Use of Doctrine

Jay Richards scores a heavy hit against Lindbeck’s theory of doctrine with this: “rule theory . . . seems to deny what almost everyone assumes the Creed and Definition – and the doctrines therein – are: claims about God and Christ. This definition of doctrines . . . doesn’t capture what nearly everyone means by the word.”

That’s a hard saying for a theory that equates use and meaning, and Richards goes on: “Lindbeck applies the mantra that use governs meaning . . . selectively . . . For surely one of the functions, one of the uses to which we put language is to assent to belief in certain propositions, notions or perceived truths. Why does this use not govern meaning as well? What if one of the uses of language is to make reference to things that are extra-linguistic?”

Richards’s observations vindicate the wisdom of John Frame’s approach to Lindbeck (and, of course, to nearly everything else): A valuable perspective, but not the whole story.