Christians have a responsibility to emulate Jesus, whose ministry was characterized by “capacitating the incapacitated.” We should use any means at our disposal, including political ones, that foster an alleviation of oppression and injustice (without sacrificing the integrity of Christian witness).

Amen Harbinger (Steve)!

Harbinger: What is Wrong with Capitalism and R.O.

I agree with Bell (and Cornel West!) that Christians have to undertake a critical examination of capitalism, with awareness of its spiritual and social effects. The uncritical embrace of capitalist logic is a primary factor in the creation of the perverse forms that Christianity often takes in our society.

Bell was a student of Stanley Hauerwas, and his perspective reflects the Hauerwasian school of thought, as well as Radical Orthodoxy.

…..

Steve is questioning some of the points that follow that he says are of “Hauerwasian” and “Radical Orhtodoxy” political theologies, but I have a few questions about that, but am , as usual, so often impressed with Harbinger that I must read on (and perhaps even elicit a reply), seeing as I have obver the past couple of days that Hauerwas is not so hesitant to say that Christians have a duty to “speak the truth to power”.

So in the essay Bell makes moves that are characteristic of both Hauerwasians and the Radically Orthodox. Here in a nutshell is the political theology of Hauerwasians and Radical Orthodoxy.

1. Political/economic systems of the world (e.g., liberal democracy and capitalism) are based upon principles at odds with the gospel.
2. Therefore, the systems are illegitimate.
3. The church stands as a political entity in its own right, since it has its own conception of how social life should be organized, a conception based in the gospel of the reign of God.
4. The church then is the only truly legitimate politics, since its social organization is founded upon the gift of God’s grace.
5. The church should not attempt any more than minor and casual attempts to effect worldly political/economic systems, since (a) to do so would confuse Christians as to the political nature of the church, and (b) the systems are illegitimate anyways.
6. To the degree that Christians are involved with ministry to suffering individuals, it should be through local acts of mercy.

I agree with 1 and especially 3, so I find myself at odds with most critics of Hauerwas and John Milbank (the founding figure of Radical Orthodoxy).

As do I.

However, I find 2, 4, 5, & 6 badly mistaken. I shudder to think where we would be if Fannie Lou Hamer and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had accepted a political theology similar to R.O.

NO disagreement here either. What I wonder is how “Hauerwasian” numbers 5 and 6 really are. There seems to be more liberal critique of Christian political action and dissent in this characterization of such “hands off” political theology than there is in Hauerwas (although one can see how , from other Hauerwas writings, one can come to this conclusion. But I think these throuroughly “apolitical” critiques to be off the mark.

I’ll need to do a bit more reading of Harbinger here, to see if I understand this correctly, since I don’t see Hauerwas saying what 5 and 6 of Steve’s “Hauerwasian theology” points. My reading (and post) earlier today about “confronting the authorities” would seem to indicate a different “Hauerwasian” reading.

Indeed, Harbinger’s critique of number 5 seems in keeping with Hauerwas’ insistence that “the task of the Church is to BE the Church”. It is unavoidable that you offer a crtique of a policy when you rush to the aid and advocacy of people oppresses by that policy. Bnhoeffer found that unavoidable. ANY opression, whether it be outright attempted genocide, or purposeful forfeiture of “other lives” for the purposes of achieving some “capitalist-dominated” cause , and then clothing it in the “shhep’s clothing” of faith and “freedom”, is an instance requiring the Christian community to raise a voice, to offer sanctuary, and to lodge a complaint against the violations of the sacredness of life. This is what the Religious Right fails to do in not lumping acts of war with other acts of disrespecting life for the sake of convenience and “the easy way”.

In response to #5: Christians have a responsibility to emulate Jesus, whose ministry was characterized by “capacitating the incapacitated.” We should use any means at our disposal, including political ones, that foster an alleviation of oppression and injustice (without sacrificing the integrity of Christian witness).