10
Now this stance on the particular, discrete character of linguistic communities and their
linguistic use is consistent for them, and it parallels the same kind of insistence we see in
Hauerwas and MacIntyre in their use of the later Wittgenstein's ideas.
5
But what we do not see
in Grenz and Franke's writing is a detailed specification of the particular community out of
which they write. Since they, too, are engaged in theologizing, their claims must be local as
well. But their readers need to know which community it is out of which they write and make
their claims. If it is by linguistic use that each local "way of life" constructs its world according
to the grammar of its community, then Grenz and Franke need to inform their readers of their
specific communal affiliation, for it makes all the difference. And if they were to specify that
community and its linguistic, faith commitments, then their readers would be in a position to
decide if they agree or not with them.
But it seems that Grenz and Franke have a ready response to this line of argument as
well. They could argue, much like they do in their book, that while theologizing is indeed local,
nonetheless the communities under consideration all bear a family resemblance that allows them
to be called "Christian." This is especially the case in two ways: the Holy Spirit speaks to the
churches and thereby becomes a primary means to unify them; and Christian churches all use
scripture. Since the churches appeal to the same writings, they have a basis for unifying them so
as to truly have a commonality. So, it is not unfair, they could counter, that they write in a
general way, for they are trying to change how Christians (and not just members of some
particular Christian community) should understand and do theology.
Now as we already have seen, the appeal to the Holy Spirit to unify the various
"Christian" communities will not achieve Grenz and Franke's objective. Again, if Christians are
5
On Hauerwas's nominalism, see my "Conceptual Problems for Hauerwas's Virtue Ethics," Philosophia
Christi 3:1, 2001, 153 - 164.