A Thinking Reed

Thought for the day II

Written by

Lee M.

in

This one’s from Anglican theologian Oliver O’donovan, from an interview he did with the Calvin Collge Chimes a few years ago:

I think [Stanley Hauerwas’] criticisms of the Christendom idea are partly wrong, first because he dismisses the church as always being a minority. I don’t know on what theological authority one could make that assertion. The church has very often been a minority. But whether the church is a majority or a minority at any time or place, the church is not given yet to be wholly visible to itself. There is a real temptation in wanting to be a visible minority, a gathered church in which you can say, “We are few, but we know exactly who we are, and we know who is on our side. The line is drawn clearly and unambiguously between us and the world.” That kind of visibility and definition is not granted to the church in our age. We know where the church is because we know where the sacraments are and where the word is preached. We see people gathering to the sacraments, we see the church taking form. I’m with Augustine and again a gathered church Protestantism. The edges are always indistinct. Is this person moving into the church, giving light to those who dwell within the house, or is he just standing on the edge and about to turn his back? We don’t know. … Even if it’s true that the church is going to be a minority, the church is going to be embattled and contested to a certain extent, but it can be so as a majority sometimes. Evil has its ways of challenging the church when it’s in an apparently confident position just as much. Even if the church is a minority, it can’t be a self-conscious minority which says to itself, “We’re perfectly safe because we’re a minority.” That I have to say I find troubling in the kind of catacomb consciousness I find in Stan and John Howard Yoder. I don’t think it was at all typical of the Christians that actually inhabited the catacombs. They didn’t huddle down there and say, “How nice. We at least know who we are while we’re down here.”

Comments

3 responses to “Thought for the day II”

  1. Eric Lee

    I’d like to see in what context those remarks from Hauerwas came.

    I just got back from Ohio last week where most people in that belt are probably Christian, so it’s pretty clear there is no minority out there. I attended a denominational sibling of mine, the Grove City Church of the Nazarene, which is a megachurch of about 5,000 members. Even though this “super Christian” culture was all around me, I still felt completely alien in a way. I have a hard time with super huge, multi-million dollar “productions” in the name of Christ, I guess. I wouldn’t say that the church is always minority (at least around the midwest, although very much so even in my “conservative” San Diego), but I think how one goes about their witness, whatever their size, is what ultimately matters.

    Reply
  2. Joshie

    I find reading Hauerwas about as much fun as going to the dentist, so I can’t say if the criticism is fair or not, but I think O’Donovan’s point is that while it’s tempting to just envision the church as a distinct enclave in a pluralistic society but its not as simple as that. It is easy to see where the church IS but it is impossible to tell where the church is NOT. The edges are fuzzy. I can go to worship on Sunday and say “this is church” but I can’t go to Buffalo Wild Wings on Tuesday night and say “this ISN’T church”.

    Reply
  3. Lee

    I would add that Hauerwas tends to see the church as an all-encompassing “counterculture” and that this downplays the extent to which all of us inhabit different and mutually overlapping and interpenetrating cultural contexts. Yes, we are formed by the church, but also by our families, society at large, etc. which colors our interpretation of our experience as Christians. The boundaries between the church and the “world” are much more porous than I think he likes to admit.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Lee Cancel reply

More posts