A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

The worst kind of cocktail party – one with no booze

Marvin, Jonathan, and Jennifer have been going around a bit about some of the same issues I talked about here regarding Christians, patriotism, politics, and Stanley Hauerwas. Now, unlike these three, I’ve never formally studied theology, much less under the man himself, so I always feel a little underqualified jumping into these discussions. But, fools rush in…

I agree with Jennifer’s point that there are lots of ways of being “political” that can’t simply be reduced to voting and conventional political activism. Moreover, she’s right to point a finger at the mainline: all too often mainline Protestantism assumes the shape of a vaguely religious humanism that seeks to usher in utopia through political activism, seemingly willing to replace the gospel of Christ with the UN Millenium Development Goals.

But Marvin gets at what I was trying (rather long-windedly) to say when he says in a comment on Jennifer’s post:

the same scriptures that call the Church to be a different polis demand respect for the Emperor while ascribing fear to God, and demand subjection to the governing authorities while acknowledging the Lordship of Christ. The family, the corporation and the state do have legitimate claims on us. Subordinate to the claims of Christ and his Church, to be sure, but legitimate claims. Hauerwas frankly has nothing to say about how to do this balancing act, and this is the crucial pastoral theology issue of our time. How do you be a faithful Christian when you’re also a cog in the machine?

I think there are resources in the Christian tradition for addressing this issue–concepts like natural law, vocation, “orders of creation” and so on–which have long been endorsed by mainstream Christians. But these are also the very things the “Hauerwas school” have railed against for downplaying or sacrificing Christian distinctiveness.

My view, though, is that these are still useful approaches, even if they might need retooled a bit (e.g. a version of natural law that takes evolution seriously; a concept of vocation that doesn’t reinforce the status quo). There are resources out there for this which, as far as I can tell, the churches haven’t made a great deal of use of. But I do think they provide a more promising way forward.

3 responses to “The worst kind of cocktail party – one with no booze”

  1. […] (via).  Also see “Cocktail Party” links on this and related topics on Lee’s post here (note: the cocktail party happened before Jonathan linked to the Hauerwas-to-vote-for-Obama […]

  2. What do you expect? Two out of three people at this cocktail party are teatotaling Methodists.

    I’ll bring the booze (wine–I’m an effete Obama supporter), but I’m warning you. IT WILL BE IN A BOX!

  3. Did I miss the end of the cocktail party? Darn. I must confess I am not the teetotaling Methodist Marvin thinks I am. I’m planning a trip to Trader Joe’s – I’ll bring the two buck Chuck for this party.

    No, none of the Hauerwasians are too fond of natural law, but perhaps that’s Barth influence (on Hauerwas too).

Leave a comment