Postmodern Insularity? Epistemological Holism and Its Discontents

Practicing to Aim at Truth

Theological Engagements in Honor of Nancey Murphy

edited by

Ryan Andrew Newson and Brad J. K allenberg

PRACTICING TO AIM AT TRUTH Theological Engagements in Honor of Nancey Murphy Copyright © 2015 Wipf and Stock Publishers. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401. Cascade Books An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3 Eugene, OR 97401 www.wipfandstock.com ISBN 13: 978-1-62564-994-2

Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Practicing to aim at truth : theological engagements in honor of Nancey Murphy / edited by Ryan Andrew Newson and Brad Kallenberg. x + 276 p. ; 23 cm. Includes bibliographical references and index(es). ISBN 13: 978-1-62564-994-2

1. Murphy, Nancey C. 2. Philosophy and religion. 3. Theological anthropology— Christianity. 4. Metaphysics. 5. Political ethics. 6. Postmodernism. I. Title. BT28 P63 2015

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

09/28/2015

3 Postmodern Insularity? Epistemological Holism and Its Discontents —Ryan A ndr ew Newson

Nancey Murphy has been an important figure in orienting Christians (especially Anabaptists and evangelicals) to what is now widely recognized as a “postmodern” shift in the Western intellectual world. In particular, Murphy situates herself within the Anglo-American postmodern tradition, which she sharply distinguishes from both generalized conceptions of postmodernity that refer to a cultural “mood,” as well as the philosophical tradition associated with Jean-François Lyotard and Jacques Derrida, which she argues betrays hyper-modern tendencies rather than anything truly postmodern.1 For Murphy, this shift is marked not by uniformity, but a variegated group of philosophers and theologians asking new questions (in epistemology, linguistics, and metaphysics) not beholden to Enlightenment categories and assumptions—thinkers who get out of modern intellectual space altogether, without reverting to premodern categories.2 To have left this space is to begin the conversation about where to go next; it is to enter an argument with people who agree that alternatives are needed and on some key elements that will mark these alternatives, but who can still profoundly disagree on how to “go on.”3 Put differently, there is not one thing called “postmodern1. Nancey Murphy, Anglo-American Postmodernity: Philosophical Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Ethics (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1997). 2. Cf. Nancey Murphy and James Wm. McClendon, Jr., “Distinguishing Modern and Postmodern Theologies,” Modern Theology 5:3 (April 1989) 191, 198–99. 3. For a similar take regarding postmodern thinkers having deep agreements amidst obvious disagreements, see Richard J. Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and

44

Newson—Epistemological Holism and Its Discontents

ism,” but postmodernisms, and Murphy has entered this fray on a variety of topics as a radical reformation philosophical theologian, with gusto. In this essay, I engage one argument that has occurred surrounding the postmodern epistemological holism that Murphy skillfully defends. Certain theologians, sympathetic to the postmodern shifts Murphy advocates, nonetheless wonder whether her appropriation of Imre Lakatos and particularly Alasdair MacIntyre is the best option for the practice of Christian theology in the coming century, at the very least raising questions about its theological import. Indeed, Murphy draws friendly fire on this point, some of which is more helpful, or more accurate, than others. The critiques I am interested in center on the question of “insularity,” in two senses: one, that Murphy’s epistemology fosters a sort of theoretical insularity, such that only a traditions’ internal standards are relevant to theological justification.4 As William Schweiker says of so-called “traditionalist postmoderns” (including MacIntyre), it is to be “satisfied with explicating the beliefs about human existence and moral virtue found in their specific moral community.”5 Second, others are concerned that Murphy’s epistemological tools may lead to insularity “on the ground,” in Christian communities. Colloquially, the concern is that this postmodern epistemology carries the (perhaps accidental, unintended) consequence of forming a people who need not listen to others; who are given warrant to get on with their ecclesial practice while ignoring what is happening outside one’s moral community; or who come to characterize the theological task as first an internal matter, and second something interactive. While I am unconvinced that either is a good or necessary interpretation of MacIntyre’s work,6 or provides reasons to abandon Murphy’s epistemological project altogether, the motive behind the latter concern is important: what is the character of the Christian community produced by this approach, and what are some of its potential dangers? Might it produce communities so confident in their tradition’s resources that it loses the motivation, or even ability, to listen to countering perspectives? To address this concern, I will first provide an overview of Murphy’s epistemological Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983) 206. 4. Cf. Philip Clayton, “Shaping the Field of Theology and Science: A Critique of Nancey Murphy,” Zygon 34:4 (December 1999) 613–14. See also Philip Clayton, “On Holisms: Insular, Inclusivist, and Postmodern,” Zygon 33:3 (September 1998) 467–74. 5. William Schweiker, Power, Value, and Conviction: Theological Ethics in the Postmodern Age (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1998) 93. 6. See Ryan Andrew Newson, “Alasdair MacIntyre and Radically Dialogical Politics,” Political Theology (in press, 2016).

45