DET (Die Evangelischen Theologen) is the theological version of a digital news magazine. The DET authorial team provides insightful, thought-provoking content on a wide range of theological, religious, and even political subjects from current events and culture as well as from the Christian and other religious traditions.
A Friendly Critique from Hauerwas: Rauschenbusch and the "Kingdom of Evil" (5)
Stanley Hauerwas, some may be surprised to learn, deeply respects the work of Walter Rauschenbusch. In many ways, the two thinkers seem to share a common heritage. Note this appraisal of the Social Gospel thinker by the renowned contemporary theologian and ethicist:
Walter Rauschenbusch was an evangelist of the kingdom of God. The sermon that is Christianity and the Social Gospel is as desperately needed in our day as it was in his. The passion for justice, his prayers for social awakening, the hymns of social solidarity, and the institutions for humane care he created cannot be taken for granted. The work he began we must continue (176).
Constantine I
These comments come from short a commentary on chapter four -- "Why has Christianity Never Undertaken the Word of Social Reconstruction" -- of Rauschenbusch's 1907 classic. According to Hauerwas, Rauschenbusch, as a liberal Protestant thinker, respects the historical figure of Jesus and his prophetic ethical teachings; furthermore, the Social Gospel evangelist recognizes that the good news of the kingdom is the true locus for perceiving the comprehensive character of nature of sin in its social and individual dimensions. If the advent of the kingdom brings a transformation of society through a praxis that integrates ethics and religion, then sin must reside not merely in the individual human heart but more broadly in the reactionary structures that inhibit authentic human flourishing. "Rauschenbusch saw quite clearly that sin is not merely something that we do but a power that possesses us" (174).
Still, Hauerwas does proffer criticisms. The problem is not that Rauschenbusch is a woolly-eyed optimist. Rather, the issue (it is claimed) is that his ecclesiology is deficient. Rauschenbusch, on this reading, links the regressive character of much classical Christianity to the very phenomena that are most fecund for vitalizing a radical social witness -- for example, the monastic movement, sacramental theology, traditional doctrine, a "churchly" ethos and the subordination of church to state. Rauschenbusch, thus, deflates the vital "eschatological tension" between church and world characteristic of the Constantinian arrangement (Yoder's work informs Hauerwas' comments here). Rauschenbusch's gospel risks identifying Christian praxis too closely with the ideals of Western civilization and democratic institutions.
Granted, Hauerwas might have a point in his claim that a lack of eschatological tension may hinder Rauschenbusch from being yet more radical than he is (for more on this, see my previous post). Still, I question whether the best solution to this problem comes from a renewed embrace of traditional ecclesiastical structures and practices. If we proceeded along more apocalyptic lines, by contrast, we might risk fostering a "pie in the sky" escape from socio-political realism in ethics. Or, maybe, this move might uncover possibilities for a critical alternative to both Rauschenbusch and Hauerwas.
-----------
Source: Stanley Hauerwas, "Repent. The Kingdom is Near," in Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century, edited by Paul Rauschenbusch (New York: HarperOne, 2007), pp. 173-176.
"I fear that Christians who stand with only one leg upon earth also stand with only one leg in heaven." "The exclusion of the weak and insignificant, the seemingly useless people, from everyday Christian life in community…may actually mean the exclusion of Christ; for in the poor sister or brother, Christ is knocking at the door." "Since ethical thinking in terms of realms is overcome by faith in the revelation of the ultimate reality in Jesus Christ . . . there is no real Christian existence outside the reality of the world." "People who reject their bodies reject their existence before God the Creator." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer Prelude Andreas Steinhoff [Attribution], via Wikimedia Commons I envisioned having a lot of time for blogging this summer, but that simply has not been the case - the last month has been a crazy one, to say the least. For two weeks, I was working at a theology summer camp of sorts, the Duke Youth Academy, and s...
Every now and then I am asked for advice about studying Karl Barth. So, I thought that I would share some of my standard advice here. But, before I do that, let me just say that I am by no means a Barth expert as compared to the people whose books I will mention below. I would be thrilled to find myself in their league one day, but as of yet that remains a distant dream. Still, I have been reading Barth for long enough, and under the supervision of a number of the scholars that I will mention below, that I think I can provide a decent orientation. I have never read Karl Barth before. Which of his books should I read first? Barth’s most famous work is the monumental 13-volume Church Dogmatics . Reading the CD with understanding is not an easy thing, so you definitely do NOT want to start here. Luckily, there are two smaller works by Barth that serve as helpful introductions to his work. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction - Based on the lectures that Barth delivered duri...
“You Wonder Where the Spirit Went”: Jenson and Barth on the Hiddenness of God By Peter Kline I am entering into a conversation that Jenson has already begun with Barth. In a constructive essay on the hiddenness of God (Jenson 2000), Jenson considers Barth’s position on the matter only to find it lacking. I want to explore why Jenson has problems with Barth on this issue, as well think critically about his constructive alternative. I will suggest that Jenson is only partly right in his diagnosis of Barth; he in fact overlooks the heart of Barth’s teaching on divine hiddenness. The reason is that he looks in the wrong place for Barth’s pneumatology. Jenson can’t find the Spirit in Barth not because the Spirit isn’t there, but because the Spirit is hidden . These considerations will open out into a comparison of Barth and Jenson on the logic of revelation. By “logic” I mean: what is discourse about God’s revealedness and hiddenness supposed to accomplish? Part I Jenson focuses his a...
On the Monstrosity of Christ : Karl Barth in Conversation with Slavoj Žižek & John Milbank By Paul Dafydd Jones For a while, I hoped to frame this conversation in terms of a dramatic interchange – something along the lines of “A Slovenian philosopher, a British theologian, and a Swiss dogmatician walk into a bar…” Alongside an eye-wateringly hip assemblage of cinematic references, literary allusions, and comedic scenes – my early favorites being when Barth imagines a young adult novel, entitled Are you there God? It’s me, Žižek , and when Milbank waxes poetic about the Twilight movies – I wanted to engage some topics that would likely receive attention, were the authors to meet for drinks. Primarily, I envisioned an intense discussion of the logos asarkos and the logos ensarkos , with Milbank talking up the former category, Barth emphasizing the latter, and Žižek asking whether recent debates are but symptoms of secret puzzle, embedded in the Church Dogmatics – a puzzle that...
You know, all the most interesting topics. Although Barth often confessed that he didn’t find these questions particularly interesting. At best they might draw sideways glances, as it were, as one travels the theological road. But I found a number of places in the records of Barth’s later conversations that I thought folks might find interesting, so I’ve collected them here. And if you aren’t familiar with the term “florilegium,” here you go ! All these texts are from the first volume of Barth in Conversation , with pages numbers given in parentheses along the way. As usual, italics are in the text and bold is mine. Hell “Now we come to hell. You shouldn’t laugh! There is nothing to laugh at! What does hell mean? I think hell means to be in the place where you are once fore all damned and lost without ceasing to exist, without losing the image of God, being what you are but being damned and lost, separated from God, whose creature you are, separated also from your neighbor, from...
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCsJk73vlK1ch8usJ69UNVn1HGQVUsMiXOZbyoZpNenYwmg3pi2LEoIZ155Tz4oGbFD7TKJ3G-QBudkj2-XJfKitI5R8hw8LFZ4nLfp1KAesg0qvuOlAk3DT7hzrA78kfnNSik/s320/640px-Rome-Capitole-StatueConstantin.jpg")
Comments