Ecclesiology and Ethics

Ecumenical Review, The, April, 2000 by Arne Rasmusson

The debate

To describe the "ecclesial ethics" of Yoder, Hauerwas and Milbank in this way shows why it is highly controversial, not least because of their critique of modern liberal society and of "mainline" Protestantism (which is in fact the tradition out of which Hauerwas and Milbank write). I will look at one example of the criticism their work has encountered, that of Lewis Mudge. Mudge took part in the WCC study and his book The Church as Moral Community sets the ecclesiology and ethics report in the context of the wider theological discussion?(31) While Mudge carries on an ongoing debate in this book with especially Hauerwas and Milbank, it should be noted that he is himself a defender of the idea of the church as a moral community. However, he tries to think out of a basic, though not uncritical, sympathy with Protestant liberalism. (The drafters of the WCC report itself included people with a range of views, including some who were closer to the Yoder, Hauerwas and Milbank perspective than to Mudge.)

Mudge criticizes Hauerwas and Milbank for not being sociologically realistic enough, suggesting that they often sound as if the church "were a total cultural environment" (p.77), and that the Christian story or tradition could be similarly totalistic. Moreover, because the church is described as the true politics, "the expected historical fulfilment must in some way involve a cultural Christianization of the world" (p. 151). Consequently, a tree politics will be intelligible only in the framework of a full theological language that excludes secular people and people of other religions. But Christians are themselves much more part of the secular world than this language allows for. Most of us today "exist in a multiplicity of cultural environments, and engage in several different occupational and familial practices, each with its own symbolism, logic, customs, and the like. Pluralism enters our personhood" (p.77). Living in several different cultures, with permeable boundaries, we become "multiple selves". Thus we need guidance on how to live with this complexity, trusting that God is at work not only in the church, but in everyday life. "`Ecclesiology' maps only part of the setting for the faithful life" (p.77). Theologically, Mudge speaks of "a sacramental transfiguration of everyday life" which "engenders a capacity to discern how and where the Holy Spirit is at work in the world as [Christians] know it" (p.81). It is precisely in this process that the congregation is formed:

   Its members bring to it elements of culture and society that, in the power
   of the Spirit, form a kind of mosaic of the face of Jesus Christ: not the
   appearance of the historical personage, but the recognizable pattern of
   Jesus' presence in history understood as sign and sacrament of the
   fulfilment of God's intention for humankind (p.83).

What can be said about Mudge's critique (acknowledging that the positions of Yoder, Hauerwas and Milbank are not identical)? First of all, regarding Mudge's charge of "Christianization", if he means by that (1) that all are called to become disciples of Christ, and (2) that what they think about the good common life is what is good for everyone (just as a liberal wants a liberal society, a social democrat a social democratic society, etc.), then he is right. They are not radical pluralists. But this is not a very interesting conclusion. It is more telling that Mudge finds this a problematic, even fatal conclusion. However, none of them develops a general theory of the good society. They are not in a position to do that. They represent a dissenting minority, and write from that perspective. So they want a society that is open for dissent.(32) Moreover, for theologians who place peace in the centre of their theological vision, it is crucial to promote as much as possible the existence of real political dialogue.