Summary:
The book begins with a look at the changing relationship of church and culture. The
authors herald the end of Constantianism, which began with the Edict of Milan in 313 a.d., and
ended in symbolic act similar to that in 1963 when the Fox Theatre in Greeneville, South
Carolina defied the blue laws and opened its doors on Sunday. The increasing marginalization of
the churched marked by that act gave the church “an opportunity to discover what has and
always is the case – that the church, as those called out by God, embodies a social alternative that
the world cannot on its own terms know.”(18) They elaborate:
“The demise of the Constantinian world view, the gradual decline of the notion that the
church needs some sort of surrounding ‘Christian’ culture to prop it up and mold its young, is not
a death to lament. It is an opportunity to celebrate. The decline of the old, Constantinian
synthesis between the church and the world means that we American Christians are at last free to
be faithful to a way that makes being a Christian today an exciting adventure.” (18)
From there, they discuss the realities of the post-Enlightenment world, and the
implications this has for the “Christian colony” in their interaction with politics, community,
ethics, and ministry. There is a great deal of emphasis on the Sermon on the Mount. This book is
heavily influenced by the Anabaptist, separatist, and strongly pacifistic teachings of Hauerwas’
mentor, John Howard Yoder.
Critique:
I agree with Hauerwas on several fronts. The primary task of the church is, in fact, to be
the church and we can only be the church when we first attach ourselves to Christ through
conversion, and then learn what it means, in community, to be the people of God. By doing this,
we set ourselves up as “resident aliens” and as colonists in a world hostile to Christ.
I’ll suggest two critiques. First, Hauerwas closely ties his position to his critique of
American war policy. He takes a pacifist position I don’t entirely agree with. In general, he sets
up a stronger antithesis between State and Church than I am comfortable with. Second, he seems
to sometimes emphasize right living over right belief, instead of seeing them as two sides of the
same coin.
