Comments on: stanley hauerwas on sin

By: isaac

isaac — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:56:50 +0000

Scott, it’s good to see you still visit the blog. I hope you are doing well.

peace,
Isaac

By: cittadipace

cittadipace — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:27:11 +0000

Caliban, when Hauerwas made the point to which you were referring, he was talking about more about modern (predominantly liberal) trends in theology to speak about Jesus as ‘symbol’ or ‘embodiment’ of some more determinative, more universal human reality. He was explicitly rejecting the notion that Jesus is merely the best example of an ontologically intrinsic relation to God that humanity has. I’m sure you’re right that ‘fundamentalism’ has come close to that view as well, but I thought since you were raising a potential problem with Hauerwas’s though – to which I’m more than open – I’d try to clear that up.

Like Isaac (Hi Isaac, by the way!), I need help to see what your concern is. I assume Hauerwas would agree with you that if Wittgenstein or Aristotle determines his understanding of God or Jesus more than the biblical narrative (which can’t be isolated from Church), something is wrong – if that is indeed the point you’re making.

So I guess if you want to make that point, the debate to be had is whether or not, and how, those figures over-determine his thought.

Peace,
Scott

By: isaac

isaac — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:02:32 +0000

Caliban, thanks for sharing your concerns about Hauerwas with us. I’m afraid I need some help to “draw the logical conclusion.” Can you spell out a little more how your analogy works? thanks.

By: Caliban

Caliban — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:14:41 +0000

Hauerwas said in class one day that if you can claim Jesus on a different basis then his own claim, then, you should worship that basis (or system). He was talking particularly about fundamentalism and inerrancy. However, Hauerwas’s theology does not work without Wittgenstein or Aristotle. He is so indebted to Wittgenstein’s “language game” and Aristotle’s vision of ethics. So, you draw the logical conclusion . . .

By: isaac

isaac — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:31:46 +0000

Matthew, thanks for stopping by the site. If there are other Hauerwas quotes that strike your fancy, please post them and let the rest of the world partake. That goes for anyone else out there who may stumble across this post.

By: Mathew Bartlett

Mathew Bartlett — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:25:03 +0000

Thanks for the quotes.

By: isaac

isaac — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:14:30 +0000

David, thanks for taking a look at my paper on Henri de Lubac. Please feel free to post your reactions and engagements. Yeah, I’m at the Divinity School at Duke University. It’s a great place, but I’ll be graduating soon without a place to go! Hopefully jobs possibilities will start coming. Lastly, so I put your site back on our links.

By: David

David — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 19:38:51 +0000

I guess Duke, correct?

By: David

David — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 19:16:04 +0000

Yes I was aware of this connection between Hauerwas, Cavanaugh, Bell & others. The fruit of Hauerwas’ teaching are these great thinkers. It’s amazing to me.

I have a favor to ask. Could you add my site to your blogroll as well. Thanks!

On a separate note – I printed out your de Lubac paper and will read it. Which seminary are you attending?

By: isaac

isaac — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 17:33:25 +0000

David, thanks for linking us. Yeah man, don't forget "Stan the Man"--that's actually the title of an essay Cavanaugh wrote about Hauerwas (it's included in the Hauerwas Reader). There are lots of connections with Hauerwas and Cavanaugh. You probably already know this, but Cavanaugh was a Hauerwas student. He wrote Torture and Eucharist as a ph.d dissertation under Hauerwas' direction. When I think "Hauerwasian" (even though Hauerwas doesn't like the thought of training Hauerwasians), I think of people like Cavanaugh and Dan Bell (just two that come to mind at the moment).