Comments on: The Imagination of Politics – William Cavanaugh’s Theo-Politics

By: C. Wess Daniels

C. Wess Daniels — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:09:47 +0000

@Andrew: Thanks for the article titles, I’ll look into these. I know about Hauerwas and him disagreeing, though I don’t know the specifics so I’ll check these out. It would be interesting to investigate Cavanaugh further, he definitely has some Hauerwas in him. He rejects violence as an option for the church, and argues again and again for “the church to be the church.” Something he undoubtedly got from Hauerwas.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:10:15 +0000

@Wes – I think I might need to eat my words on this. I’ve searched and searched for the source of my assumption that Cavanaugh was “highly critical” of the “rank and file” of radical orthodoxy. Alas, I cannot find a single example! In addition, to my surprise, when I pulled the book, Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology, off my shelf I found an entire chapter written by (who else?) William Cavanaugh. So, my apologies for the confusion.

BUT – there is a well-documented history of theological disagreement and criticism between Hauerwas and Milbank – primarily regarding Milbank’s understanding of the “inherent violence” of a pacifism. Hauerwas, of course argues that Milbank hasn’t understood fully his “Christological pacifism” and Milbank continues to disagree. The debate – and often bitter, sarcastic disagreement – on the issue of violence and passivity is born fairly well in Milbank’s chapter on violence in Being Reconcilied and the “conversation” between Hauerwas and Milbank in the book, Must Christianity be Violent. Have you read these? If not, that’d be a good place to start – but I’m sure that you’re more familiar with these sources, etc. than I am.

Peace,
A.T.

By: C. Wess daniels

C. Wess daniels — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:47:11 +0000

@Andrew – I’ve not heard much about Cavanaugh’s differences from the rest of the RO clan. Can you give some points on what this looks like? (I’m also unfamiliar with Hauerwas’ critique of them).

Thanks.

By: C. Wess daniels

C. Wess daniels — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:46:01 +0000

Mike – thanks. Yes, thin not think – though that would be an interesting claim. Just moving too fast today. Thanks for the heads up.

By: Mike Morrell

Mike Morrell — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:36:30 +0000

Thanks for these thoughts, Wess! I’ll be chewing on ‘em. But when you said “The fact of the matter is that I think the kinds of theological resources necessary to explain a political history in this way, or the church’s response to politics is very think within Quakerism.” You meant “very thin within Quakerism,” right?