The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Buy the Book

A Prophet Against the Empire

By on 4.5.11 @ 6:07AM

America’s “best” theologian may also be its most profane and hardest working.

Hannah’s Child: A Theologian’s Memoir
By Stanley Hauerwas
(Wm. B. Eerdmans, 308 pages, $24.99)

Almost every article about Duke University ethicist Stanley Hauerwas references Time magazine’s having named him America’s “best theologian” in 2001. So it’s natural that Hauerwas starts his own memoir with it, slightly tongue in cheek. He may not be America’s “best” theologian, but he certainly is among its most influential.

A Methodist who now attends a “peace” oriented Episcopal church, Hauerwas is the chief popularizer of the growing neo-Anabaptist movement among today’s Protestants and Evangelicals. He is the premier disciple of the late Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder, who reinterpreted the Cross of Jesus Christ into primarily a rejection of all violence. If Yoder was the architect of the modern neo-Anabaptist surge, Hauerwas is its most effective evangelist. In surely a divine irony, Hauerwas was acclaimed by Time just in time for 9-11, which enhanced his rejection of all military force, no matter the provocation, not to mention nearly all things pertaining to the American “empire.”

In a recent lecture, Hauerwas readily admitted, logically, that widespread pacifism may in fact increase violence in world, but such is the cost of faithfulness. Here is the chief problem for Hauerwas and his growing band of ardent followers in Christian academia and among the clergy. Defining Christianity chiefly as a pacifist sect ignores 95 percent of Christian tradition and places nearly all churches, except Mennonites and Quakers among a few others, as agents of error. It also makes Christianity chiefly a philosophy for insulated clerics and academics. Lay people who live in the real world will never, and should never, abandon mainstream Christianity to follow the Yoder-Hauerwas re-interpretation of the faith. Neither will non-clerics ever agree to shun all military and police power, no matter the ensuing chaos, in pursuit of an abstract theory. 

By all appearances, Hauerwas, who has spent his whole adult life in academia, is joyfully indifferent to the real world implications of his principles. And interestingly, perhaps as a relief to some, his memoir does not dwell with any length on his theology or how he came to it. It is instead a fairly entertaining personal remembrance, starting with his working class childhood in a small Texas town. His parents were faithful Methodists of a sort, though his mother was contentious, and his bricklayer father ardently profane. Hauerwas himself is renowned for an inherited proclivity for profanity, though surely the shock value of serious cussing, even on a seminary campus, in year 2011 is minimal.

Besides the cussing, Hauerwas also inherited disciplined work habits, especially from the bricklaying he began with his father while still a boy. Long days of soaking perspiration in Texas heat, hauling bricks by hand, surrounded by rough talking working men, and disregarding the racially segregated water pails, all were deeply formative for Hauerwas. So too was the absence of indoor plumbing. His father periodically had to relocate the family outhouse, leaving previous outhouse locales to fuel an ever more lush lawn. Hauerwas also absorbed a penchant for earthy camaraderie. He is renowned for cultivating zealous friendships among his colleagues and a devoted following among his students. Modern neo-Anabaptists likely would be far fewer had they depended on the intensely introverted Yoder, rather than the more exuberant Hauerwas.

Remarkably, Hauerwas rose from his modest roots to attend Yale and later to teach at Notre Dame, followed by Duke. He actually helped elevated Yoder, who was 13 years older, from relative obscurity at a Mennonite school to join the faculty at Notre Dame. The summit of Hauerwas’s career was probably his delivering the prestigious Gifford lectures at the University of Edinburgh in 2001. He shed his conventional Protestant liberalism not long after Yale, and he began to define himself as a critic of liberalism, by which he primarily meant modernity, capitalism, and nationalism, especially devotion to America. Of course, this form of establishment liberal Protestantism that he rejected has long since dissolved into post-modernity. So Hauerwas now chiefly rails against conservative Christians and enthusiasts for American democracy, all of whom purportedly have succumbed to idolatry when judged by the clarity of the Yoder-Hauerwas school.

Since their rise in the wake of the Reformation, Mennonites and other Anabaptists have traditionally been at least semi-separatists, avoiding public service, while usually not criticizing the government or those who serve it. Modern followers of the Yoder-Hauerwas school, in contrast, are quite loud in their denunciations of both. Amusingly, despite their rhetoric against coercion, violence, and “Caesar,” they often are strangely comfortable, even enthusiastic, for the functions of big government outside of police and military. In a 2008 panel with his friend and debating partner, the late Richard John Neuhaus, Hauerwas, if I understood him correctly, admonished Christians to prioritize government health care over pro-life advocacy. Ever the contrarian, Hauerwas has been traditionally been pro-life, though doubtless discomfited by alliance with pro-life conservatives. Hauerwas also is ambivalent about homosexuality and same-sex marriage: “I hope and pray for the day when Christians can be so confident in their understanding of marriage that we can welcome gay relationships for their promise of building up the body of Christ.” He does not explain how he theologically arrived at a position so at odds with the universal church, of which he is at least a rhetorical champion. Instead, he merely references his stance based on a friend of his and his wife’s.

Hauerwas is very candid about the roller coaster of his married life. His first wife, whom he wed as a student, was mentally ill and often professed her love for other men. They had one son, to whom Hauerwas has always been very close, partly because they were both survivors of her many psychotic break-downs. Hauerwas endured the marriage across more than two decades, until his wife insisted she was pursuing another man, to which Hauerwas did not object, offering a generous divorce settlement. She later died a sad and lonely death. 

As a middle-aged man, Hauerwas found more satisfying love with a somewhat younger woman he met while at Duke. She is an ordained United Methodist who was a school administrator, and their 20-year marriage has been very happy. Despite his hellish first marriage, Hannah’s Child is full of warm remembrances of rewarding friendships across more than 50 years as a student and teacher.

Frustratingly, the memoir is too brief about Hauerwas’s transition from a Texas Methodist to an Anabaptist pacifist. He recalls that while at Yale he was befuddled by the anti-Vietnam War movement, thinking it “rather odd to protest the war by getting high and screwing.” He has always “stood in awe” of pro-war Christian realist Reinhold Niebuhr but realized he had been “seduced” by Niebuhr. While teaching at Notre Dame, Hauerwas was “stunned” by some pamphlets of John Howard Yoder. He realized the Anabaptists had “been right all along,” and eventually blurted out to his friend, church historian Robert Wilken, “In fact, I am a pacifist.” He combined a “strange brew of Catholic and Anabaptist resources to provide an account of Christianity that for many people would seem so compelling and beautiful.” Yoder’s vision of “living out of control” contrasted starkly with Niebuhrian realism, which “shuts down the imagination.” Interestingly, Hauerwas also came to “love” the work of pro-Just War theorist Paul Ramsey of Princeton, whom he enthusiastically befriended.

Hauerwas recounts Yoder’s somewhat odd though passing personal downfall. Yoder, who was married, began “experimenting” in the 1960s with unconsummated intimacies with various Mennonite women, arguing that such touching was nonsexual and spiritually beneficial. The various women eventually discovered each other and exposed Yoder, whose Mennonite congregation disciplined him in the 1990s across 4 years. Hauerwas helped persuade his friend to submit to his church’s process. Finally reconciled with the flock in1996, Yoder died a year later.

Post 9-11, Hauerwas was on a panel at the University of Virginia, where he derided the U.S. response. His friend Robert Wilken, a professor there, denounced the treason and stormed out. Wilken later asked Hauerwas if he disdained “all natural loyalties.” Hauerwas responded affirmatively, asserting that all baptized Christians must. Wilken and Hauerwas served together on the board of First Things, where the “Americanism” of editor Richard John Neuhaus was a “bit hard to take.” Hauerwas’s second wife was aggrieved by his association with “neoconservatives.” He resigned from the magazine board after it editorialized that pacifists could offer no relevant counsel on military force. But he remained friends with Neuhaus and Wilken, both converts to Catholicism, noting that church’s magisterium better understands how “economic liberalism is antithetical to the formation of communities capable of caring for one another in the name of the common good.”

Although a champion of “the church” as the definitive human community, Hauerwas has migrated across several denominations, barely church going at Yale, later attending a Lutheran church, attending Mass and partaking of the Eucharist while at Notre Dame, then attending a socially conscious Methodist congregation in South Bend, becoming angry at a “church growth” Methodist church near Duke, and eventually settling on a “peace” Episcopal church. He laughingly calls himself a “high church Mennonite” but admits he has “never had a home in a particular ecclesial tradition.” He and his current wife abandoned a weekend home because it interfered with their intense church involvements.

Hauerwas notes he often cries at church, though he is uncertain why. “I simply cannot get over what a surprising and wonderful life God has given me,” he concluded. Hauerwas’s drive to turn American Protestants, or at least many of their clergy and academics, into pacifist Anabaptists may not be laudable. But its partial success is a tribute to his gregarious charm, amply revealed in Hannah’s Child.

About the Author

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.


Letter to the Editor View all comments (40) |

Dee See| 4.5.11 @ 6:56AM

"Religion is the key to history. Among the Protestants ONLY the Calivinists had the faculty
for self-government, and ONLY the Calivinists
would put up a fight."
-Lord Acton

"John Calvin is the REAL father of America."
-George Bancroft
America's FIRST Historian emeritus
1840

Clean out the Rockefeller/Carnegie ARMINIAN
heretic neutralizers and infiltrators (i.e. World Council of Churches) from the
American Christian establishment and we
might yet regain consciousness.

Ryan| 4.5.11 @ 9:24AM

Are you willing to throw in the semi-Arminian Southern Baptists and Pentecostals in the same boat?

How does that satisfy the promise made to Abraham of the number of his children?

mames| 4.5.11 @ 11:57AM

The reformers collectively reflected the dignity of man and his inherent God given rights as seen in The Atonement for all mankind. (unless of course you are a true Calvinist and believe in a Limited Atonement). Throw in some Locke and you have the roots of a Constitutionally Limited Republic that can only survive within the framework of Christian Morality. Today we can see how much we have decayed when CEOs and other leaders, like this "theologian" have the morals of a jack rabbit.

JP| 4.5.11 @ 7:23AM

Hauerwas, like all post-moderns, does self promotion well. Only in America could a Methodist theologian jump ship to the Annabaptists. Theological rigor isn't as important as setting career goals and getting tenure as some prestigious school of divinity. Being a theological rock-star (The best in the US!) can be fun if one doesn't mind cherry picking dogmatic beliefs from whatever confession trips your trigger. Pacificism is Hauerwas' thing, and it turns out the Methodists are too belligerent for his sensitive nature. If one cannot conform to Christ's nature, have Christ's nature conform to yours. It's the American Way!

C S Lewis| 4.5.11 @ 7:32AM

I felt like crying over this poor man crying. No wonder the Church is in the state it is. This man is lost in his "own reasoning knowledge" and is so far from the beginning of the Church that God started through the Apostles that it's doubtful he can recover. He is blind as a bat as to the True Gospel of God. Heaven save us from what the Church as become. I know ministers who are sick to their soul of people just like this man who has done much damage to the Church. God have mercy on his soul. He does not know what he doesn't know.

mames| 4.5.11 @ 11:52AM

This guy is neither Christian nor a theologian. He is a emotionalist in cleric's clothing. He holds nothing as absolute and blows wherever the wind takes him. He puts word in Christ's mouth and is proud to do so. He is often at times simply incoherent yet post post modern man likes incoherent it leaves him with the ability to be as amoral as he likes.

FakeEagle| 4.5.11 @ 8:03AM

I'll bet R. C. Sproul could explain to Hauerwas in detail just why he cries in church.

KyMouse| 4.5.11 @ 8:12AM

So would I, FakeEagle.

As for me and my house, we don't need this guy or any other theologian -- we just need the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Bible. Full stop.

Ryan| 4.5.11 @ 9:26AM

Do you discount 2000 years of Christian scholarship? Are many of the things that Church Fathers - Catholic and Protestant both - studied and debated and reasoned not worth knowing?

Occam's Tool| 4.5.11 @ 10:36AM

Mouse, there weren't and aren't, enough people like you in Kentucky. If there were, I'd still be living there.

Bob K.| 4.5.11 @ 8:30AM

The recent review here of David Eisenhower's biography of his Grandfather "Ike" made mention of "Ike" being raised as a child by an Anabaptist mother who was a member of the River Brethren faith.

Ike went in a different direction than Hauerwas did and we can be grateful that he did!

cuban pete| 4.5.11 @ 9:13AM

Indeed!!
Thanks Bob K.

Ryan| 4.5.11 @ 9:28AM

Completely absent from the review - and I suspect Hauerwas's book - is the mere mention of the Gospel, and what it is and what it means.

Christ died for some reason. That is why we are Christians.

magua| 4.5.11 @ 10:03AM

Could any of these liberal theologians explain Jesus' interaction with the centurion in the eighth chapter of Matthew's gospel? The centurion asks Jesus to heal his servant. Jesus grants the centurion's plea and marvels at the man's incredible faith. Jesus commends him. Jesus makes no mention of his vocation nor does He chastise him in any way. Could it be that God has no objection to the existence of military and police forces to enforce law and order based in Biblical Truth? In fact he establishes them (see Romans 13; 1-4), and has appointed them as His ministers. The error of these men and their teaching is found in their inability to differentiate between the PERSONAL and GOVERNMENTAL mandates of the Bible. We live in a broken world. There is NO perfect institution of men, including the military or police. But without either we would be thrust into anarchy and chaos. I am one Christian who is grateful for these men and women who by-in-large serve us faithfully. They deserve our prayers and support. That is the very least we should do.

Occam's Tool| 4.5.11 @ 10:35AM

The problem with pacifists is that they are lazy bastards who make others protect them from the wolves. He may be a bright writer, but he is a worthless scumbag as a human being, and not someone I would trust with the safety of my children. Ultimately, the worth of any man is whether or not I would trust them with the safety and future of children. (Obvious exceptions are people like MikeD, who I would definitely trust with the moral teaching of children if not currently the physical protection---let us not split hairs, here)

This fellow would not protect kids from predators. Therefore, he is worthless.

Seek| 4.5.11 @ 1:09PM

Stanley Hauerwas, it is true, won't protect us from wars. But ask yourself: Who starts all those wars? Might the warmakers be in need of some lessons?

JRGIERLACH| 4.5.11 @ 2:32PM

What do you think Khaddafy would say to your question? Or Hamas?

Angelo| 7.17.11 @ 9:53PM

According to Occam's Tool, pacifists are "lazy bastards" and "scumbags". Among those bastards we then have to include Mahatma Ghandi, MLK, both who were killed while fighting for the betterment of their fellow brethren. We have to call William Penn a bastard. Among the scumbags we must include Quakers, the Anabaptist martyrs and the Church of the Brethren. And of course the early Pentecostals, who most of them were pacifist Christians. Don't forget those bastards known as the Early Church Fathers and of course, the greatest bastard of all, Jesus of Nazareth.

Commentary| 4.5.11 @ 1:16PM

One of the biggest fallacies of American Christians is to assume that they are theologically neutral (like KyMouse, who seems to believe there are no interpretations or assumptions in his/her theology). The danger in this false belief in neutrality is that you wind up reading the bible through a pro-American, pro-military lens and think you’re seeing clearly.

A lot of charges against Anabaptist theology come from the angle that Anabaptists should have to explain how they justify a wild idea like pacifism. If anybody’s interested in getting a fuller explanation, I'd recommend Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus," Ched Myers' "Binding the Strong Man," or "The Stanley Hauerwas Reader" (See, it's not really fair to accuse Anabaptists of not explaining their theology when you've only read is a short book review on the memoir of a particular theologian).

But based on the gospel account of Jesus, I think it's a lot more legitimate to turn that question around and ask: "How do you theologically justify war?" It's widely documented that in the first couple centuries following Christ's death, Christians continued Christ's example of non-violence. Since Christianity was embraced by Constantine, however, there has been a long and difficult effort to theologically justify violence (read a fuller account of the Just War theory here:
http://www.jesusradicals.com/w.....st-war.pdf).

What I'm trying to say it this: it takes a lot more than prayer and reading your Bible to justify supporting a military larger than any other on the planet that makes god-imitating decisions everyday on which human beings get to live and which will die. Indeed, you are standing on almost 2,000 years of intense theological maneuvering to get Christianity and Militarism to not cancel each other out. So please, examine the theology that you are operating out of, and then, by all means, look into Anabaptism (trust me, it won’t hurt you).

JP| 4.5.11 @ 2:40PM

Commentary,
Yours is the Christanity of the classroom and lecture hall. It is all abstractions with nothing concrete. The long history of Christianity is replete with wars (some "just", some "not"). I find it ironic that not even the Dutch Reform Church, German and Danish Lutherans, or the many Calvinist sects wanted anything to do wih them. And it wasn't just thier pacificism. The East Prussians in the areas around Intersberg and Allenstein referred to them as sacrementalists, due mainly to thier rejection of the 1500 year history of the Sacrements that Christ orginally offered to all.

The question is not, "How do you theologically justify war?", but more importantly, "How to we justify heresies?" But don't worry. If the Dhimmintude comes our way, the Anabaptists will surely be the favorite dhimmis of the jihadists. If you want to know what to expect, look at the Copts in Egypt, or the Chaldean Catholics in Iraq. But, hey they deserve what they get, right? How dare they fight to protect thier children and churches from slavery, rape, and oppression.

Ted| 4.5.11 @ 1:28PM

"By all appearances, Hauerwas, who has spent his whole adult life in academia, is joyfully indifferent to the real world implications of his principles. "

Of course he is joyfully indifferent. Like most leftists and "pacifists," he never suffers because of his principles. Others do the suffering for him.

David T| 4.5.11 @ 5:30PM

Commentary--Christians, by definition, are "non-violent." The Church has never practiced violence and it never will as long as it adheres to Christ's teachings. It is the duty of the State to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. A vocation in law enforcement or the military in no way nullifies one's Christian vows. In fact, godly wielding of the sword promotes righteousness by defeating evil. There's your theological justification for war.

Tina B| 4.5.11 @ 8:50PM

Oh yeah. Some wonderful words and ideas offered here today. As I read of Hauerwas and Yoder I think of Jesuits of yore. Once considered great thinkers, and now. . . who knows.

I digress. . . Hauerwas was academe through and through, not theology, academy. A theologian would have revealed God to me/mankind in some way, not just one man's opinion of God. And a wrong picture at that.

A true theologian, like apologist Ravi Zacharias, or going back here now, Augustine, Aquinus, Ignatius Loyola, C. S. Lewis, Tillich, and currently Ravi and R.C.Sproule among wonderful others, in their study of God with a capital G, reveals Him to us from what he or she has learned. This guy didn't do that.

Yes his followers think he did, so that means yes he led them astray. The Lord frowns on that. In fact, I think He said something like: "it would be better for him if he had had a millstone placed around his neck and then was thrown into the sea." And that was for leading, "a little one such as this" astray. And Hauerwas led quite a few "little ones." Uh-oh.

He is a good writer, so you say, I believe you. But everyone (almost) who posted here is suspicious of his teaching on Christ, God. Just because he wants a free ride, on the cops and the army, he doesn't need to claim, preach even, that Christ was/is a pacifist. That's funny. I got the distince impression that His Daddy (Abba) likes a good war. Seems to me, Daddy (Abba) surely does promise to send His Son back with a great army of angels to smite Satan and his HUMAN hordes, or armies. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Don't think His only Son is a pacifist. He just loves us, to death.

Tina B| 4.5.11 @ 8:52PM

*distinct

Tony in Central PA| 4.5.11 @ 8:54PM

Unlike Dietrich Bonhoffer for instance, Hauerwas apparently never had any costs associated with his discipleship.

Scott| 4.5.11 @ 9:03PM

Commentary-
Deuteronomy 20 lays out God's view of warfare and is the basis for most discussions of "just war" theory. Terms and conditions of conscription, non-combatant immunity, proportional use of force, clear and limited goals, war as last resort- it's all there. And not determined by councils or conventions, but by God Himself 1500 years before Jesus lived here. Also, Romans 13:1-7 and 1st Peter 2:13 & 14 (both written by Apostles) endorse a moral use of violence by the state in the pursuit of justice. While an individual may have personal reservations about "moral" violence, the state has clearly been given a divinely instituted responsibility to, when necessary, enforce the law by, well, force. Paul, when threatened in Jerusalem, played his "citizenship" card to avoid trouble, and earned himself an armed protection detail! Was he wrong?

Tina B| 4.5.11 @ 9:05PM

YES. Nothing free is worth much to most recipients. Christ paid a huge price, as did Bonhoffer, another wonderful theologian in my book... and Hauerwas worries we should put public healthcare coverage before we worry about a few abortions. Sorry, that barely sounds like a Christ follower to me. Maybe a blinded by the culture Christian. . . not my call.

Occam's Tool| 4.5.11 @ 9:45PM

Dear Seek---if Churchill had been in power in the early 30s, and Chamberlain the Pacifist had been in the wilderness, would WWII happened? Given that the initial occupation of the Ruhr was all bluff on Hitler's part, what do you think?

It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences, dear sir, and it is the reason that the only well earned Nobel Peace Prize a sitting American President ever earned went to the most belligerent, war-loving President in US history, Teddy Roosevelt.

Yosemeti Sam| 4.5.11 @ 10:40PM

" ... In a recent lecture, Hauerwas readily admitted, logically, that widespread pacifism may in fact increase violence in world, but such is the cost of faithfulness...."

But, sadly, emulative war/madness - SELLS!

So, um, lecture HOLLOWWOOD - to,um, tone it down for starters.

Mike Hegeler| 4.6.11 @ 12:56AM

Mr. Tooley:
Your article was not a waste of ink in the sense that it makes clear that the book and its author's spiritual credentials together is not worth the ink used in it.

Radegunda| 4.6.11 @ 3:04AM

"Hauerwas readily admitted, logically, that widespread pacifism may in fact increase violence in the world, but such is the cost of faithfulness. "
In other words: your neighbors and your countrymen may suffer more, but you'll feel good about yourself. Just like those who believe it morally superior to refrain from using "violence" even to defend their own lives or those of their relatives.

Dee See| 4.6.11 @ 4:29AM

AS Fukishima continues to unfold massively
and radiation levels are rising 181X on our
west coast (that's 18000%)

AND AS our sources on the ground report
monitors in California are being systematically
turned off 'for adjuestment' by government.

AND AS Yahoo News just now banners that
there's been a staggering and 'mysterious' disappearance of
the ozone layer ---'very recently' (a clear
sign of HAARP tech discharge)

REMEMBER

"---Just months ago David Rockefeller himself put out out
the call for 'rapid depopulation'. That's
RAPID. Be aware, we are in the middle of
the most awful war humanity has ever seen."
-ALAN WATT
(indispensible online coverage)

AS we were saying-------------------------------------

Commentary| 4.6.11 @ 11:48AM

Thanks for your feedback. There were some interesting comments, specifically the one by David T., who raised an interesting question: If the church is always to be non-violent, does that mean the church should support, accept, or oppose a government who uses violence?

My views would lead me to say that God's vision for the church is the same as God's vision for the world. I am not saying that if we all became Anabaptists, wars would instantly end--the world is still fallen. But I think where I most differ from you guys is that I think wars and state sponsored violence are an evil symptom of the world's fallen nature--and that as Christians, we are to flee from evil and strive for good.

David T's extreme separation between church and state (that God wants nonviolence in the church and violence in the world; and that the church should accept that) is surprising to me. Do you not believe the views of your church should speak to the government? If you oppose abortion, are you content knowing that your church doesn't allow abortion, while the government legally supports it? Of course not! Yes, it may be a symptom of the world's fallen-ness, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't resist evil with good, right?

That is where I'm coming from when I resist war. I believe the act of killing and terrorizing another human being is evil and wrong, regardless whether that person lives in the US or anywhere else. While many of you believe fighting evil means killing "evil" people, I believe it means ceasing to commit evil acts--such as killing and terrorizing. So don't ever think that bombing villages in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya is protecting me and my children. No, it is committing the very evil we are called to resist.

Also, Romans 13 is a tough verse, I admit. But like most verses in the Bible, it should be read in context. Pretend the chapters aren't there (because they obviously weren't when Paul was writing) and read through chapter 12 and then read 13. "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse...Do not repay anyone evil for evil...live at peace with everyone... Do not take revenge...If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink."

After all of that, yes, it says do not to rebel against governing authorities. But this letter is written to persecuted Christians living under an extremely pagan and violent Roman empire. Unlike American Christians, these folks were not tempted to think that the Roman military represented God's fight against evil--on the contrary, this military was killing Christians and recently killed Christ. Whatever Paul was trying to communicate, it was not "The Roman Empire is how God rewards the good and kills the evil ones." My suspicion is that the command to be subject to ruling authorities is coming in the same stream of thought that commands how Christians are to deal with enemies ("If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”) Don't start an armed rebellion and don't fight back against an evil government because that would only legitimize the empire's violence.

When Satan was tempting Jesus in the wilderness, he shows him all the kingdoms of the world and said, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me" (Luke 4:6). Satan has dominion over the kingdoms of the world, an assertion that Jesus does not deny (and, of course, refuses the offer). This contradicts Paul's belief about government, which doesn't refudiate your argument, but is something you should at least consider.

Ryan| 4.6.11 @ 12:34PM

Commentary - several points.

1. Revelation shows a violent return of Christ - wielding a sword and returning as a conquering King. Even if allegorical and not as literal, it's still a violent depiction.

2. The Hebrews were told - by God - to enact a violent overthrow of pagan peoples in the OT. The death penalty is also here for items that we even find it too extreme for now.
"Killing" is not condemned, in general. "Murder" is.
Clearly, in scripture, violence and death used to enact justice are both prescribed for governments AND rarely, if ever, condemned.

3. God calls for governments to enact Justice. There is nowhere in which He says it cannot be done without violence.

4. All of the terms about being peaceful and giving in scripture are personally directed, not prescripted for a government.

Seek| 4.6.11 @ 7:22PM

I don't rule out war as a last option. Nor do I defend enemies of this country. But those who start wars are a lot less trustworthy than those who oppose them.

Resisting tyranny is fine. Now ask yourself how people become tyrants in the first place.

Pelligrino| 4.7.11 @ 1:41AM

This guy is no prophet and not a Christian. Evidence? He works at Duke.

If he was actually a real Christian, Duke would find a way to be rid of him.

(Hint, hint. Parents: Why you don't send your kid to a secular school.)

Profane language? Profanities? Aha. Yes, the Bible says nothing about self control & goodness being Fruits of the Spirit. Controlling one's tongue?

Mr. Tooley, I am at a loss to know why you even make us aware of this man. Aren't there genuine Christians and faith leaders you can profile?

Yes, there are. So please dwell on those who are doing the work for God and His Kingdom.

Anna | 6.20.11 @ 10:09PM

Yeah ,, Hahaha , you are right . welcome to visit www.sexdollusa.com    .cheapest price and best serviser will be your best choise.our Adult toys

Adult toys | 6.23.11 @ 3:42AM

Yeah ,, Hahaha , you are right . www.cheapcigarettesshop.com welcome to visit www.sexdollusa.com

Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 4:10AM

Almost every article about Duke University ethicist Stanley Hauerwas references Time magazine's having named him America's "best theologian" in 2001. So it's natural that Hauerwas starts his own memoir with it, slightly tongue in cheek. He may not be America's "best" theologian, but he certainly is among its most influential.

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 10:52PM

is good

More Articles by Mark Tooley

More Articles From Buy the Book

Overheated Frauds and Fools

June 13, 2013 | Clark S. Judge

Lean Feminism

June 12, 2013 | Florence King

Agents of Influence

June 6, 2013 | Robert Stacy McCain

Bart Brightman vs. The 50 Ft. Democrats

June 5, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

Yes, It Can!—Maybe

June 4, 2013 | Gene Healy

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/05/a-prophet-against-the-empire

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|13 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|5 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|3 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|7 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|1 comment

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|4 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|2 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|101 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.