In struggles to inform revision of my 2017 theological treatise, it was only natural to return to a book that inspired so much of the God v world theology emerging from it, Resident Aliens, by Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon (abbrev H&W). This blog set forth many still-relevant opinions re this unique theological work during 2009-10 (see early Jan index for these yrs). With a new post-treatise perspective, it's time to mine the book for greater refinement of theological content. Like H&W, I aim to conform Christian theology closely with the ideal of the church (as people of God) and with the reality of the Biblical concept of the world (making Christians "resident aliens”, in but not of it). But efforts to do so have changed since "Balancing Chaos" recorded my reactions 15 yrs ago; newer views seem at greater variance with H&W's 1989 publication than they did in 2009-10.
In earlier joy of discovering a lively critique of worldly Christianity, I neglected much of Resident Aliens that still doesn't read well. My thinking about the church and its worldliness has matured considerably since then. (In 2009-10, I adhered to primitive versions of my treatise's 4 markers of worldliness). H&W almost always speak of the church in the ideal sense, as if its manifestation as the body of Christ is self-evident to readers. Their exemplars, like "Shady Grove church" (ch 3) and "Gladys" (ch 6) raise questions about how consistent these are in church virtues. The authors state that "Christianity is mostly about politics--politics as defined by the gospel" (p 30), tho this defines politics in ways unfamiliar to most readers, including me. "Tradition" is circumscribed as an ideal consistency the church has rarely maintained in its 2 millennia existence (p 72).
Thus, much of H&W's narrative doesn't speak to my perspective. There is indeed a useful church ideal--despite my not experiencing anything close to it. Without much evidence that the ideal is practical--ie, often practiced--their credibility appears substantially less than 15 yrs ago. "Politics defined by the gospel" is hardly fleshed out in subsequent discussion, so that, beyond the proper implication that a church-biased framing for theology is required, it hardly seems practical to talk about better politics, a concept easily identifiable with worldliness. Almost nothing is presented to boost faith that the utility of church tradition and of the experience and memory it represents--beyond what scripture establishes--adds to its potential to contribute to any TGM theology.
H&W's analysis of worldliness is actually quite minimal, relying upon readers' understanding of select points (without much scriptural reference) to convince of its danger. For that matter, their appreciation of what's Godly is also largely suggestive, based so much upon intuited reader experience with the ideal church. If "the church", as this ideal is often nebulously referred to, is the only place to "practice Christian ethics", then that doesn’t absolve us from articulating qualities and values of "a visible community of faith" that make this possible. Why can't other communities not overtly Christian adopt them, esp as "we [most churches?] content ourselves with ersatz Christian ethical activity" (pp 80f)? The last chap identifies "power" and "truth" as "virtues [or values] that make ministry possible" (ch 7 title), without getting very specific.
In critiquing H&W for such shortcomings, I question my process of treatise revision for difficulties in writing more cogently. Would that my bland phrasings of basics and essentials be infused with "a rationale . . . so cosmic, so eschatological, and therefore so countercultural" as the ideal H&W try to formulate (p 145). Resident Aliens' authors emphasize grounding divine authority in scripture (pp 128, 162), as do I. They define theology as practical, "something useable" (p 164); I agree. Truth is a self-evident primary concern, both for them and me (who sees TGM as ultimate values). We probably agree more than we disagree, relative to almost all theologians, tho it's hard to tell without dialog that's impossible. I can only imagine such dialog, but let's try some, vis these paragraphs on the bk's last 2 pgs (pp 171f):
H&W: ". . . many people say they don't believe in God. They look at the collection of 'saints' called the church and say that they cannot see anybody who looks much different from somebody who does not believe."
Me: They have a point. Much of your critique bears that out.
H&W: "Part of the problem may be that these onlookers have a too limited, or even too paganly extravagant idea of God, which prevents their seeing God when God meets them in the life of [their icon] Gladys or [the apostle] Paul.”
Me: Secularists and atheists tend to see too little that might signify the divine and to expect too much from others' concepts of God. They may see the goodness/Godliness in others in various moments, but even with "saint" Paul and surely with a modern like Gladys, the consistency of their goodness/Godliness escapes widespread recognition.
H&W: "More than likely, we Christians have failed to become like the One we adore."
Me: . . . So that we (collectively, at least) aren't in communion with God, like God’s somewhat emulatable son Jesus? Bingo. We have failed big time because of the church's worldliness.
H&W: "We have confidence in the boldness of pastors and the potential truthfulness of their congregations because we do not believe God has abandoned the world.”
Me: That is, the world as creation. Yet without more than bold leaders and without questioning the oft-political truths that churches put faith in, it's hard to see proof that God speaks thru any church, that worldliness hasn't sullied any church's best opportunities to attain divine communion and consequent spiritual wealth.
H&W: "A great deal is wrong with us as the church today. . . . Yet thank God, we are not so unfaithful as to be utterly unable to locate the saints."
Me: It's too Catholic, too beyond any TGM reality to talk about or emphasize locating saints. As an outsider (unlike insiders H & W), I can see perhaps more clearly what's wrong--that the world respects the church so little not only because the church is coopted by the world, but because it doesn't reflect Godliness/Christlikeness in many if not any distinctive ways.
I tout my treatise, past and future, as a better outing of church worldliness than Resident Aliens. As much as H&W capture an attractive (if somewhat dated) view of the church and of its ideal that transcends modern or past culture, any effort to build upon their efforts belies the need to move beyond their specific framing of Christian worldliness. The big exception is better fleshing out of their image of “resident aliens” and of their view of the church as “Christian colony” in the cosmos/world--what H&W could have done better themselves. If my treatise receives direct inspiration from their bk, it may be toward such development. Would that the church I attend, or any I've attended, be inspired to fruitfully examine its unregarded worldliness.
Reminder--Part of my creds as a resident alien consist of being in but not of a world described in this blog, one greatly influenced by worldliness others have no regard for, a world they don’t want to talk about, that exists in spiritual terms no one of the material world seem to appreciate. Who, for example, can see the truth of the MIO (Manipulation, Intimidation, & Oppression) that confronts me daily? Just because no one regards it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. To say otherwise is one expression of worldly blindness.
Who can appreciate the legitimate fear I privately express about the enveloping suffering and disasters of my life--not just lack of community and friends, but continuing (and more immediate) problems with my vision and with a bedbug infestation? A scum stalker who wants me to “relax and enjoy” having it ravage my life, as in a Bobby Knight-described rape, punishes me for such politically incorrect fear, and will do so again down the particular IDT (Inevitable Downward Trajectory) suggested by my latest disastrous personal narrative.
Loss of option to renew my apartment lease this last wk--when I was TOLD my apt was leased to someone else--was immediately recognized as a disaster, if only because experience teaches that a ubiquitous, controlling harasser routinely inserts an unlimited number of its limiting agendas onto any efforts to find a truly desirable place to live. Yesterday’s work on this project evinces such difficulties, even more than the poverty an oppressor forces upon me--like perfected-timed interruptions in my landline, unanswered phone calls, and an email message blowing away multiple advertised apt openings as if they didn’t exist! Having potentially 2 mos to find the next scum-chosen “bastion” from Lexington’s version of a siege mentality, toward instilling a murderer’s forever growing brazen presence, isn’t something to look forward to, to say the least. But then, there’s never anything really promising in this IDT-driven dynamic.