Stupid Question
I'm attending the Sermon Seminar at Rochester College this week. The theme is the Sermon on the Mount. Yesterday, Warren Carter and Chuck Campbell both spoke about the Empire and identified it with the "powers and principalities" that form the background of much of the New Testament. They then talked about modern institutions that partake of the oppressive nature of the Empire, including the institutionalized, post-Constantinian church.
Last night it was my task to moderate a panel discussion that included Carter, Campbell, Richard Hughes, Dennis Dewey and the inimitable Stanley Hauerwas. I asked this question: "If indeed the institutionalized church has adopted the structure, tactics and goals of the fallen powers and authorities, can it be redeemed? Or would we be better served to abandon it and start anew creating a counter-cultural community of Jesus?"
"That's a stupid question!" bellowed Hauerwas. There was a collective gasp from the audience, followed by some nervous laughter. He continued on to say that as long as the church has the capacity to examine itself, acknowledge its shortcomings, and strive for more a authentic witness, of course it can be redeemed. After all, he stated, the church is the church not because we've formed it perfectly, but because it belongs to Jesus.
All through school, I was taught that the only stupid question is the one you don't ask. Apparently, that was wrong. I still think my question has some validity. There are a lot of people out there who are rethinking "church" and how it can best build a bridge to our post-Christian, post-rational, post-modern, post-just-about-everything culture. I think it's valid to ask whether the church as we have known it is capable of fulfilling the mission of Jesus.
But it's wrong to conclude that the church's success depends on our ability to "get it right." That's selling Jesus short. He's been working through fallible humans and fallen structures for 2,000 years now. If you think he can't continue to do that, well that's just plain stupid.
Thanks, Stanley. I needed that.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
hapless souls have wandered by here since May 14, 2006.
A record of random wanderings around the web, my brain, and other cluttered places.
A record of random wanderings around the web, my brain, and other cluttered places.
About Me
- Mark
- Child of God. Currently serving in the roles of husband, father, grandfather, minister, walking Rolodex® of mostly useless information, and private pilot.
Pretty Good Blogs
Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(62)
-
▼
May
(8)
- It's a Girl!OK, I confess! I always swore that I ...
- Off to Chicago!The happy couple you see here is my...
- Stupid QuestionI'm attending the Sermon Seminar at...
- HeadlinesOne of my guilty pleasures is The Onion, ...
- Quotes Worth Re-quoting:"An organization begins to...
- ¡Quinceañera!After thirty-five years of ministry, ...
- Recently, I attended a retreat at Ashland Theologi...
- Mother's Day is almost over. I spent part of the d...
-
▼
May
(8)
4 comments:
Wish I could be there...
It didn't sound like a stupid question to me. There certainly ARE a lot of believers rethinking "church" -- especially how we currently 'do' church (the institutional model).
Perhaps Mr. Hauerwas hasn't read "Revolution" by George Barna.
I want to side with Hauerwas, at the risk of adding to your insult/injury...
I think our mistake is thinking of "church" as out current interpretation of this mystical, wondrous body of Christ. We look vastly different fro our forefather, as they did from their forefathers. There has always been one universal, catholic church, but it hasn't always looked the same, and we are foolish to think it always will. Perhaps that's where the "stupid" part of H's reponse comes from...we can work for change and redeem things (including some words our emergent friends would rather euthanize) without necessarily discarding everything.
I guess I'm one of those folks who wants to try to redeem what we currently have, and not discard and try to get it right from scratch.
Of course, if I had to be called stupid (or my questions be called that), I can't think of a better person to do it!
I beleive the very answer of Dr. Hauerwas contradicts his position that "of course the church can be redeemed." The use of the qualifier "AS LONG AS..." demonstrates there may in fact come a time when the church as we have known it can no longer be redeemed and God will start over. Did God not do that very thing in Scripture time and again? Noah comes to mind. As does the generation that passed away in the desert. And the remnant of Israel. Didn't Jesus say God could raise up children for Abraham from stones? I do not believe we have yet reached the point where the church cannot be redeemed, however, and so believe that as of now, we should work to fulfill the mission of Jesus through the church... but, there may come a day (and it may come sooner than we think) when God moves to begin his work fresh in a people not of the status quo.
Hey, Mark. As one of the people in the room I want to add insult to injury and pile on with Hauerwas and shout out across cyberspace, "That's a stupid question!"
No! Not really!! Just kidding!!!
I could understand what Hauerwas was saying. (Even though it seemed to that some of his other comments seemed to contradict, but we won't go there). But, I also think I understand the logic of the question you asked. I really respect the way you handle things, though. You were gracious and kind. You did a good job keeping your composure, as well.
Sometimes I wonder: Are we so entrenched, so inextricably absorbed in what we do, how we do it, why we do it the way we do it, and why we won't do it any other way that we are, as long as current thinking prevails, hoplessly bogged down in the mire of our own structure, tactics and goals to the extent that we could more readily accomplish the will of God by simply making a fresh start?
I wonder, also, what Hauerwas would think of that question. What do you think?
Post a Comment