Comments on: Book Review: Resident Aliens

By: Richard W. Wilson

Richard W. Wilson — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:38:29 +0000

I don’t know by close examination what Hauerwas and Willimon’s ecclesiastical commitments are, but I am not inclined to think that they are Anabaptist in root or branch. My impression is that they have imbibed enough John H. Yoder to sound Anabaptist perhaps, but aren’t as wholly committed to scripture as they are to their understanding of the ethical trajectory of the New Testament, which allows departure therefrom when it seems appropriate to them. So, how does that make them different from the rest of us? Probably not much. Trevin notes that “often, the authors tend to put forth a rather Anabaptist, almost separatistic outlook.” My question would be: What’s wrong with that? Doesn’t scripture say “come out from them, lest you partake of their corruption?” “Be in the world, not of the world”? How are we to be different if not separate? He goes on to say “their separatism is coupled with a strongly pacificistic orientation that may be troubling for some readers.” Indeed, even to Trevin, most likely. My impression is that they don’t root their pacifist (pacificistic?) leanings closely enough with identification in Christ and his mission to be fully Anabaptist; it is rather as though the ethics of non-violence could be abstracted from our embodiment of the Cross. That “the authors overstate their case at times, sometimes leading to false choices between “right living” versus “right thinking,” may be something the authors do, but is more likely what they view the beliefs and practice of contemporary evangelicalism and the tradtion of ‘the church” to have done. In light of the evidence of history regarding the beliefs and practices of the ‘church’ I’d say there is good reason to see an appropriate dichotomy between “church authority” and “biblical authority.” Your (and my) views may differ primarily due to prior commitment to the traditions of the church which are instead assumed to be authoritative.
All the best to all in Christ,
Richard

By: byrnesyliam

byrnesyliam — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:30:50 +0000

I think if you can find an account of Hauerwas’ atonement theory you’d be donig well! I also very much enjoyed this book as I read as an undergraduate. The somewhat anabaptist and pacifist perspective were some I had never come across in my more traditional evangelical background, and I found the book refreshing, as you rightly said, the book walks the fine line of honest criticism with genuine optimism for the church’s mission.

I would be interested to hear about what you found upsetting as I read this book as a somewhat undiscerning undergrad and have only a potted memory of its contents.

By: Well, I Can’t Review Everything : Subversive Influence

Well, I Can’t Review Everything : Subversive Influence — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:36:42 +0000

[...] Willimon have something out called Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony (CBD Link), which Trevin Wax reviews, saying “Rarely do I come across a book that is so simultaneously upsetting and [...]

By: Trevin Wax

Trevin Wax — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:30:33 +0000

Sounds to me like he’s an overly optimistic inclusivist.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:18:00 +0000

http://www.theocentric.com/personal/featured/who_will_be_saved.html

By: Trevin Wax

Trevin Wax — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:09:08 +0000

Not sure on either count.

I’d be surprised if Willimon were a Universalist. He’s been a guest on the White Horse Inn several times.

I haven’t read enough of Hauerwas to know about his view of the atonement. Neither subject is treated in Resident Aliens.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:06:57 +0000

Hey Trevin,

I’m not sure if you can answer these questions or not but: Is Willimon a Universalist (i.e. it seems so according to Who Will Be Saved?) and does Stanley reject the idea of Penal Substitution?