A couple of days ago I posted Part 2 of this topic here. I concluded that, if David Skeel is correct, Hauerwasian theology has something to offer by way of participation, notwithstanding his primarily "prophetic" stance. Skeel identified two areas in which Hauerwas has expressed approval of engaged Christian social-political activity, the Civil Rights movement and abortion. Skeel concludes his piece with a "double somersault with several twists" where he imaginatively creates a Hauerwasian opposition to the bankruptcy discharge, which he then proceeds to debunk.
Creation of an imaginary Hauerwasian theology of x is much easier than reading everything the man has written to see if he has an actual theology on the topic. Doing the same on, say, contract law, occurred to me but I've let the urge pass. Instead, I'd like to consider whether Hauerwas's vision of the Church that primarily seeks to be the Church for the Church, and thus speak to the modern social order in only limited ways, may provide a reorientation to the "one kingdom or two" dilemma. (My most recent posting on the topic can be found here; many others preceded.)
Briefly, two-kingdoms folks limit the field of distinctively Christian involvement to one kingdom, the Church. The second so-called kingdom, that of the "world," is not within the scope of redemption and there is nothing distinctive a Christian would have to say with respect to its issues. Perhaps they would go as far as Stanley Hauerwas and would permit the Church to speak to a few extraordinary social-political issues but that's about it. However, if we invoke a tri-partite structure of Church and two kingdoms, there would be room for for a distinctly Christian voice with respect to various issues that are outside the purview of the Church.
For support for such an approach one might turn to theologian Louis Berkhof. Berkhof is valuable because he wrote in the 1930s, long before the modern two-kingdoms or one dispute arose. In Part Three of his Systematic Theology, Berkhof begins with two-kingdom-like language:
Creation of an imaginary Hauerwasian theology of x is much easier than reading everything the man has written to see if he has an actual theology on the topic. Doing the same on, say, contract law, occurred to me but I've let the urge pass. Instead, I'd like to consider whether Hauerwas's vision of the Church that primarily seeks to be the Church for the Church, and thus speak to the modern social order in only limited ways, may provide a reorientation to the "one kingdom or two" dilemma. (My most recent posting on the topic can be found here; many others preceded.)
Briefly, two-kingdoms folks limit the field of distinctively Christian involvement to one kingdom, the Church. The second so-called kingdom, that of the "world," is not within the scope of redemption and there is nothing distinctive a Christian would have to say with respect to its issues. Perhaps they would go as far as Stanley Hauerwas and would permit the Church to speak to a few extraordinary social-political issues but that's about it. However, if we invoke a tri-partite structure of Church and two kingdoms, there would be room for for a distinctly Christian voice with respect to various issues that are outside the purview of the Church.
For support for such an approach one might turn to theologian Louis Berkhof. Berkhof is valuable because he wrote in the 1930s, long before the modern two-kingdoms or one dispute arose. In Part Three of his Systematic Theology, Berkhof begins with two-kingdom-like language:
The spiritual kingship of Christ is His royal rule over the regnum gratiae [kingdom of grace], that is over His people or the Church. It is a spiritual kingship, because it relates to a spiritual realm. It is the mediatorial rule as it is established in the hearts and lives of believers. (406)As such, one might think that the Kingdom of Christ is identical to the Church and, with Hauerwas, will almost never speak to social-political matters. Berkhof goes on, however, to remark that
The citizenship of the kingdom is co-extensive with the membership in the invisible Church. Its field of operation, however, is wider than that of the Church, since it aims at the control of life in all its manifestations. (409)And then there is
The regnum potentiae [kingdom of power] . . . the dominion of the God-man, Jesus Christ, over the universe . . . which is subservient to His spiritual kingship. (410)I'm not about to tease out the exegetical or theological bases for Berkhof's conclusions. You can read his book. I am suggesting, however, that a Hauerwasian binary approach to the Church in the world may not be sufficiently nuanced to account for the biblical data. If I'm right, then neither a two-kingdoms nor one-kingdom approach is fully correct, and I can only suggest that the combatants reconsider their polemics and get down to doing the work of the Church in the Church and extending the work of the kingdom of grace beyond the Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment