I tried making this comment on his blog post, but for some reason it wouldn’t let me. Eric Lee posts on the relationship between Ludwig Wittgenstein and George Lindbeck (particularly in his The Nature of Doctrine).

One thing I remember about Lindbeck and Wittgenstein is their tendency to stay on the level of the abstract. it’s been a while since I’ve read them, but my recollection is that Lindbeck speaks of “resurrection” – not “the resurrection of the dead,” or “the resurrection of Jesus,” but simply “resurrection.” Likewise, Wittgenstein (I don’t remember where) speaks of “Last Judgment.” What I noticed in both is a lack of narratival connection at various key points. (Regarding Lindbeck his discussion of “this red car” and “Jesus is Lord” also seem to be stripped of narrativity. In normal life, that is the part of life in which we speak of red cars, we usually have a conversational context where “this red car” normally wouldn’t fail to refer. Likewise, when Christians say, “Jesus is Lord,” our primary intent is not always to make a self-involving utterance; it is often to pick up the biblical tradition of saying so, especially identifying Jesus with the LORD of the OT.

I think you did fine on your demolition of “Wittgensteinian Fideism.” Thanks for the post.