Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract: This essay explores the role of laughter in the theology of Stanley Hauerwas. It argues that Hauerwas both articulates and practices a conception of theological laughter that is essential to his overall theological project. He encourages us to laugh at ourselves and, in so doing, to recognize the folly of our temptation to put ourselves in place of God. In particular, I suggest that this conception of laughter and humor is central to Hauerwas's many engagements with Mennonites. On the one hand, he finds in Mennonites examples of the kind of comedic stance he elaborates. On the other hand, he points to ways in which Mennonites have missed the significance of that stance, often with the assistance of a theological joke. I argue that Mennonites have tended to focus on the former rather than the latter, and thus have often failed to get the joke that Hauerwas plays on/with them. In doing so, I hope to point to a different way of approaching Hauerwas's work than that which Mennonites have typically employed. ********** Funny Lord, how we love this life you have given us. Of course, we get tired, bored, worn down by the stupidity that surrounds us. But then that stupid person does something, says something that is wonderful, funny, insightful. How we hate for that to happen. But, thank God, you have given us one another, ensuring that we will never be able to get our lives in order. Order finally is no fun, and you are intent on forcing us to see this through the humor of your kingdom. I mean really, Lord, the Jews! But there you have it. You insist on being known through such a funny people. And now us--part of your joke on the world. Make us your laughter. Make us laugh, and in the laughter let the world be so enthralled by your entertaining presence that we lose the fear that fuels our violence. Funny Lord, how we love this life you have given us. Amen. - Stanley Hauerwas (1) HAUERWAS'S LAUGHTER AND MENNONITE EARNESTNESS In my first year of studies at Canadian Mennonite Bible College in 1989, Stanley Hauerwas visited the college to deliver the annual J. J. Thiessen Lectures. I cannot claim to remember anything he said. This was not solely due to the fact that it has been over twenty years since he gave the lectures. (2) Rather, as a young student of theology attending my first series of academic lectures, I simply failed to understand what was going on. And yet I recall being struck by the sense that something significant was taking place, even though I had not the slightest idea of how to articulate what it was. So I bought the book that was for sale on the display table outside the lecture hall, and I actually took the time to read it. The book was Resident Aliens--at the time Hauerwas's most recent book. (3) It was the first book of his that I ever read. I have, of course, read a lot more of his work since then. But I must confess that in 1989, after reading and even rereading the book, I still largely missed the significance of the theological vision being elaborated by Hauerwas and William Willimon. But even as I felt incapable of making sense of what Hauerwas had to say in his lectures, I vividly recall being struck by his laughter. Here was a guy who seemed to think that doing theology and being funny were not necessarily incompatible. More than that, he gave the distinct impression that there was something about Christian theology that necessarily involved humor and laughter. He spoke of God, Jesus and the church as if they were somehow intrinsically funny and entertaining. He presented theology as a thing so strange one could not help but laugh at what he was trying to say--or at least Hauerwas could not help but laugh when speaking theologically. Perhaps more important, Hauerwas did not seem to think that this strangeness and the corresponding laughter it elicited needed to be downplayed; it was certainly not something for which he needed to apologize. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».