Friday, January 26, 2007

The Church, Legalism, and Hauerwas

As compared to my most recent posts, this one is quite serious. The following thoughts are in regard to Keith Drury's "Legalism Scale," and the various responses to it. It can be found at this address http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/recent.pretty.good.writing.htm, under the heading "I dare you to take this Test: Legalism Scale." Be sure to read the "Responses." Bascially, the conversation comes down to this: does a commitment to holiness make one a legalist? Let me make clear that I am not interested in any discussion on whether or not certain denominations are legalistic or have been in the past, but should a church that promotes holiness deal with personal conduct (for my Wesleyan tradition compadres)? Can a church, or should a church, address issues such as homosexual and adulterous relationships, pornographic material usage, divorce, materialism, etc. among its members? To summarize the responses to Dr. Drury's 'Scale,' quite a few people said "no," personal conduct issues are simply between the individual and God. Thus many of the respondents reported a 'level-zero' on the scale: "We just love people - it isn't about rules it's about relationship." Now for my humble thoughts, and I must say up front that I probably rank somewhere between level one and level two on the Scale.

First, I agree with Dr. Drury that a church has an obligation to set certain standards of conduct for its members, based upon biblical foundations and presupposing conversion. I have yet to see any biblical argument against this and Saint Paul seems to argue strongly for it. Related to this, a church has an obligation to take stands on conduct that are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture as well. Dr. Drury's example of slavery works well, and we could include abortion, cloning, use of illegal drugs, etc. In my opinion, it is not legalism by asking people to refrain from particular behaviors, whether explictly or implicity biblical, but I am certainly open to your thoughts and corrections on the matter. Obviously certain issues exist that are not matters of salvation, but still concern some denominations (e.g. alcohol and tobacco). I also think a denomination can address non-salvific issues as well and still refrain from legalism.

Secondly, my theology has been shaped, to a great extent, by the writings of John Howard Yoder and particularly Stanley Hauerwas. I find that Mennonite theology (although Hauerwas is Methodist, but was under the tutelage of Yoder) challenges me spiritually in a way most Protestant theology does not. I think the Mennonites have a better grasp on the church, community, and culture, than do Protestants, generally. What certain segments of the 'emerging church' are talking about now, the Mennonites (or at least Yoder) had figured out sixty years ago. By the way, I am not emerging, but do find some of their stances valid. So, where is this second point going? It is going to the point Hauerwas and Yoder make (primarily in The Peaceable Kingdom and The Politics of Jesus), that being a Christian cannot be separated from the being the Church and that the Church, by definition, is public and counter-cultural. The Church itself is a "social ethic," a "servant community," and all Christians are called, unconditionally, to follow the teachings of Christ as a public witness (yes, even in the commitment to nonviolence). Hence the only way the Christian life can be lived out is through community (no 'what if a person was trapped on a desert island' stuff); the Christian life and Scripture is more complex than simply 'relationship,' as is currently popular. Any person (i.e. Jesus Christ) that is not concerned with what I do (as opposed to simply 'heart matters') is not worth following. The quip, "a right heart leads to right action" is partially correct, but it grossly underestimates the sinfulness of humanity. Personally, I don't trust myself enough to leave my religious convictions or Jesus' teachings to my conscience. My conscience deludes me far too often; I need the Church. So, my answer is no, a commitment to holiness does not make one a legalist. It is this very commitment to Christ and the Church that define us. Hopefully this will start some conversation. Let the tomatoes fly! Yee-haw!

3 comments:

Matthew Bartlett said...

Thanks J.A.H.

One quibble: In my understanding of Hauerwas, 'salvation' names the form of life of the disciplined, truth-speaking and -hearding, non-violent church; a new possibility for peoples to organise themselves made possible by Jesus and the Spirit. Hence it is not so easy to talk about 'salvific' v. 'non-salvific' issues.

Burly said...

I think I would quibble over whether the pursuit of holiness is really related to denominational stances on issues that are not overtly biblical - and are matters of conscience (read: alcohol and tobacco as an example you gave). That is to say the ecclesial extra-biblical formulation of rules that help one pursue holiness (I wanted to sound smart so I used the word ecclesial) may not inherently be legalistic, but I doubt whether some of these rules will actually change a person's heart pursuit of holines. Let me pull an example out of my right elbow: if you legislate against alcohol and tobacco, who is to say that person won't pursue comfort/peace/pleasure, etc. in food. If you go on to legislate on food (which in excess - there's a better argument for biblically that moderation in alcohol/tobacco), who's to say that person won't turn to comfort/peace/pleasure in the excessive viewing of television (or reading of blogs!) ... where does it end ... if we don't pound on the idols of the heart that rob us of our holiness, joy and satisfaction in Christ ... welp, see you later;o) ... did I adequately reveal that I didn't read your post carefully?

J.A.H. said...

Matthew and Burly (I can't call you Matt - too confusing!) - I think you both raise good points and they are interconnected. Matthew, I think your reading of Hauerwas is correct and I stand corrected; it is not so easy to distinguish the salvific matters from the non-salvific. Do we tend to make this issue easier than it really is? Burly, I think you raise a good point; in my opinion, this is where some Wesleyans have gotten off track. We have pointed to 'rules' and forgot the message behind it. The error is in thinking that telling people not to smoke (or some other regulation) will make them more holy. The genius of John Wesley and his 'bands' was not to emphasize rules, but to ask the question, "what kind of people do we want to be?" Wesley's 'bands' had rules, but not the type of rules we are used to, nor practice (at least among many Wesleyans), but questions that continually pushed people forward in holiness. So, maybe the question, "where does it end?" is not bad, but good. It never ends, because we are always pushing each other forward as a disciplined, peculiar body (connecting to Matthew's point). Wesleyans have made holiness too much of a private or individual matter. Wesley would roll over in his grave if he could see how we have abandoned the catholic or corporate aspects of holiness. Consequently, the issues of alcohol, tobacco, food, etc. are never means to make us holy or more holy, nor are they simply matters of conscience, but decisions we have made as a discipled body. Does that make any sense?