| Stanley Hauerwas talks about how American Christians read Romans 13 so as to justify American state power. This clip is from a panel discussion held in March 2007 at Duke University called Religious Speech in Public Discourse.†|
From Jesus Radicals
I don’t know who the guy is that Hauerwas is setting straight here, but he is here, in this video, doing his thing, and literally “taking the Bible away†from one who has not learned to read it, at least in this case, in a way OTHER than that given to us by that Constantinian assumption that assigns a much higher authority to the empire than that what is actually found there.
I don’t know who the guy is that Hauerwas is setting straight here, but he is here, in this video, doing his thing, and literally “taking the Bible away†from one who has not learned to read it, at least in this case, in a way OTHER than that given to us by that Constantinian assumption that assigns a much higher authority to the empire than that what is actually found there.
Stanley called out the dudes poor hermeneutic that is destroying the church. its well done. read Romans in the context of Paul's time in Rome—not 21st century. And by the way, he's writing the Christians in Rome according to 1:15 which seems to be news to 90% of Christians.
Basically Hauerwas destroys the meaning of Romans 13 with his pacificism.
John,
You mean the interpretation YOU apply to Romans 13, which is probably similar to that which Hauerwas is responding (the guy to whom Hauerwas says "That's not what it says" and proceeeds to say why by pointing out what Romans 12 says)
Sorry, gotta go with Hauerwas on this one, and "his pacifism" is a result of Biblical theology
Dale
Listen to the diatribe again. Hauerwas doesn't interpret Romans 13 at all. He simply interpretes Romans 12 because he thinks it supports his pacificism and then dismisses Romans 13 (where the ruling authorities do not "bear the sword in vain" — a weapon of war and execution). A responsible interpreter takes both passages seriously.
well John,
your characterizing it as a "diatribe" tells me you decided not to listen to what he has to say, which is all about what BOTH Romans 12 and 13 say, and your decision to dismiss pacifism, or anything that upsets the nationalist dogma which is all based on an isolated , non-copntextual view of Romans 13:1-2 . You dismiss Hauerwas' approach to 13 because you fail to see the connection, which is typical if you'cve already decided a priori to take Romans 13:1 as providing some sort of an excuse to back out of questioning the authority (which is also done very selectively- say Bush vs Obama….one is defended with Romans 13, the other doesn't apparently deserve the same defense). But on the latter point, again, this is NOT what Romans 13 says, which is why Hauerwas takes the Bible from the other speaker and reads Chapter 12…,but you apparently approach it like the other speaker, and treat it like 2 different discussions. Hauerwas is saying it is not TWO discussions, but one. But given your approach, I don't expect you to draw that conclusion. TWO DIFFERENT narratives gives the nationalist the intertpretation he wants (indeed, the view is often chraterized as the "Two Kingdoms" view.
The "two kingdom's" approach is that of Martin Luther and has a noble pedigree. Romans 12 tells us not to avenge ourselves. Romans 13 tells us that God has instituted authorities to kill evil doers. Hauerwas' response to the Romans 13 is to take the Bible away and then only read Romans 12, implying that everything that comes after cannot be further than or in tension with his favorite passage. It's simplistic proof-texting.
"simplistic proof-texting. "?????
OMG dude. So you're allowed to do it (read ONLY 13 and treat it as separate) but that's the first argument you throw at Hauerwas? (Which by the way, he DOESN'T DO, because he says , after reading 12, "THEN…." and starts reading the first portion, and so on……and he says that so many Christians "do not know how to read the Bible well, because they're Americans before they're Christians",) So Romans 13:1 is blasted over the airwaves and from pulpits to justify what America does (and then recently, in alliance with right wing politics, strangely dispenses with that idea when the Nationalist theologies tell them that the national leaders are evil. then they''re off to "other" more "convenient" passages) Hauerwas is here showing that such a use of Romans 13 is itself a "simplistic proof-texting". Before you get all superior about "favorite passages", realize that this is what all theological controversy is; it's selecting what passages YOU consider to be important. Hauerwas does this as well, but we are always left with just what it is opon which "all the law and the prophets" depend. And with Jesus telling us to love our enemies, which is part of the great commandment "Love God with all your heart mind soul and strength and your neighbor as yourself", it takes a radical reworking of that rather heavy commandment to allow an isolated reading of Romans 13 to provide us with a "but sometimes…" as American Christians do to allow ourselves to say we're being faithful to the Scriptures (especially tricky since Romans 12 basically re-states and elaborates on that greatest commandment in several different ways)
" instituted authorities to kill evil doers"
uhhh…..that's not there, if you take a look. That's what you've "inserted" into that based on your assumptions which have been handed down by the culture and adopted as our "state piety"
maybe Paul should have written the 13th chapter somewhere not so close to the 12th chapter (aside from the fact that the "chapters" were not specified by the writers, but later editors) if he meant for 13 to be read in complete separation from 12, as if it were a different subject. IOW, the title of the post and Hauerwas' point, reading Romans 13 AFTER Romans 12, is not a consideration for you at all.