Who’s the Hauerwas now, huh?

16 Responses to “Who’s the Hauerwas now, huh?”

1. Caleb Stegall

   March 29th, 2007 at 8:24 am

   I appreciate what you say here Daniel, and though I am not much familiar with the MR schools and circles of thought, you get nicely at the epistemological (or hermeneutical) nub of the issue. Hauerwas is very Lewis-like, and both draw a great deal from Milton, and I draw a great deal from all three. My project at the New Pantagruel was often, and mostly accurately, described as a post- and anti-liberal/permodern/anarcho-communitarian push towards a hermenutic of membership.

   The corrective to pure-Hauerwasian thought is, I think (no suprise here) in the carful attention to history and historical symbology in (mostly continental) thinkers like Voegelin and to a lesser extent guys like TS Eliot which makes for a greater Augustinianism in concessions to problems of order/continuity. This allows, I have posited, for a parabolic spiral that is generally (but not always) contained by the circle.

2. Daniel Howe

   March 29th, 2007 at 8:42 am

   Vicisti, Kansanee! Thou hast more big words than I.
   How can Christians, ultimately, be in favor of a hermeneutic of membership? Doesn’t this contradict that universal-history nature of the gospel? Do I want my spirals contained by circles? I’m very curious.
   One of Wright’s great flaws is that he has not explored the Protestant theological tradition carefully. This means that his eschatology has a tendency to careen carelessly toward postmillenialism (or some Labour/Left version of it). But at least he is struck with the vision of Christ the Victor.
   Perhaps on a later post or private message you could introduce those of us who are mere RPTS graduates to the joys of symbology and Voegelin. (Those sound like organic diets championed by my local CSA - I should check.)

3. Caleb Stegall

   March 29th, 2007 at 8:56 am

   Kansans do not desire conquest! And if I might bowlderdize the great Billy Dean, there ain’t no big words, there ain’t no small words, there’s only you and me and we just disagree.

   What is it about these posts that keeps generating appeals to the simple men of film-studies and RPTS graduations?

   I would ask how Christians can not be in favor of a hermeneutic of membership. The gospel is entirely about membership. What is its “universal-history nature”?

4. W.H. Chellis

   March 29th, 2007 at 9:06 am

   I have read Voegelin’s New Science of Politics, and the History of Political Ideas (From the Middle Ages to Aquinas). I am still baffled by most of it. I think the most helpful guide to understanding the learned Voegelin is Russell Kirk. Kirk’s Enemies of the Permanent Things: Observations of Abnormity in Literature and Politics has a very good chapter introducing the thought of Vogelin’s thought.

5. W.H. Chellis

   March 29th, 2007 at 9:14 am

   I am going to sit back and read with great interest as this discussion develops. I am skeptical of anything that sounds so abstract as “universal-history nature” and feel an immediate attraction to the idea of a “hermeneutic of membership.”

   Yet, alas, I am a poor country boy from rural upstate New York. A land of humble German farmers. While Darryl is a big city (big suburbia) boy with a fancy film degree, and Caleb grew up from the ever progressive land of Lawrence, Kansas, and Daniel was raised in a college town known for its vast learning, I am from the most backwater of regions. I will sit at your feet and listen!

6. Daniel Howe

   March 29th, 2007 at 9:15 am

   From the perspective of membership the gospel tells a story about the whole world that is true for the whole world, regardless of their membership among the elect. Does that make sense? Lesslie Newbigin does this well. That is the unique nature of Christian revelation: it purports to tell the truest story about the entire world, Christian and non-Christian. Perhaps I’m buying into a hermeneutic of membership and just not seeing it, but this is different to me than accepting an ultimate plurality of truths. Epistemic humility demands that we never call our own understanding of truth “sewn up” or ourselves incapable of vast improvement (and teaching by others), but Christian doctrine does demand that its story - centering on Christ (heir of David according to the flesh, declared the Son of God with power by the Spirit in his resurrection) - is true even if you don’t believe it at all. Follow me?

7. D Hart

   March 29th, 2007 at 10:24 am

   Enough with the humility. My interpretation of the Reformed tradition is right and all others are wrong. See my upcoming film, Ruling Elders Rule.

   Seriously, I’m not sure how eschatology can be a zero-sum game and this is why I take Wright and Hauerwas to be on the same side. Each man sees Christ the Lord at odds with Caesar, and that Christians have a duty and right to stick it to the man. I appreciate such an anti-thesis because it corrects liberal Protestantism’s desire to harness modernity at the cost of selling out the gospel. But I also think it goes too far.

   Eschatologically speaking, we live not in the age of Israel or the new heavens and new earth but in an in-between time when Christ’s mediatorial rule is delegated not to a civil but to a spiritual institution and his providential rule is delegated to the state. This means that Christians are hyphenated and have to live as aliens and exiles of this world while also being citizens of modern nation-states. It’s that hyphenated identity that seems to cause so many political theologians to stumble. I admit, it’s not an easy identity to assume and results in lots of ambiguity. But I still think that being a follower of Jesus is not incompatible with submitting to George W. Bush or George III.

8. Daniel Howe

   March 29th, 2007 at 1:44 pm

   The dictum that the Church should be a counterculture for the common good captures my position well. I understand us to be an ongoing critical, prophetic voice for the good of the “city” in which we dwell. We see the way things are supposed to be more clearly in many cases - in marital ethics, for instance. And we live that out, unafraid to explain why when asked - and unafraid to take opportunities to explain loudly, using a public voice. But our ongoing tools are spoken and lived witness and prayer - not the sword.

   Two problems with your eschatological structure. (1) This is not so much a time between times as a time of two times, when wheat and tares grow side by side (different from nothing growing at all). (2) Christ’s mediatorial rule is NOT delegated to Church or state - he that rules over all on behalf of the church, not vice versa. So we find Christ in Acts killing Herod Agrippa I, smacking Peter till he wakes up, blinding Paul, etc. He rules, not us. If his rule means that we will die for his sake in a given place and time, praise be to him. If it means the opportunity to speak publicly of his coming judgment and the coming Kingdom, praise be to him.

   We can “afford” to have a political voice or to be shut out of the political process. I am afraid many of our problems in using the opportunities we have for a political voice stem from our Protestantism - we are utterly disunified, to the point where James Dobson is a de facto pope, speaking ex cathedra on his radio show about whether Governor(?) Thompson is really a Christian and absolving Newt Gingrich of his adultery. The solution is to work, earnestly, for visible unity. Our political voice is a joke when our identity as Christ’s disciples is undermined by endemic, pathological infighting. Presbyterians have a lot to be ashamed of on this front. See my posts of a few months ago.

9. W.H. Chellis

   March 30th, 2007 at 8:35 am

   On the question of the church being counter-cultural. Yes and no.

   Yes, the church represents a cult that challenges all non-conforming cultures around it.

   No, the church teaches obedient submission to the “powers that be” whether magistrates, masters, or husbands. The gospel is non-egalitarian (this is counter-cultural in our present setting) and requires the fulfillment of duties based on the varied web of social relations we find ourselves in. In this sense, the church is anti-revolutionary.

   I think this is why Darryl can point to Pliny’s Letter to Trajen and say that there were no revolutionaries seeking the overthrow of the state within the church. There were not any and I agree. Such plotting cuts against the heart of the life of the believer as he finds his liberty in Christ applied by submission to fallen but still legitimate creation ordinances. Rather, pagan Rome dies a natural death. Paganism had lost its power and the the time of ignorance in which God overlooked the sins of the nations had come to an end.

10. Anthony Cowley

    March 30th, 2007 at 8:29 pm

    Good point about Jesus STILL being mediator. In fact, it reminded me of an argument from the Catechism about Christ our mediator (redeemer) executing the offices of prophet, priest and king. This was well put by J.R. Willson some time ago, but I just found the following. It was just short enough (tho’ on the long side here) that I decided to just paste it in. If you’re bored, skip to the last paragraph or two. But really, read it all. I disagree with his historicist hermenutics in paragraph 5, but otherwise, it is a stirling argument, which ought to explain to Dr. Hart why, while it is okay to be hyphenated Christians (even mandatory), it is imperative that we not be truncated Christians, but be like our Lord, and his emmisaries across the board. Reference is at bottom. This is an argument from the Westminster Standards, but it is biblical at base and to the core! Tony out… (BOQ):

    CHRIST’S MEDIATORIAL DOMINION;
    OR,
    WHAT OUR STANDARDS TEACH IN RELATION
    TO THE HEADSHIP, OR DOMINION OF CHRIST THE MEDIATOR.

    1. Our Standards teach us that Christ the Redeemer, or Mediator, “reveals to us by his word and spirit the will of God for our salvation.” Again, in the Larger Catechism, “Christ was exalted in his ascension, in giving them, (his disciples) commission to preach the gospel to all nations; forty days after his resurrection, he, in our nature, and as our head, triumphed over enemies,” etc. And now, we should remember that it is the God of grace that deals with man–with the nations, in giving a revelation of his will, and commissioning the apostles to “teach all nations.” But the God of grace does not deal with men except through a Mediator, and there is but “one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” It is not true that God speaks to the nations as the God of nature, under the broken covenant [i.e., the Covenant of Works]; and to the church as the God of grace, under the new covenant [i.e., the Covenant of Grace]; it is not true that God has spoken to the nations, by his Son, in his essential character [i.e., the second Person in the Trinity], and to the church in his mediatorial character; but it is true that he has spoken to both church and state in the same character, and under the sanction of the same covenant. If he dealt with man as the God of nature, it would be under the covenant of works, and only to inflict the penalty of that covenant.
    2. The Confession of Faith, (chap. VIII.3), says that the Father has “put all power and judgment” into the hand of the Mediator. “Which office (of Mediator) he took not to himself, but was thereunto called by his Father, who put all power and judgment into his hand, and gave him a commandment to execute the same.” And it should be remembered that this chapter is treating directly of Christ the Mediator. Again, Larger Catechism, Q. 54: “Christ is exalted in sitting at the right hand of God, in that as God-man he is advanced to the highest favor with God the Father, with all fullness of joy, glory, and power over all things in heaven and earth.” Now if the Father has put all power and judgment into his hand, and has commanded him to execute the same—if he has given him power over all things in heaven and earth, certainly his headship or dominion is not confined to the church. It can’t be denied but that both these passages are speaking of the Mediator.

    3. The Confession of faith, (chap. XXXII.3), says that “the bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor; the bodies of the just, by his Spirit, unto honor, and be made conformable to his own glorious body.” Then the fact that the bodies of the unjust are raised by the power of Christ shows that his dominion extends beyond the church, and it is manifest that the framers of the Confession of Faith that it is the power of Christ the Mediator, that raises the unjust, for they quote as proof-texts, (Phil. 3:21), “who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,” and John 5:28, “all that are in their graves shall hear his voice (the voice of him that shall cause the dead to live) and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.” Again, Larger Catechism, Q. 87, “the bodies of the just, by the power of Christ, and by virtue of his resurrection as their head shall be raised in power; and the bodies of the wicked shall be raised up in dishonor—by him, as an offended judge.” That is, by him who was raised from the dead, as the living head of the just.

    4. The Confession of Faith, (chap. VIII.1), says, the Mediator is “the Heir of all things and judge of the world,” and it must be remembered that the title of this chapter is “Of Christ the Mediator;” and in the third section of this chapter it is said that Christ “took not unto himself this office (of a Mediator), but was thereunto called by his Father, who put all power and judgment into his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.”

    Again, (sec. 4) it is said the Mediator “shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world.” Again, (chap. XXXIII.1), “God hath appointed a day wherein he will in righteousness judge the world by Jesus Christ, (by that man whom he hath ordained—Acts 17:31), to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father.” Again, Larger Catechism, Q. 56, “Christ is to be exalted in his coming again to judge the world, in that he who was unjustly judged and condemned by wicked men, shall come again at the last day in great power,…to judge the world in righteousness.” The Son in his essential character does not come again, in this character he was not unjustly judged and condemned. It was as Mediator that he was judged and condemned, in was in this character that he came the first time, and will come again, the second time. Again, Larger Catechism, Q. 90, “at the day of judgment, the righteous being caught up to Christ in the clouds, shall be set on his right hand, and there being openly acknowledged and acquitted, shall join with him in the judging of reprobate angels and men,” etc. Now it is manifest that the saints cannot be joined with the Son in his essential character, in the judging of reprobate angels and men; it is being joined with the Mediator that they judge angels and men, for he will then “grant unto them to sit with him in his throne.” (Rev. 3:21). Thus it is undeniable that our Standards teach that the Mediator shall judge reprobate angels and men; therefore, according to our Standards, he is head over reprobate angels and men—he is head over all principalities and powers.

    5. According to our Standards, the Mediator “conquers and restrains all his and our enemies.” Shorter Catechism, Q. 26, Christ executes his offices as a redeemer, but the Redeemer is the Mediator. Confession of Faith, chap. VIII.6, the Mediator is said to be “revealed and signified to be the seed of the woman, which should bruise the serpent’s head.” The seed of the woman is the Mediator, and not the Son essentially considered, it was he that took upon him flesh and blood that destroyed the Devil, and he took upon him flesh and blood that he might destroy the Devil. Section 8 [chap. VIII], the Mediator is said to overcome all the enemies of his people. Larger catechism, Q. 53, he is said to triumph over enemies—conquer and restrain—lead captivity captive, that is, he who ascended up on high—the Mediator. So it was one “like the Son of man,” that reaped the harvest of the earth, that is yet to destroy the Western Roman Empire—that reaped or gathered the vine of the earth—destroyed the Romish church. (Rev. 14:14-20). Thus Christ, the Mediator, destroys the Devil, the beast, the false prophet; this he could not do without having, and exercising dominion over them.

    Then, our Standards teach that the Mediator authoritatively commissioned the Apostles to teach all nations—that the Father has put all power into his hand—that the bodies of the just and unjust are raised by his power—that apostate angels and men are judged by him—and that he conquers and restrains all his and our enemies, whether they be in heaven or on earth, thus showing that he is head over all things to the church, and has such control or dominion over all things, that he can make all things work together for good for those who love God, to those who are the called according to his purpose.

    I know that some believe that the headship or dominion of Christ the Mediator, is confined to the church, but we are fully persuaded that this is neither the doctrine of the Bible, nor of our Subordinate Standards.–John McAuley. (1863).

    EOQ - What say you?

11. D Hart

    April 1st, 2007 at 10:04 pm

    McAuley sounds like his favorite church historian would be Eusebius. But that is church history in service of the emperor. I do feel sometimes that Christians who insist on Christ’s rule over the nations, and then add that Christianity needs to be in some kind of authoritative position with regard to all things, including the state, believe that Christ’s rule is evident only when good things happen. So when the Emperor converts, we finally see the outworking of Christ’s rule over all things.

    For my money, the better church historian was Augustine, who saw that the rise and fall of the Roman empire was distinct from God’s redemptive purposes. I’m not sure what Augustine would have thought of Saddam Hussein. But my read of Augustinianism is that it is an outlook that allows Christians to recognize Christ’s rule even in the Bath Party, not just in Christendom. If we can’t recognize the legitimacy of the rule of tyrants, as undesirable as they are from an earthly perspective, then I think we should re-write the Constitution soon so that George W. Bush can win another couple terms and defeat the forces of darkness globally.

12. W.H. Chellis

    April 2nd, 2007 at 8:03 am

    Let me say without hestitation that Christ’s rule is includes tyrants, dictators, and evil regimes. This is the point of Psalm 2, “why do the nations rage against the Lord and His Christ?”

    Futher, our obligation to tyrants is submission as unto the Lord in all things lawful or indifferent.

    Yet, at times, the kings of the nations do bring their glory into the Jerusalem from above. These are times to rejoice in and the work established preserved by the faithful.

13. nasteffe

    April 2nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm

    Bill,

    You said, “Such plotting cuts against the heart of the life of the believer as he finds his liberty in Christ applied by submission to fallen but still legitimate creation ordinances” in reference to the Daniel’s aforementioned counterculture.

    You’re totally correct in saying that such plotting cuts against the Christian life, but I don’t believe (though I’d be ready to if I’m wrong) that the issue is the legitimacy of governments but of the methods of Christ’s kingdom. His kingdom was different, not in that it wasn’t a kingdom, but in that its methods of justice and rule were quite different from most other kingdoms. When Jesus wants to defeat the rulers and establish his kingdom, he submits to their rule and is killed. But he was raised 3 days later; he wasn’t beaten. He won. As such, I really don’t think you and Daniel disagree on this (at least not too much).

    If we’re going to say that Christ as victor means something for our ethics and affecting our day to day walk, what’s the difference between affecting the way we rule our selves, families, jobs, churches, communities, governments. It seems that Christ is still Lord no matter how many people are involved (even if they don’t understand the whole ‘Jesus is Lord’ bit).

14. Anthony Cowley

    April 2nd, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    Well, Dr. Hart reads Rev. McAuley through the lens of Eusebius, which may track with section/paragraph 5 of his essay - but has little bearing upon the rest of what he’s saying.
    And, you are hearing an old dissenter through the lens of a Republican echo chamber. And, no normal Covenanter. Look at his bio:

    Born near Wytheville, Wythe County, Virginia, January 6, 1807. His grandparents came from Scotland, in 1774, as members of the Mecklinberg Colony, and settled near Charlotte, North Carolina. His father, a Presbyterian elder, together with the his family, returned to North Carolina, in 1819. He received his early education in Charlotte, North Carolina, attended the High School of Christiansburgh, Virginia, and graduated from Greenvill College, Tennessee, in 1833. While at college, his outspoken condemnations of the institution of negro slavery would have prevented him from receiving a diploma, had not the President insisted that it would seriously injure the college to deny the degree to one whose scholarship was so high and satisfactorily attained. In the fall of 1833, he began the study of theology in the Presbyterian seminary of South Hanover, Indiana, and finished the course of study in the spring of 1836. He did not see his way clear to remain in the Presbyterian Church, and was received into the Associate Presbyterian Church, and licensed by the Muskegum Presbytery of that body, November 16, 1836. He was ordained by the Allegheny Presbytery, and installed pastor of the united congregations of Jefferson, Upper Piney and Cherry Run, Sligo, Clarion County, Pennsylvania, July 14, 1838. He resigned Jefferson and Upper Piney in 1841, and devoted himself to the Cherry Run congregation for nearly thirty years. He, and his congregation, refused to enter the United Presbyterian Church, at its founding, in 1858. He remained in the residuary Associate Presbyterian Church. Not being full satisfied with that Church on the subject of civil government, he was suspended for insubordination, by the Clarion Presbytery, September 11, 1867. After a full statement of his beliefs, he connected with the Reformed Presbyterian Church, being received by the Pittsburgh Presbytery, December 31, 1867. At the time of the taking of the Covenant of 1871, he became dissatified with the mode of procedure, and left the communion of that Church, May 1, 1873. He connected with the Reformed Presbytery, May 17, 1873, and was associated with David Steele until his death. His disease, from which he died, was a complicated paralysis, affecting both mind and body. He died at his home in Sligo, Clarion County, Pennsylvania, August 16, 1883.

    Okay - an odd chap. Perhaps - but he made an actual argument, which bears upon pretty much all we are saying here. And, he was not beholden to the mere kingdoms of men, Whig, Democrat, Republican, Prohibition, whatever.

    But, poor old Eusebius. Its pretty easy for us to sit in our safe western homes and call guys like him craven servants of Empire. Didn’t a good number of the men at Nicea (overseen by Eusebius’ emporor) have eyes put out and various signs of torture from the good old days of persecution? Even the Emporor persecuted some of the Athanasians later on.

    Christ’s rule is evident all the time. But, let’s think about it - is Christ’s rule more evident, at least unto his glory, when the church is prospering? When there is order in civil society? Yes, because he is evidently answering prayers. So, we labor and pray for the king’s good, for quiet in which to evangelize, and for the suceess of our efforts in Evangelism. Thus the Larger Catechism’s answers about the first and second petitions of the Lord’s prayer - taken together - answer Dr. Hart:

    Question 190: What do we pray for in the first petition?
    Answer: In the first petition (which is, Hallowed be thy name), acknowledging the utter inability and indisposition that is in ourselves and all men to honor God aright, we pray, that God would by his grace enable and incline us and others to know, to acknowledge, and highly to esteem him, his titles, attributes, ordinances, Word, works, and: Whatsoever he is pleased to make himself known by; and to glorify him in thought, word, and deed: that he would prevent and remove atheism, ignorance, idolatry, profaneness, and: Whatsoever is dishonorable to him; and, by his *overruling providence, direct and dispose of all things to his own glory.*

    Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition.?
    Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.

    Yummy.

15. D Hart

    April 2nd, 2007 at 9:25 pm

    Yummy? I didn’t see food, drink or tobacco mentioned in those answers.

    This may be the rub. Is Christ’s rule more evident when the church is prospering and when civil society is orderly? Readers of The Screwtape Letters and Montaigne for that matter might be less inclined to go by appearances of prosperity. After all, revivalists have long tried to convince us that the church is prospering when conversions abound even though the means of grace are flouted. And proponents of the American empire have sometimes spoken of a new world order when the old Anti-Federalists might have had a better idea of how to maintain social order.

    In sum, in a fallen world and with fallible intepreters, I’m not so confident of our ability to determine what God is doing and how in the events and circumstances of church and state. This doesn’t let us off the hook from our duties in our vocations. It does mean though that I’m less inclined to underwrite a particular religious or political development with God’s definitive blessing.

16. Daniel Howe

    April 4th, 2007 at 8:49 am

    When I have food, I am blessed.
    When I worship God publicly, I am blessed.
    When I see others change their minds from hatred for Christ to an appreciation for him, however imperfect, that is a blessing.
    When children are spared murder and given loving homes instead, that is a blessing.
    When people live longer lives, and struggle with but don’t die of the attendant health problems that go with longevity, that is a blessing.
    When a world empire ceases to kill and ostracize those who worship the living god and instead asks them for guidance in justice and right, that is a blessing.

    I may not know how to define God’s blessing, but I know it when I see it.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.