Comment left by michael:
What are your thoughts on this post? Not so much the musings on the church calendar, but on Hauerwas' provocative comments.
I'm moving this to a new post for my response because I didn't think it connected closely enough to the post it was commented on.
(1) I haven't read much of Hauerwas, so I have no way of telling if this is normal rhetoric for him or not. It seems rather extreme to me. Having a U.S. flag in one's sanctuary isn't necessarily idolatrous, and neither is saying the pledge of allegiance. At issue is (a) how such expressions of patriotism/loyalty to the state are meant, and (b) how they are interpreted by others. Christians must understand that Christ's Lordship trumps all political, racial, and national allegiances, and that Christ's Lordship has repercussions that will create conflict with their political, racial, and national allegiances. This doesn't mean one cannot be a loyal American or a good citizen and a Christian. As long as being a loyal American or a good citizen is not defined as unconditional allegience. If it is unloyal to love and serve and shelter someone from another nationality--including literal enemies of the state--this may create a conflict of allegiances. If it is unloyal to criticize and overtly oppose (perhaps on some occasions in ways that are not condoned by state law, even though nonviolent) polies of the state, then this may create a conflict of allegiances. Whenever one subordinates their allegiance to Christ to their allegiance to the state, this is inconsistent with their commitment of discipleship and their baptismal vows. Does this mean "their salvation is in doubt"? Well, I think Christians should be confronted by fellow Christians in such cases, and it should be taken seriously. It may in some cases require church discipline. I do not think it means that we can all state with certainty that the Holy Spirit is not or never was living in the individual or that that individual is not presently incorporated into the Body of Christ. Treason against the Kingdom of God is a forgivable offense, but a serious one. God's prophets are serious in chastizing Israelites who put their trust in Egypt rather than in YHWH. There are serious consequences.
(2) Again, I have not sufficient familiarty with Hauerwas to judge, but the post as the air of an illegitimate e-mail forward to me, along the lines of dead atheists convincing CBS to cancel "Touched by an Angel" or Proctor & Gamble's CEO being a Satan worshipper and saying so on Oprah. I would like to see the actual issue of the Princeton Seminary Bulletin in which Hauerwas allegedly made these statements.
------
"He Himself is our Peace." (Eph 2)
Posts
2 comments:
I must say that I do not have much familiarity with Hauerwas either; I merely thought that the quotes could spark some interesting discussion (I'm certainly not endorsing them). However, from what I have heard, they sound legitimate (Hauerwas is known for making rather extravagant claims, if for no other reason than to make people consider the issue; he'd "rather be wrong than boring."). I would like to see the context as well, though; they do seem to me to be more rhetorical than propositional.
Here seems to be the issue for me: much of the contemporary church does seem to be all too attached to their nation (and perhaps worse yet, their political party), and this is problematic. However, worship always takes place in a given cultural context as well, and this is the side that his quotes seem to miss (though he probably considers the other side to be the bigger problem in contemporary America). How do we balance these aspects, acknowledging both the good things in our culture and the primacy of the kingdom of heaven? In another fashion, to what extent is the gospel continuous and discontinuous with our context?
From what I've read of Hauerwas, it's not hard to imagine him saying that; he seems to take a dim view of American Christianity, not to say American Christians.
Post a Comment