RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
A few disclaimers. I actually like St Thomas Aquinas. I appreciate many medieval insights. Secondly, I am not using this critique as a sub-argument for theonomy. Far from it. In fact, I would rather the T-word not even enter the discussion. Anyway, here is Stanley Hauerwas' critique:
(Hauerwas, Peaceable Kingdom, 60-61).
I actually disagree with the last two clauses because: 1) not all forms of cultural imperialism are bad; 2) this usually doesn't happen anyway.
Jamie Smith goes on to say,
(Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, 240).
Emphasis on the distinctiveness of Christian ethics does not deny that there are points of contact between Christian ethics and other forms of social life. While such points frequently exist, they are not sufficient to provide a basis of a "universal ethic" grounded in human nature per se. Attempts to secure such an ethic inevitably result in a minimalistic ethic and often one which gives support to forms of cultural imperialism, which can then be taken to underwrite forms of coercion.
(Hauerwas, Peaceable Kingdom, 60-61).
I actually disagree with the last two clauses because: 1) not all forms of cultural imperialism are bad; 2) this usually doesn't happen anyway.
Jamie Smith goes on to say,
Formally speaking, the norms of human social life, and therefore the norms for ethical action, are determined by the telos of a community; this telos is both revealed and unfolded in a particular story that sustains and orients this community. As such, the norms for communal life are story-relative and therfore distinct to that community. More specifically, for the CHristian community, the norms for social life and ethical action are specified by a distinct telos, communion with God and neighbor, which is itself specified only in the distinct Christian story embodied in God's revelation in Scripture.
(Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, 240).