, and the sociological insights of Clifford Geertz and Peter Berger on the nature of communities. [wiki].
