I read Hauerwas' memoirs earlier and posted some thoughts. Recently I have re-read most the book, realizing how useful the narrative is for people wondering about modern theology.
Philosophy and theology are closely related, especially since the Christian Church began in the Roman Empire and used classical culture to express the Faith. Philosophy determines the conclusion of argumentation, because philosophy is the net that holds the facts.
For example, the Grand Canyon is a fact, a colorful ditch 10 miles across. I grew up being taught "The Colorado River slowly carved the canyon out of rock over millions of years." The philosophy behind this conclusion is evolution, natural causes, no Creator please, we are scientific now. The Genesis Flood cannot be included in the argument because the Bible is considered a charming bundle of myths, even though we have a modern example of a rush of water creating an impressive (but smaller) canyon overnight. Add a patio cleaning attachment to your garden hose and watch a mini-demo, as rocks blow away from the water stream like popcorn.
Modern theology is grounded in modern philosophy. I remember the panic induced when I was studying for the doctoral exams - three full days of writing. I had to pass those exams to move onto the dissertation phase. I tried to study Kant and modern philosophy, because Kant was basic to modern theology.
Briefly, modern philosophy is completely detached from the Biblical concept of the efficacy of God's Word.
Also, no one deals with the fact that Tillich was pathologically immoral, that Barth was a Communist fraud who let his mistress do all his writing for him, after he sketched the outline (the big print in the Dogmatics).
When Barth's mistress, Charlotte Kirschbaum, died, his publishing came to a halt. He finally dedicated a volume to his long-suffering wife, Nellie. Anyone can see the early dedication to Kirschbaum and the final one to Nellie in the books published today.
But these matters are inconsequential to modern theologians, because their philosophy excludes the Word of God from their thought, except to cite when convenient. To be bound to the Word as the revelation of God is too constricting.
I have noticed the impossibility of dealing with "conservative" Lutheran clergy and leaders, because they begin with the rationalistic philosophy of Pietism. As anyone can see from the doctrinal graphics I have posted, the Book of Concord and the great Lutheran theologians teach justification by faith.
But when the current leaders see those passages, which they rarely contemplate, they see their double-justification from the Pietist theologian, Georg Christian Knapp (still in print today, after 180 years.)
Moreover, the same leaders embrace the 10,000 rules of Pietism while excluding the 10 Commandments (except the 8th, which does not apply to them...ever). This neo-Pietistic philosophy is useful in ignoring all false doctrine and condemning those few who point it out.
Pietism is excellent at sanctimony while excusing amoral behavior - "We have never been good at sanctification," an old WELS excuse for clergy hedonism. Tim Glende's anonymous blog is typical for his holier-than-thou condemnation of Lenski and other authors he is too dense to understand.
His uncle John Brug's magnum opus, The Ministry of the Word, is a Pietistic disaster.
Pietism is a form of Enthusiasm, separating the Holy Spirit from the Word of God. If an author has no use for the efficacious Word working through the Means of Grace, he is not a Lutheran and will undoubtedly distrust any genuine Lutheran author.
How many Lutherans have heard that "this exciting new program
The reason Missouri, WELS, and the Little Sect have engaged in marketing, cutesy-wutesy songs on Sunday, and clever tricks is their reliance on Pietism.
Where is the proof? The outcome, Halle's UOJ Pietism, points to the philosophical foundation of the new-Synodical Conference, the "separated brethren" who actually work closely together with each other and with ELCA. Like Jack Kilcrease, they can move from WELS to ELCA to Romanism without breaking into a sweat, because UOJ Pietism means never having to say you're sorry.
I was trying to make sense out of Hauerwas' book when I ran into a passage that explained everything. Robert Wilken (LCMS, Seminex, ELCA, Roman Catholic now) explained this or that to him about Lutheran doctrine. Wilken is an apostate who believes nothing, like many church historians. Claiming to understand Lutheran doctrine via a conversation with Wilken is an easy way to escape Luther.
The Reformer had a philosophy, the Scriptures. He subordinated all books to the Bible. That is the great divide. Either one adopts this approach or rejects it.
That explains why Lutheran laity cannot have a real conversation with the clergy about doctrine. The Syn Conference clergy filter everything through their Pietistic training.
Rick Tecklin: "You should not be plagiarizing Craig Groeschel."
Tim Glende: "My uncle is John Brug." (The children of faculty are never held accountable for their folly. Ask Marc Schroeder and his second wife.)
Rick: "Groeschel is a false teacher."
Glende: "I graduated from WLS." (Poor students, if they have the right relatives, are never wrong. Good students, lacking the right DNA, are always wrong.)
