Talk:Stanley Hauerwas

From Theopedia

"Theological Bent"

I find this quote from Keith Goad to be misleading in regards to Hauerwas' view on justification and sanctification. I can see how these conclusions might be construed, but only through a myopic reading. Perhaps I'm reading to much into it, but it seems to imply that Hauerwas believes that salvation is through one's own efforts at sanctification. From half-dozen books of his that I have read, I've never seen anything like this. Chrismon 06:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me as though he may adopt some form of moral-example theory of the atonement, and Goad is playing off its implications. Could this be the case? If so, then I think the quote makes sense. I do, however, think the quote needs a little more context. It kinda comes out of nowhere. JordanBarrett (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I know of Hauerwas (and many of his friends which I have read and even met a few) he is seeing all of this far less systematically than Goad (and you) do. As I believe you are aware, Hauerwas' theology is primarily narrative. This does not systematically tie the narrative to salvation as a means - "If I do X, then Y will happen". I believe the idea is that salvation is found and received when we are taken up, by God, into the narrative of his people. (To poorly quote N.T. Wright from memory, "Scripture is full of people whose natural human longings in prayer are answered by being taken up into His purposes.") That narrative is only possible because of Jesus Christ. This does not leave Jesus as only or even primarily an ethical example, but as the only one capable of giving humanity freedom from sin and death, the only one who is perfectly free to lead us through God's story. Therefore the Christian is not merely saved because he or she has adopted the correct set of propositions or right behaviors (i.e. a system) , but because this person has become a disciple: a person who has submitted to God (a result of God's prior work) in the taking his or her life into the direction that history is headed, namely God's kingdom come. The disciple is saved from something old and to something new. This is not as myopically simple as saved from Hell and to Heaven. While that is certainly true, the disciple is also being saved from one cosmology into another, from one set of allegiances into another. The line between salvation and sanctification is blurred. It is through this narrative that such repentance and transformation is found. Does this better explain my reaction to Goad's words? Chrismon 13:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Chrismon, just so you know, I have read very little of Hauerwas, and so I'm out of my league here. Still, I'll do what I can to add to this conversation. I think that makes a lot more sense now, and trusting your reading of Hauerwas, I think we should either add a reply to the quote, or get rid of it altogether. Would you say that Hauerwas is a post-propositionalist? I'm not trying to tie him down, but it sounds as so. Hopefully he's saying that we do become disciples but we also are disciples of the true God which entails various propositions about him, yet, not limiting our faith and lives as his disciples to them (this is where I enjoy the work of Kevin Vanhoozer and others like him). Also, my question was obviously "systematic", but I also don't want to sound as though I'm trying to put Hauerwas into some sort of system. Although I agree that a system will not save or ultimately give right behavior, hopefully he (or you) is not rejecting the significance of a system. Thanks for your help in this. JordanBarrett (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How about the fact that explaining someone's viewpoints by the use of another person's quote just isn't fair...? --Cordof3 04:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)