the:shiverian

THE ACCEPTANCE MODEL _ GEORGE LINDBECK

The final paradigm is what Knitter terms the Acceptance model which he summarizes as arguing that _the religious traditions of the world are really different, and we have to accept those differences (Knitter:173)._ Those who follow this paradigm of understanding Christianity in the midst of other world religions take the advent of postmodernism seriously. They reject the enlightenment_s focus on reason and on the search for indubitable and universal truth. There are instead many truths that are seen through very different filters of reality. Thus, many in this paradigm do not focus so much on the similarities of religions, trying to find a common ground, but on the differences between the religions. Knitter writes, _for them, differences are much more interesting, fruitful, and life-giving than similarities._

The initial advocate of this model is George Lindbeck, who in his writings concerning postliberal theology sought to change many of the assumptions and presuppositions of the classical Christian position. Lindbeck identifies his method of understanding religion as cultural-linguistic. He writes, _A religion can be viewed as a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought (Ibid:180)._ The language we receive from our specific cultures and communities both creates and shapes the ways in which we think about religion. Words and images that are given to us are the very vehicle by which religion is shaped. Thus, the specific culture and community in which one is born and raised shapes and creates the religious language with which one forms religious understanding.

In the same way these radical statements shifted the conversation almost on its head, Lindbeck similarly wants to shift the whole underlying questions about a theology of religions. Lindbeck has little interest in talking about the _salvation of individuals_ and for that matter salvation at all (Lindbeck:424). In fact, in his article about the gospel_s uniqueness he argues that _one could be a universalist like Origen, an anti-univeralist like Jonathan Edwards, or a quasi-universalist like Barth. . .and either agree or disagree with much of the argument in these papers (Ibid)._ Lindbeck is more interested in talking about the untranslatability of the message than _uniqueness understood soteriologically._

Lindbeck argues that these concerns about soteriology are beginning to fade as Western hegemony begins to decrease. In an age of neocolonialism, the attention on salvation is purely reactionary but still setting the agenda whether intentionally or not for the rest of the world_s religions. As western power continues to fade, the issue of salvation will become less and less important. Until this happens, however, this western issue has set the stage for a fascination for dialogue that seeks to replace understandings that promote proselytism with _benign ones compatible with amicable relations between religions (Ibid:425)._

This whole conversation based on salvation is a purely western construct that has little interest to the rest of the world. When interest in dialogue is _no longer skewed by western hegemony_ it will look very different. Lindbeck even argues, _the current major options in regard to uniqueness whether pluralist, inclusivist, or exclusivist are irrelevant to the actual relations of religions except in situations where fear and guilt regarding Christian proselytism are salient (Ibid)._ These positions have for the most part (except hard exclusivists) advocated the importance of dialogue. Lindbeck sees major problems with this approach, _Those whose misdeeds the dialogue is intended to correct are the ones with whom the dialoguers are least in communication. The soteriological approach has done much to combat proselytism, quiet fears, and assuage guilt feelings, but the harvest is over, the situation has changed, and internal contradictions are developing (Ibid:426)._ He goes on to write, _Those for whom conversation is the key to solving interreligious problems are likely to be disappointed (Ibid:427)._ Thus, we should not be talking so much about salvation but about translation.

Lindbeck argues we must understand that conversation between religions should be seen as mutually untranslatable. While it may be possible to translate between the Arabic and Roman numerical systems without losing essential meaning, it is impossible to translate the term _God_ between Hinduism and Christianity. Religious language can only be understood within its own community of meaning and cannot be exported and understood in another community with a wholly different set of rules for interpretation.

Thus, there is no _common ground_ that serves as the base for all religions. In fact, search for this common ground is not only useless but also meaningless. Lindbeck argues that _adherents of different religions do not diversely thematize the same experience, rather they have different experiences (Knitter:181)._ Knitter summarizes Linbeck_s proposal with the analogy of a _Good Neighbor_ policy. In this analogy, each religion has its own territory with a fence that clearly separates it from its neighbor. These fences clearly separate the frameworks in which religions operate and there is no common space that all share together.

In this model, Knitter argues that postliberals urge Christians to be good neighbors that respect their yards and do not seek to make them look like ours. According to Lindbeck, this recognition of difference actually enhances dialogue. Since there is no common theme among religions by which they can be measured, there can be no measuring! Instead, the real differences are respected and we can lean over the fence and indeed learn from our neighbors. These interchanges with no expectations may lead to deeper conversation and they may not but they will be determined by the specific religions involved. In the postliberal framework of avoiding meta-truth claims, they finally want to avoid advocating the final goal of these dialogues. Instead, each particular time that two or more particular religions lean over their fences, there are multiple and exciting outcomes possible.

READ MORE....

Posted by mark at 6:45 PM | | perm