Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
George Lindbeck's principles for doing 'good' Christology are as follows:
If we use these principles when talking about Christ we will have a 'good Christology.'
Are there any known critiques of these principles as offered by other theologians?
Don't infer that I style myself a theologian or anything of the sort just because I am answering your question (I don't, and am not doing so), but I would suggest there are a few important things wrong with this set of criteria that I can see, and which ought to be considered.
In the first place, the criterion as such coming from George Lindbeck means that it will be at best the greatest way to be closest to George Lindbeck's idea of what Christianity ought to be, and what criteria it ought to meet, not what Christianity is as a matter of fact—if it is claimed to be much more, namely, if it is claimed to be an objective set of criteria, one has admitted they already know Christianity, and can thus affirm that it comports with George Lindbeck's criteria—and thus have no need to arrive at a Christology they already have. I need not point out the insufferable circularity here.
Second, the terms "centered on Jesus" are entirely subjective. What 'breaches' centered on Jesus? Who decides?
"All highest possible significance" is even more subjective.
