I was reading (re-reading ) a post this morning from Eric that was from an interview with Milbank, and Eric linked to this post by Bruce Prescott of Mainstream Baptist, where some comments in defense of Hauerwas and the “Ecclesiological Fundamentalists” , a term coined by Theo Hobson. Eric was one of the commenters, and he made the same defense of Hauerwas and the “EF” label as I would have. Especially this part:
Those indifferent to whether religion is imposed by the power of the state, undermine the credibility of the gospel. Nothing in the New Testament suggests that the gospel can be extended by force of civil law
Eric responds to this below as I would have, and may yet do.
Mainstream Baptist: On Ecclesiological Fundamentalism
I am wary of all who are eager to jettison church/state separation. They cannot guarantee that the next generation of church/state “accomodationists” will retain their light-touch. Frankly, even light-touch theocracy is too heavy-handed for those who reject religion.
What’s interesting here is that ultimately, you are trying to defend the secular. What Milbank and the rest of the Radical Orthodoxy project argue, is that there’s no such thing as the “secular” — it’s merely pagan or just really bad theology that tries to fit inside of an ontology of univocity as opposed to an ontology of participation in God. Again, your definition of “theocrat” whether heavy or “light touch” does not work in your critique of them.
Those indifferent to whether religion is imposed by the power of the state, undermine the credibility of the gospel. Nothing in the New Testament suggests that the gospel can be extended by force of civil law.
If you are talking about Hauerwas and Milbank here, then you are again badly mistaken. I’d say start with James K.A. Smith’s Introduction to Radical Orthodoxy, and then if you can stomach the bad writing (but profound ideas), take a crack at Milbank’s Theology & Social Theory opus. It’s great stuff.
“By force of civil law” implies that the State is strong-arming a particular theology. On the one hand, the State ALWAYS does that, regardless. It’s just a “theology” (which Smith calls theology-1) that is a “secular” ideology, but it is “theological” through and through. It’s just a deeply embedded philosophy that we have been taught to accept as “common sense” (a word the Bush administration seems to like).
On the other hand, here is where Precott’s distinction between “light-touch” and “heavy-handed” theocracy is REALLY important. Hauerwas and his sort of “ecclesiological fundamentalists” have a much more sophisitcated sensibility to theological difference than Prescott and Hobson imply, and express concern over. After all, Hauerwas is a very dedicated proponent of the importance and role of Judaism —-and I would add that if one really pays attention to the gospels and the gospel visa vi Hauerwas and the “EF’s” of the RO-stripe, the notions of Biblical justice are primary, which immediately sets them in an entirely different category from the Mohlers and Falwells of the world.
It seems to me that “separation of church and state” tends to become a fundamentalist dogma, and anything which , on its surface, seems to want to qualify that with detail is immediately jumped on as transgressing “what has always worked”. We have to be careful that these vestiges of liberal democracy do not become too easily accepted as “divinely inspired”.
Eric sums up:
This illustrates another instance where Milbank and others who might call themselves “post-liberals” like Hauerwas are usually misread, often for the purposes of maintaining a sacred/secular distinction. “Post-Anglican” polemicist Theo Hobson, in calling Hauerwas and the RO-er’s “theocrats” really shows that he doth protest too much. Hobson says:
Radical Orthodoxy wants to revive the ideal (and presumably the reality) of a secular-eclipsing Church, synonymous with culture, learning, civilization. Milbank’s movement therefore has the same theocratic leanings as we observed in Hauerwas’ vision.
The key word here that I’ve bolded, in “secular-eclipsing” is quite a bit off the mark. Yes, the visions of Hauerwas and Milbank share a kind of theocracy, but it would never threaten Hobson or others who fear the “theocracy” label, because it would never be a coercive, bullying Church that would consist of a “sacral class monopolizing the divine over against the secular order.” It’s no where near the theocracy that the Christian dominionists want and the American left-wingers often unrealistically decry. See, Milbank wants Christan anarchy! 🙂
I re-read the above quote just after I followed the link to Prescott and read his article, and wrote my post above. Then Eric makes a similar comment.
I really value 99% of what I have read from the RO theologians. I suppose Hauerwas was really my introduction to this type of theology. Even though Jamie Smith makes me a little afraid sometimes with some of his dismissiveness concerning the “Sojourners-types” ( I think he’s not neccessarily ALL wrong, only partially, and only a little impatient—ie. expecting all other theological emphases and traditions to quickly cede all their emphases and wholeheartedly adopt Radical Orthodoxy and shun all vestiges of liberal democracy. As I said several months ago, “Me thinks he doth protest too much”. If I can like Radical Orthodoxy so much, so can other “Sojourners types” 🙂
Bruce,
By way of contrast, my Baptist forefathers believed in the power of a gospel that won hearts and minds by the foolishness of preaching — not by the coercive power of the state. It seems to me that that was also what Jesus was telling Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane when he told him to put up his sword.
Well, yeah. I can’t disagree with that, and neither would these dudes, except that they have a bit more of an ecclesiology tied to what they’re saying (for that matter, do the Baptists have one? I’m serious.)
What’s interesting is that you consistently misread people like Fish, Hauerwas, and Milbank in arguing that they’d be some sort of “theocrat.” These peeps have nothing to do with the kind of theocracy that you –yet again– mislabel them as arguing for. They would never, ever align themselves with any kind of “coercive state”. If you’ve read anything from Milbank, you’d know that coercion of any kind falls into an “ontology of violence,” and that is one that he does not advocate. They all see the modern libeal nation state (as well as the old religious theocracies that used coercion) as themselves parodies of the church (for more, read anything by Cavanaugh).
So, once again, stop accusing these guys of being in bed with a cocercive, religious nation state. Not only is it disingenuous, but any cursory reading of these people’s material will show it to be false. What is it that really frightens you about these people? There’s much more nuance to the false truth that you’re trying to peddle about their allegiance to the Church (and not the nation state or any coercive religious body of people).
If that article “affirms” for you that Fish is a “theocrat” (in the connotation you’re providing), then you’ve seriously misread him, like the others, again. Please read my full post above that Dale linked to for the main difference that is being missed here.
Peace,
Eric
Bruce,
Sorry your previous comment didn’t show up right away. I’m not sure how the login to TypeKey was different, but for some reason your last comment was held back by my “Junk Comment” feature (I just recently upgraded Movable Type to 3.2, and this is new); I just released it. Not sure why I didn’t get an email notification on it either. Anyway, it’s up now. And I’ve just made you what my MT admin panel calls a “Trusted Commenter” (IOW, someone I know well enough to know they won’t be spamming me, and their comments will go up right away…..maybe that was ON before and somehow it got turned off.
Dale
Eric,
Thanks for posting the link to Stanley Fish’s article “Why We Can’t All Just Get Along.”
Fish is clearly a theocrat and it is difficult to see how he could long claim to be “lite” in his touch about it.
He certainly misunderstands John Milton — who was anything but orthodox in his theology.
He is good at criticising the inconsistencies of accomodationists, with whom I also disagree, but for opposite reasons than my own.
He concludes that “in the end McConnell, Carter, and Marsden are moved more by what they fear than by what they desire.” On this point I agree, but for different reasons than he gives.
What they fear most is that religious convictions will be discredited by the methods by which they are propagated. The enlightenment was the result of religious wars where each King enforced his brand of religious orthodoxy at the point of a sword.
Fish’s thought leads back to the thirty years war and Torquemada’s Inquisition. For him a “state of ‘warfare'” exists and the might of the government serves to determine what is right. Then everyone just needs to learn to be “obedient.”
By way of contrast, my Baptist forefathers believed in the power of a gospel that won hearts and minds by the foolishness of preaching — not by the coercive power of the state. It seems to me that that was also what Jesus was telling Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane when he told him to put up his sword.
In my mind, that is the necessary political prolegomena to creating a free marketplace of ideas where the gospel has the right to compete for a hearing.
The reason I don’t buy these defenses are for the reasons Stanley Fish outlines in this essay:
Why We Can’t All Just Get Along
Bruce,
I hear your concerns, and in this context, in this political reality today, I would have similar fears. But all theocrats are not equal. At the end of the day, the state has an ideological interest in keeping CERTAIN ideas of justice and community out of circulation, particularly those of the stripe of Biblical justice, since that would severely curtail the authority of those who benefit from the more “secular” ideologies.
I don’t pretend to have an outline of what an acceptable “soft touch” theocracy would look like, but it leans heavily on a Biblical justice/Kingdom ethic over and against a “market-centered” ethos, then I lean in that direction too. I agree with your concerns for the Christian Nationalist version of theocracy, but I think that the separation of church and state sounds too much like “keep God out of it”.
In response to:
I’m just tired of being called a “secularist” because I believe government should assure religious liberty for everyone.
There is that and many other reasons that are given by RO-proponents which seem to be critical of not only ways of “acting” and “influencing” but also ways of “speaking” which they protest against as “ceding the stage of the argument” to the terms of the debate set by the nation state.
Now I’m about as anti-nationalist and anti-empire and mistrustful of the USA as they come, but I have to stop and ask Jamie Smith and even Hauerwas: how do we “Communicate” with people who don’t know the God we know? RO-ers seem to get upset when we use the “language of secular democracy” and say we are being “statist” (like Jim Wallis does, and like , well,,uh MLK did…..and it is apparent to all who know that they are about that they have quite a different notion of justice, freedom, community, etc. I see this as their opportunity to speak the truth to power. RO seems to restrict that arena as somehow inappropriate, and I have argued against that. So I have problems with them too.
What I am indebted to them, for (RO/Hauerwas, mostly Hauerwas and also Bonhoeffer at this point) is for their concept of church as polis; the notion of a peculiar people and “Resident Aliens” — the latter is what I just finished reading by Hauerwas and Willimon)
Hey, I’m glad you spoke up. I’m sort of torn in many directions between Sojourners, Radical Orthodoxy, Bonhoefer, The Church of the Saviour, among other things. So I feel like I’m working this stuff out from scratch.
Dale
Noticed your post as I was browsing.
I would be interested in hearing what you would add to this discussion.
Please don’t think that I disagree with everything Hauerwas and Milbank have to say. I agree with more them more than I disagree with them.
I’m just tired of being called a “secularist” because I believe government should assure religious liberty for everyone. In my mind,that is the necessary political prolegomena to creating a free marketplace of ideas where the gospel has the right to compete for a hearing. Government has no business lending the weight of its authority to any religion that competes in this free marketplace of ideas.