On Theological Polemics
My reason for appreciating theological polemics can be summed up by reference to an old Aristotelian axiom: opposita iuxta se posita magis elucescunt, opposites set side by side shine all the more clearly. Hauerwas or Hart, for example–both favorites of mine, both fierce polemicists–are masters of showing what’s at stake in their claims by showing what those claims oppose. One can have no doubt after reading Hauerwas that truly following Christ (which is always the main point) must involve a repudiation of certain dimensions of the liberal political life of this country; reading Hart, one can never again tolerate ugliness. The danger in such polemics, of course, is that the inadequacy of one’s foil also shines more clearly, which can cause in both the reader or the writer a failure of Christian charity. Yet are not such oppositions nonetheless entirely necessary, in order to demonstrate the kinds of decision (rather than syncretism) that conversion entails?
21 January 2008 |
Comments (1)
Tags: Method
![[RSS for this post]](/images/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}