July 4, 2008 at 7:54 pm (Theology)
Ben ‘The Aussie’ Myers has posted a quote from S. Hauerwas that he’s posted before and which I had considered commenting on then but then, stuff intervened.
“I assume most of you are here because you think you are Christians, but it is not all clear to me that the Christianity that has made you Christians is Christianity. For example: How many of you worship in a church with an American flag? I am sorry to tell you that your salvation is in doubt. How many of you worship in a church in which the fourth of July is celebrated? I am sorry to tell you that your salvation is in doubt.â€
What Hauerwas has forgotten, or perhaps doesn’t know, is that salvation is by faith, through grace, and not by anything that we do or leave undone. Flying or not flying a flag; sitting in a sanctuary with or without a flag; these are things which have no bearing on salvation at all.
If H. believes that the presence of the flag in a Church is an idol and that it leads to idolatry- which it may well do for some - then he must also insist that every Christian sitting in any Church with any sort of money at all in their pockets must too be an unbeliever, since money is an idol far more frequently worshiped than a flag.
Hauerwas wishes to make Christianity a-political. But that is an impossibility since we live in a world in which politics is a reality. He may believe that his intention is good- but it is shortsighted, narrow minded, bigoted, biased, and evil. His demonization of a group of seminary students by implication is as wrong as calling all blacks by the n-word or all Jews by a slur. H. may imagine, in his somewhat gifted mind, that he is on the side of right- but he is on the side of darkness precisely because he has striven to make salvation a work. For that reason he deserves all the scorn and mockery we children of the Reformation can hurl at him. Sola fide, thou unbeliever.
I sometimes find what Hauerwas has to say interesting and thought provoking but usually I just find him so polemical that I can’t be bothered trying to get beyond the offensive rhetoric to the message. I really don’t see the point in writing like that.
[...] What Jim Said! Jim West just posted a response to a quote that Ben Myers has now posted twice on his blog. Jim begins by [...]
Hauerwas has a habit of taking a legitimate point and couching it in such ridiculous polemic as to have little value as constructive criticism of the church in America. The result is that a certain intellectual type finds it powerful, prophetic, and what not, but it stops there.
Or, in other words, H and his adherents want to appear chic. Like Ellen Degeneres’ short time girlfriend anne hesch (or however it’s spelled).
Ugh. Hauerwas has been inflaming my theological and ethical spleen since c. 1997. And I thank you for pointing out, as I myself was wont to do in the last few years of the past decade (when such matters were of central concern to me), that his gospel at many turns falls short of that of the Reformation.
I don’t think most Americans I know see the flag as an idol; but I do know that it makes me (as a Brit) feel unwelcome in any church that flies it.
Eddie I don’t know why that would be. I don’t feel uncomfortable when I walk into a church with statues of Mary.
I definitely feel uncomfortable in a church with a statue of Mary. Flag don’t particularly bother me, but if I had my say, they would be no where in my church. Even on St. Patricks Day!!
I don’t think Hauerwas was reintroducing salvation by works in that statement. He wasn’t raising up “flag removal” as a good work deserving of salvation.
Rather, the question is this: what is the message being proclaimed by your church? Even if - and that may be a big if - the message proclaimed from the pulpit is that Jesus is Lord (and that consequently, if usually tacitly, Caesar isn’t), that message may be undermined or even neutralised by flags and other memorabilia that say, in effect, “Caesar is fine by us”.
Now, Hauerwas is clearly exaggerating to make a point, but his point remains valid: the church has no business waving Caesar’s flags in its sanctuary. An early Christian going into a church meeting and finding that a Roman standard or bust of Caesar had pride of place at the front of the church would have run for his or her (eternal) life.
[...] Jim West’s response, cited by Fr Chris, is 100% right: we are more in danger from our money than from our flags. To the former we offer far more mental incense than just a pinch. But from both - flag and money - the problem is the idea of them. The idolatry is in our hearts, rather than in our liturgy. [...]
I don’t believe being an American any more undermines my worship than being a female! I inhabit a location, as well as a body and that means that I am partially going to view things within my frames…Cultural identity is NOT idolatry any more than identifying with my family of origin. People have many identities. And I find that I resist and resent “other worldly” identities that are disconnected from the “real world”. I used to be an idealist, but no more. It is impractical, as well as foolish! Therefore, I am beginning to think more along the lines of Luther’s two kingdoms….and I live in this kingdom in the here and now.
I must add that….does being a Christian mean that I ONLY identify with Christ and Christians…if so, then all Christians are essentialists…and I don’t (and do) believe this…I believe that we are unique, in that, even though a person is a female…she is much more than just a female and all of the identification factors must be taken into account in “knowing” the particular person…But, this doe not mean that she would not identify generally with a certain categorical characterization……Humans, must and do categorize people. This is how we identify ourselves within certain groups and distance ourselves from other groups…Can we “love” humanity? No, but we can sympathize with a particular tragedy conerning a group of people…We dissolve our ability to identify if there are no identification factors….therefore, we cannot dissolve prejuidice completely…for we will always seek a way of understanding…and if we have limited experience (which we must have on some level about some things), then, we will mostly categorize about that situation….this is why we make mistakes of judgment….and it is also part of being human….Therefore, being human means that I fall short of being “God”…
Yesterday, the pastor set up a 4th of July block party to get to know the neighbors. I guess Hauerwas is in doubt of our faith …
I usually see this kind of rhetoric as not only being scripturally dubious, but full of mendacity. The right and left approach politics differently, but Hauerwas has only chosen things that are conservative caricatures. In the end, what he is really saying is that unless you vote as MoveOn.org wants you to, then your faith is in doubt.
[...] between Christianity and America over the years. Jim West provided a stern rebuke of Hauerwas here; Fr. Chris has some thoughts [...]
I’m happy to be an American. I reject the notion that the US is the apex of evil in the world.
Nonetheless, I am uncomfortable with Americanism in church (or mixed with Christianity) - whether it be having a flag in church or outward patriotism treated as an accompaniment of the faith.
In the past we have too easily confused being an American with being a Christian. I don’t think this is as much of a problem with the younger generation as with the older generation, but at least for us mainliners, we’ve lost enough of the younger generation that it’s hard to tell.
Richard my point is that I don’t care if you are pro or con anything- patriotic or unpatriotic, etc. What matters is the false notion that flag waving or not flag waving make one or don’t make one a Christian. That is the core of Hauerwas’ deception.
Jim,
If you are going to declare someone a heretic, you should at least try to understand his or her position. It’s perfectly acceptable to disagree with Hauerwas, and to be offended by his polemics, but it is not acceptable to condemn him when you don’t even grasp his point!
Notice H. didn’t say, “If you display a flag in your sanctuary, then you’ve lost your salvation.” That is what you anathematize him for (and for the implied statement, which he also doesn’t, make: “I you don’t display a flag in your sanctuary, then you’ve won your salvation.”) Anyone who made either of these claims would be a first-rate heretic, of course - whether one were Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox.
What H. does say, instead, is if your church is the kind of church that displays an American flag and celebrates the 4th of July and Mother’s day, then you’ve probably been presented with a gospel that is so perverted with nationalism and easy-believeism that to believe it is to believe a lie. It is not the Gospel which speaks of the God of Jesus, but what Paul calls “another gospel.” And just as Paul says in Galatians (which I know you know!), if one believes “another gospel,” a gospel that has been watered-down or twisted by synthesis with this or that foreign element, then your salvation IS in doubt, “you’ve fallen from grace.”
Chris if you are right and have understood H. correctly then you are a clearer thinker and better communicator than he. He should have said what he meant and not couched it in the terms that he did.
And I think you’re still missing the point. Flags- their presence or absence- have NOTHING to do with salvation. Period. So unless H. has the gift of mind reading he doesn’t know jack about what’s going on in the minds and hearts of millions of people who sit in churches with flags somewhere or other on the premises.
Faith is a frame of reference and does show itself in commitments of life. Faith can be defined by numerous things. Defining one’s faith is what is talked about here. Is faith mainly in one’s tradition, one’s reason, one’s text, or one’s experience?
Satre said that our experience precedes our essence. That means that our experience determines how we categorize something. Kant, on the other hand, believed that there were universal categories that were essential to all people. I believe C.S. Lewis understood his faith based on certain universals, i.e. justice (Mere Christianity)….But, understanding universal categories may prove a certain aspect of “god-ness”, but definition of that category is problematic, as it is defined within contexts…Understanding our faith cannot be disconnected from our understanding of life. Some fundamentalists would like to define their faith on the text of Scripture alone, disregarding the complexity of the text and their understanding of it in application….Reconstructionism is their “call” to bring the Kingdom in…which I find just as radical and repugnant as fundamentalist in Islam….Why judge someone’s “salvation”? Is that what Christians are called to do? and be? Judgers of others?
Here is the link to the full article:
The Princeton Seminary Bulletin 28:2 (2007)
Why Did Jesus Have to Die?: An Attempt to Cross the Barrier of Age by Stanley Hauerwas
http://digital.library.ptsem.edu/default.xqy?src=PSB2007282.xml&div=8
Andy, thanks for the full article.
I learned that to declare that our nation is “under God” is idolatry, although I could say the same about all the rest of the countries on the planet, as well as Star Fleet and Middle Earth. “Ah, Sovereign Lord”, said Jeremiah in a fit of idolatry, according to Hauerwas. One thing I have found admirable about Islam is the expression “Insha’Allah” - if God Will’s it, which is an acknowledgment of the same. For some reason, to confess this as a nation is idolatry. I suppose even the atheists would be compelled to admit that - if for some bizarre reason science was completely wrong and God did exist - then perhaps we truly are under God.
Perhaps only an ethicist could find an acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty to be idolatry?
and as someone who takes good reading seriously, i’ll read you as well as chris read hauerwas.
you’re making the excellent point that can never be made often enough: Jesus is it. He’s everything. He’s the reason, the source, the place, the beginning and end of our salvation. amen. God forbid anyone take anything away from God’s sovereign and sufficient grace in Christ. that’s all there is to it, no more, no less.
now, i just think that you’re fighting the “no more” side, in the strongest terms you can. and haeurwas is fighting the “no less” side, in the strongest terms he can.
but whether we come together in this fight, or it pushes us apart, i suppose we can all thank God for faith in, and the faithfulness of, Christ.
peace.
It’s funny how Hauerwas’s writing even transmits his whiney voice.
Where does Hauerwas get off suggesting that having the presence of American symbols in a church is the equivalent of mixing the worship of Caesar with the gospel? There seems to be a huge difference, in that Caesar actually claimed to be a god, so that symbols of Caesar counted as idolatry in certain contexts. As far as I know, no American president has ever claimed to be a god, nor has the government ever asked of its citizens anything remotely idolatrous.
Somebody please tell me: Why do people care what Hauerwas says?
the short answer, john, is that they want to be ‘chic’ and that’s the only possible reason.
Hauerwas is fine with the comment as long as he admits that the only plausible outcome is a sectarian movement that is isolated from irreducible social and cultural influences in our religious behavior. Because he is adamant in saying that he is not promoting sectarianism, he is simply disingenuous.
[...] Jim posts a response to Ben’s question about Stanley Hauerwas here. [...]
