rain and the rhinoceros

Ben Meyers over at Faith and Theology has contributed a thoughtful post on “proofs” for the resurrection and why they are theologically misguided. It is well worth reading…

I just wanted to mention that Stanley Hauerwas has recently published a “theological commentary” on Matthew with Brazos Press. I bought it a few weeks ago and quickly read it.I am always skeptical of “theological commentaries” or “theological reflections on the Bible” for they are often either shallow theologically or historically. Of course, the problem of a biblical scholar writing a theological commentary is that usually he or she fails to have adequate theological training. The reverse is true for the theologian who though may be theologically articulate, has little training in the biblical languages, textual-criticism, or any of the other historical-critical methods. The reality is that this is the natural consequence of specialization.As an avid reader of Hauerwas and a student of the historical-critical method I was particularly interested in this commentary.The following is my review of the book:

Hauerwas, Stanley. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006.In recent centuries the task of writing biblical commentaries has almost exclusively been left in the hands of “the experts.” Due to the ever-increasing specialization of the theological disciplines and the high value placed on the pursuit of uncovering the “truth” via the utilization of modern historical-critical methods, biblical scholars have found themselves holding (even if inadvertently) a virtual monopoly on the content and nature of the Bible. To be sure, the recognition that a great historical wedge exists between the first century and the present day is nothing new, but the belief that truth about God can be known only if Christian convictions are disentangled from our reading of the biblical text, surely is. Of course, the hijacking of the Bible by disinterested biblical scholars has not gone on without a great deal of protest. Indeed, many theologians and biblical scholars alike have pointed out the “bankruptcy of the historical criticism.” However, many of the recent attempts to read the Bible both historically and theologically have failed to do either justice. As a result of specialization and the disinterested nature inherent in historical-critical methods, many biblical scholars have lost the ability to couple their historical findings with useful theological insight. On the other side of the fence, “like stroke victims,” theologians have forgotten the skills of careful interpretation.The editors of the “Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible” series were not unaware of this dilemma, but they have nonetheless taken the risk to, once again, invite theologians to reflect on the Bible, not as disinterested critics but as theologians. Perhaps an even greater risk was taken when the series editors asked Stanley Hauerwas to write the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, for in his own words, “few could be as ill prepared as I was for this task”(18). No doubt reflecting the feelings of many theologians Hauerwas laments in the preface of Matthew, “…most of the habits that come with being a theologian in modernity do not help us know how to write a theological commentary”(18). Nevertheless, true to form, Hauerwas rises to the challenge bringing his theological creativity and theo-political critique to every page of this commentary.Unlike modern historical-critical commentaries, Hauerwas’ Matthew is not concerned about historical questions. In fact, he does not even address basic questions regarding authorship, origin, or the date of the Gospel. Instead, Hauerwas approaches the gospel as a text of the church that witnesses to the revelation who is Jesus Christ. He does not attempt to get “behind” the text or get in the mind of the author in order to find the “real” or “historical” Jesus. Rather, Hauerwas is comfortable working with the final form of the text. Because Matthew wrote in order to “make us disciples of Christ” we must in obedience “submit to Matthew’s discipline”(19). Thus, Hauerwas’ first goal is to retell the story faithfully by writing “with” the author of Matthew.While retelling the narrative first told by Matthew, Hauerwas seeks to script “our lives into the story.” Of course, by ‘our lives’ Hauerwas is referring to himself along with his foreseen audience, that is, Christians living in the United States. In his many books and articles Hauerwas has decried what he perceives as “the accommodation of the church to America,” or what his mentor John Howard Yoder referred to as “Constantinianism.” This commentary is no different; Hauerwas refuses to ignore the “privatization” of Christianity in the United States and the need for a more truthful and faithful politics. He calls for nothing less than the complete renunciation of worldly politics to be replaced by the politics of the kingdom of God. Hauerwas demonstrates that the politics of Jesus runs counter to the politics of the world. He points out that the United States is not an exception to the politics that defines the nation-states of the world, for all states secure power over others through the use of violence. For Hauerwas then, the message of Jesus as outlined by the Sermon on the Mount “is not a list of requirements, but rather a description of the life of a people gathered by and around Jesus” (61).In the commentary Hauerwas’ recent interest in the life and work of Dietrich Bonhoeffer is also evident. Threaded throughout the commentary are dozens of quotes from Bonhoeffer. Hauerwas is convinced by Bonhoeffer’s emphasis on the importance of “truthful speech” and the visibility of the church. In his comments on Matthew chapter five Hauerwas talks about what it means for Christians to be the salt and light of the world. He agrees with Bonhoeffer that the church must become a people capable of truthful speech, which must always be “as visible as light in the night, as a mountain in the flatland” (63). Truthful speech is not a private affair; for Christians, visibility means nothing less than participation in an alternative politics: one that challenges the politics of death by living faithfully and obediently according to the Beatitudes.If it has not yet become obvious, Hauerwas’ Matthew is thoroughly theological. He has not written a traditional verse-by-verse commentary. Instead, this book is much more like reading a novel. Hauerwas moves almost seamlessly from description and narrative to constructive and prescriptive theological reflections for today’s church confronted by globalized consumerism. Although he wants to be faithful to the text of Matthew, he is not overly concerned about the “intended meaning of the author” or historical context. He is looking for how the narrative told by Matthew challenges our modern assumptions about the truthfulness of democracy and liberal individualism. He does not try to adapt the content of Matthew to our new historical context; rather he points the church back to the assumptions of Matthew and the early church – that Jesus is the Son of God.Hauerwas does not state his methodology, and if there is a consistent approach, it is difficult for this reviewer to discern. At times, one wonders whether Hauerwas simply does not care about the results of historical biblical scholarship or whether he is just ignorant. At the beginning of his commentary, for instance, Hauerwas talks about the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew: “The book of the genesis of Jesus Christ.” He seems to think that Matthew has in mind the actual book of Genesis or at least the origins of humanity. It becomes clear that Hauerwas thinks this way because he makes certain assumptions about Matthew’s Christology. Whereas most modern critical scholarship has argued that Matthew has a low Christology that would have no concept of a pre-existent Jesus, Hauerwas seems to presuppose that Matthew would have affirmed the traditional creeds of the church. Once again, it is difficult to know whether Hauerwas is ignorant of scholarship on this issue, or whether he just does not care. After all, he is writing a theological commentary that attempts to bring Christian convictions to the text.Despite the existence of a few more historical errors like the one above, Hauerwas generally manages to be faithful to the content of Matthew. His lack of historical commentary actually allows more space for theological reflection on the narrative of Matthew, something which Hauerwas does exceptionally well. Surely a better understanding of modern research on the subject could have strengthened this commentary, but this does not take away from the theological insights of the commentary. In the tradition of Yoder, Hauerwas helps to shed light on the social and political significance of the gospel. Furthermore, he reshapes our concepts and assumptions about what is private and what is public about faith. Above all, Hauerwas wants to point out that the church is called to a higher standard of speech and living. In order to be faithful to Jesus he calls the church to become better witnesses to the kingdom of heaven by speaking truth and the peace of God in a world that secures kingdoms through deceit and violence.