Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".