A Rude Question

Monday, June 6, 2011 — Anthony Paul Smith

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.

Posted in "the church", Academic Freedom. 25 Comments »

25 Responses to “A Rude Question”

  1. Adam Kotsko Says:
    Monday, June 6, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    It sounds plausible, but I unsubscribed from his RSS feed — can you point out a couple examples?

  2. Hill Says:
    Monday, June 6, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    I think there tends to be hostility towards similar schools of thought but usually for somewhat different reasons.

  3. Adam Kotsko Says:
    Monday, June 6, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    Either that, or he realizes that being AUFS-like is the only durable path to theology blogging fame.

  4. Hill Says:
    Monday, June 6, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    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.

  5. Rod of Alexandria Says:
    Monday, June 6, 2011 at 8:31 pm

    Hmmm. Me thinks APS may be referring to the narrative theology post, but I could be wrong.

  6. myles Says:
    Monday, June 6, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    What posts are you thinking of, APS?

  7. Alex Says:
    Monday, June 6, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    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.

  8. Alex Says:
    Monday, June 6, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    Oh and decadent Barthianism.

  9. Anthony Paul Smith Says:
    Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 1:59 am

    Yeah, basically the last seven posts or something. I didn’t want to link. I assume he doesn’t read our blog.

  10. Adam Kotsko Says:
    Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 5:57 am

    I thought it was cute when he wrote the post saying, “Wow, Milbank’s kind of right wing lately. What gives?”

  11. david cl driedger Says:
    Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 8:19 am

    Hard to tell . . . you could always ask him.

  12. Adam Kotsko Says:
    Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 8:32 am

    We don’t need to ask him — his blog is public, and this is a question about his blog posts.

  13. david cl driedger Says:
    Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 8:33 am

    I never said you needed to.

  14. Adam Kotsko Says:
    Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 8:35 am

    I think you said we needed to a couple years ago.

  15. david cl driedger Says:
    Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 8:47 am

    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!

  16. Alex Says:
    Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 9:01 am

    AUFS = assemblage of weaponised intellectual snark, cutting open the theo-blogosphere.

  17. Adam Kotsko Says:
    Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 10:14 am

    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.

  18. Scott Prather Says:
    Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    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.

  19. Adam Kotsko Says:
    Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    The really crucial alternative in contemporary theology is between Kerr and Barber.

  20. Anthony Paul Smith Says:
    Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    I tend to side with the one whom Kerr cribbed his ideas from.

  21. Adam Kotsko Says:
    Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    We’re saying that out loud now?

  22. Anthony Paul Smith Says:
    Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    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.

  23. Jacob Says:
    Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    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.

  24. Adam Kotsko Says:
    Wednesday, June 8, 2011 at 6:47 am

    I am indeed talking about Dan Barber. He has a book forthcoming — I’ve read it, and it’s great.

  25. dbarber Says:
    Friday, June 10, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Jacob, it’s presently in copyediting, etc., so hopefully not too much longer.


Comments are closed.

«

»
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,365 other followers