Is it just me or is Halden increasingly coming to argue for things that AUFS contributors and readers have argued, often against him, for years? Or maybe it just feels like years because it is on the internet. Either way.
25 thoughts on “A Rude Question”
Comments are closed.
An und für sich 
It sounds plausible, but I unsubscribed from his RSS feed — can you point out a couple examples?
I think there tends to be hostility towards similar schools of thought but usually for somewhat different reasons.
Either that, or he realizes that being AUFS-like is the only durable path to theology blogging fame.
The cynic in me feels like it simply illustrates that when it comes to blogospheric success your positive project is less important than who you choose to critique, but that’s not really fair.
Hmmm. Me thinks APS may be referring to the narrative theology post, but I could be wrong.
What posts are you thinking of, APS?
The one on place – against localism – which as we know is one of the key doctrines of AUFS, alongside the similar opposition to anti-civ beliefs, distrubutism and anti-technological thinking. There are more, but I can’t remember – I think one was seeing ‘liberalism’ (which we are I think all opposed to) as the root of all evil pace Hauerwas.
Oh and decadent Barthianism.
Yeah, basically the last seven posts or something. I didn’t want to link. I assume he doesn’t read our blog.
I thought it was cute when he wrote the post saying, “Wow, Milbank’s kind of right wing lately. What gives?”
Hard to tell . . . you could always ask him.
We don’t need to ask him — his blog is public, and this is a question about his blog posts.
I never said you needed to.
I think you said we needed to a couple years ago.
Ha. Very good. I was certainly thinking of how I have been influenced by AUFS. The trajectory is pretty clear. Relative indifference – Uncritical defensiveness – Significant appreciation. My posts and thinking have been greatly affected by the work here.
I have thought of writing a very different ‘open letter’ but for the life of cannot conceive of how it will not be lame anyway . . . so better left unwritten.
Since my blog does not really register I suspect no one cares but I would not be surprised if Halden has also been significantly influenced on some level by AUFS so why not see if he wants to express it as much, that was all.
For what it is worth I now make many statements broadly in keeping with themes at AUFS that I would have likely argued against at one point in the not so distant past.
Thus is the influence of AUFS!
AUFS = assemblage of weaponised intellectual snark, cutting open the theo-blogosphere.
We’re glad to have had an influence.
Is Halden out there? Maybe we should ask him — though it’s plausible that he’s shifted over time due to AUFS-related people participating so often in his comments.
I read both blogs, and I think that’s probably reading too much into it. All of the recent stuff (narrative theology, territorial definitions of the church) follow a quite natural trajectory out of his (and my own) Hauerwasian past. A lot of it may overlap with AUFS interests, but I think biographically it makes more sense that it stems from his long time love of Yoder (now Kerr-boosted) becoming more articulate.
The really crucial alternative in contemporary theology is between Kerr and Barber.
I tend to side with the one whom Kerr cribbed his ideas from.
We’re saying that out loud now?
Yes. But quietly. And by way of code. Bastard has blanked me enough times at the AAR in favor of his Christian friends I don’t give a fuck.
If you are speaking of Dan Barber…I think he is an up and coming theologian to watch for. I’m waiting for a book.
I am indeed talking about Dan Barber. He has a book forthcoming — I’ve read it, and it’s great.
Jacob, it’s presently in copyediting, etc., so hopefully not too much longer.