Stanley Hauerwas (Grand
Rapids: Brazo Press, 2001). Reveiw by Ron Dart.
There is little doubt that Stanley Hauerwas is one of the
most significant and controversial theologians at the present time. It is quite
apt and fitting, therefore, that Hauerwas should be asked to give the
prestigious Gifford Lectures. With the
Grain of the Universe: The Church’s Witness and Natural Theology was
presented, by Hauerwas, in 2001 as the Gifford Lectures in Edinburgh.
With the Grain of the
Universe is divided into five sections, and each section unpacks the drift
and direction of Hauerwas’s argument in depth and detail.
Section 1 clears the ground for the rest of the book.
Hauerwas, in this important and introductory chapter, does a sort of apologia
for what he is about to do. The Gifford Lectures were, in principle, supposed
to be about an annual lectureship that dealt with the religious questions from
a position of natural philosophy and theology rather than from a place of
revealed theology. Hauerwas goes to great pains to point out how and why such
an approach has serious and severe limitations. In short, lecture 1 begins by
questioning the very premises of the Gifford Lectures. This is typical
Hauerwas, and, to his credit, he pulls the rabbit out of the bag.
Section 2 turns, rightly so, to William James. The Varieties of Religious Experience,
by James, is, without much doubt, one of the most important Gifford Lectures,
and James’ approach to religious experience has done much to shape and form how
religion and religious experience is understood. Hauerwas is right, at the
beginning, to turn to James and ask serious and probing questions about both
the appeal and serious limitations of the Jamesian tradition. ‘The Faith of
William James’ and ‘God and William James’ point out why James tends to be
trendy for many interested in spirituality and religious experience these days,
and why James’s approach is flawed. Hauerwas makes it clear that an approach to
religious experience that severs the religious pilgrim from dogma, rituals,
myths, church life and politics is highly problematic. This approach to the
spiritual life is reductionistic and tends to distort the religious journey.
Section 3 moves more to the centre of Christian thought in
the 20th century. Reinhold Niebuhr takes the stage next. Niebuhr, of
course, would never have accepted James’ rather simplistic approach to
religious experience. There is something much more integrated and organic, more
holistic and grounded in Niebuhr than in James. ‘The Liberalism of Reinhold
Niebuhr’ and ‘Reinhold Niebuhr’s Natural Theology’ unpacks and unravels the
appeal of Niebuhr and the faults and failings in such an approach. Hauerwas
questions and differs with both Niebuhr’s liberalism and his understanding of
natural theology. The reason why Hauerwas stands in firm opposition to Niebuhr
is obvious: the liberalism and natural theology of Niebuhr, when decoded, leads
to a worrisome form of assimilation to power. Niebuhr’s Christian realism, when
rightly translated, leads to a new form of Constantinianism, and Hauerwas will
have none of it.
If Hauerwas turns his back on Lord Gifford, William James
and Reinhold Niebuhr, who then does he turn to for his North Star and beacon of
light? Hauerwas has done a fine and incisive deconstruction job. How will he
now build and construct? What is the way forward if Lord Gifford, William James
and Reinhold Niebuhr falter and fail when we need them the most?
Section 4 points the way to the theological grain of the
universe, a new way of being the church, and a fuller way of understanding
natural theology. Hauerwas, in this section, bows low to his two masters and
mentors: Karl Barth and John Yoder. ‘The Witness That Was Karl Barth’ and ‘The
Witness of the Church Dogmatics’ tells its own convincing tale.
There is no doubt, for Hauerwas, that Karl Barth is the grand master and John
Yoder is his most convincing interpreter in the North American context and
setting. Barth and Yoder’s high view of grace and revealed theology do much to
place and put liberalism and natural theology in their naïve place. That which
is truly natural is that which is revealed. Such an approach does turn much on
its head. Much redefining is going on here, and Barth, Yoder and Hauerwas know
what they are doing. Gifford is stood on his head, James is seen as a Low
Romantic reactionary and Niebuhr is the quintessential collaborator and
assimilator. Barth, Yoder and Hauerwas stand in a line and lineage of rebels
and prophets who see and speak the uncompromised truth of eternity into time.
Section 5, ‘The Necessity of Witness’, threads together the
larger argument of Hauerwas, and points the theological way forward. Christians
are called to witness, but what are they called to witness? Is the good news
and witness of Lord Gifford, James or Niebuhr? Certainly not! It is to the more
radical and prophetic witness of Barth and Yoder that Christians must heed and
hear, and it is from this perspective that the church must think, live and bear
witness.
There is little doubt that Hauweras has said much good in With the Grain of the Universe: The Church’s
Witness and Natural Theology. Hauerwas is right to challenge and corner
Lord Gifford, William James and Reinhold Niebuhr. But, we need to ask this
simple question: what are the limitations and flaws in Barth, Yoder and, by
extension, Hauerwas? It seems to me, by way of conclusion, Hauerwas needs to
ask more critical questions about Barth and Yoder? He has not done this on a
substantive level, and this is a fault and failing in a most perceptive book.
I also find, as a Canadian, that Hauerwas has little to say
to the Canadian context. He should not, necessarily, be faulted for this. When
Canadian theologians, political theologians and Biblical exegetes uncritically
genuflect to Hauerwas, they do a form of de-contextualized exegesis, theology
and politics (when they dare to hike this far) that has little application to
the Canadian ethos. Is this not a more subtle and seductive form of
contemporary Gnosticism? Hauerwas
should be read and digested, but as Canadians, we must be careful we are not
being mesmerized and colonized yet once again by mentors and messages from the
heart of the empire. Imperial theology can come in crude and subtle ways, and
just when we think we have dealt with the crude and obvious stuff, the more
subtle approach drives a stinger into our head and heart, and we slip into
sleep and slumber. Yes, do read and absorb Hauerwas, but more so, do Canadian
theology from a Canadian context. Barth did this. Yoder did this. Hauerwas is
doing this. Surely Canadians are expected to do this.
rsd