Tony Jones recently posted a chapter on the Hauerwasian Mafia (HM) left out of his most recent book on the emergent church. He details his journey in and out of Hauerwas country. He highlights a conversation with one of our co-pastors at “Life on the Vine” – Geoff Holsclaw (boy Geoff, were you a wimp or what?) – where he asserts that Hauerwas would not approve of his chaplain role with the local police. Huh? I think this is a confusion. I think Tony’s chaplaincy in service to his local police department provides an excellent example of how Hauerwas would say the church should engage the world (especially the 80’s Hauerwas whom he seems to be characterizing). For it is here where we reveal the character of our Christian convictions as followers of Christ, laying down our lives to minister to the suffering. I don’t think Tony should confuse his chaplain efforts with the kind of chaplaincy Hauerwas’ rejects. Hauerwas rejects the American church’s attempt to hold onto power in society through the maintaining of a chaplaincy relationship to the State. The error Hauerwas seeks to avoid is the one where the church, by maintaining its chaplaincy role to the State, aims to share in the State’s power thereby becoming seduced into being the servant of the State and eventually finding itself compromised and subverted by the State. The result: the church finds itself supporting the Iraq War. I don’t see how Tony’s service as chaplain to the police would violate the Hauerwasian attempt to resist Constantianism. Unless of course Tony was tempted to take up arms, alongside the police force, and use his police weapon to coerce the Hindu to make a decision to covert to Christ, or arrest gay transgressors or pro-choice activists. Since I don’t see Tony doing any of these things, I think Hauerwas would applaud and encourage Tony’s ministry as a wonderful manifestation of the ministry of Christ’s presense in society. I think he would approve of Tony’s deft engagements of folk of other faiths ( see one of Hauerwas’ earliest writings, Community of Character ch. 5).
Having said this, I propose the following three reasons why the Emergent church would be blessed by granting a sanctioned admission to a more vocal Hauerwasian Mafia in the Emergent conversation. Emergent would gain:
- A wherewithal to resist the Constantinian seduction to opt out for the easier way towards accomplishing justice in the world. I think we too quickly (not always!) opt out to collaborate with State agencies to achieve Christian ends (justice). The Emergent voices could use a sober sense of the mistakes of protestant liberal social strategies of the past ( which is why we’re in this mess in the first place)
- The means to seriously consider the church as a social-political strategy (mirco-political) for justice in the world, as opposed to a Christian alumni association for the recruitment of individuals to talk about and engage in an ever elusive ethereal justice that never quite hits the ground.
- An alternative engagement with continental philosophy that takes things beyond the deconstructive discussions of Derrida, Caputo, Kearney and friends.
Furthermore, if I can become even more bold, let me suggest three more advantages the Emergent church would receive by adopting the HM into the fold.
- In Hauerwas, they would have someone who could teach Mark Driscoll a thing or two about inappropriate language.
- Embracing the HM would allow Emergent to p_ss off the protestant liberal churches equally as well as they already p_ss of the evangelical fundamentalists
- Lastly, the Emergent leaders, by embracing pacificism, could make their first definitive doctrinal position ever on anything, realizing that pacifism is not actually a doctrinal position but the epistemological (Christological) basis which makes possible an open never ending conversation in the first place.
OK, the last three were “tongue-in-cheek.” Any other reasons out there why Hauerwas might be good (or bad) for the Emergent Conversation? Blessings to Tony Jones, the Emergent conversation, and may she keep on rolling.
Missio Alliance Comment Policy
The Missio Alliance Writing Collectives exist as a ministry of writing to resource theological practitioners for mission. From our Leading Voices to our regular Writing Team and those invited to publish with us as Community Voices, we are creating a space for thoughtful engagement of critical issues and questions facing the North American Church in God’s mission. This sort of thoughtful engagement is something that we seek to engender not only in our publishing, but in conversations that unfold as a result in the comment section of our articles.
Unfortunately, because of the relational distance introduced by online communication, “thoughtful engagement” and “comment sections” seldom go hand in hand. At the same time, censorship of comments by those who disagree with points made by authors, whose anger or limited perspective taints their words, or who simply feel the need to express their own opinion on a topic without any meaningful engagement with the article or comment in question can mask an important window into the true state of Christian discourse. As such, Missio Alliance sets forth the following suggestions for those who wish to engage in conversation around our writing:
1. Seek to understand the author’s intent.
If you disagree with something the an author said, consider framing your response as, “I hear you as saying _________. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, here’s why I disagree. _____________.
2. Seek to make your own voice heard.
We deeply desire and value the voice and perspective of our readers. However you may react to an article we publish or a fellow commenter, we encourage you to set forth that reaction is the most constructive way possible. Use your voice and perspective to move conversation forward rather than shut it down.
3. Share your story.
One of our favorite tenants is that “an enemy is someone whose story we haven’t heard.” Very often disagreements and rants are the result of people talking past rather than to one another. Everyone’s perspective is intimately bound up with their own stories – their contexts and experiences. We encourage you to couch your comments in whatever aspect of your own story might help others understand where you are coming from.
In view of those suggestions for shaping conversation on our site and in an effort to curate a hospitable space of open conversation, Missio Alliance may delete comments and/or ban users who show no regard for constructive engagement, especially those whose comments are easily construed as trolling, threatening, or abusive.