Anyone reading Stanley Hauerwas?

[Jason Winton]

I haven't read any of his books yet (I know, I know), but I have enjoyed reading several of his essays online and watching a few video sermons as well. As of late, what most interests me is the "harsh" stance he takes on salvation (i.e., who is a Christian and who isn't). Like he says, "I want to make [Christianity] hard." He seems to find doubt in any person's claim to being Christian and/or to being saved, including his own, if his or her praxis reflects something privatized, abstract, and/or idolatrous.

Assuming I've represented a fair (obviously simplistic) version of his views, what are the implications for our communities of faith? How does this change our speech, our rule, our rhythms? How is sin and idolatry acted upon within the context of Christian community and covenantal membership? For example, can someone who supports war rightfully be called a Christian and, therefore, a member in a Christian community?

My questions come from a desire to work out what it means to live our faith in its natural context: community and membership. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[Andrew Cornelius]

"For example, can someone who supports war rightfully be called a Christian and, therefore, a member in a Christian community?"

I wouldn't worry too much about the term Christian and whether one can be called one. It was initially used by non-believers in referrence to gentile believers in Antioch. It was a term used from without; didn't originate from within. I think it is, furthermore, important to consider what they early movement did call itself (i.e., The Way). Let us be known for what we do-- carrying on the teachings of Jesus-- first and foremost.

Now, in terms of a person who supports war and whether they can be accepted into a community, it of course all depends on the given community. Even many Anabaptists churches include nonpacifists in their midsts. But as for Hauerwas' view, I'm not entirely sure. I believe he is Methodist though, so I doubt he takes a hard-line stance on this practically speaking.

[Nathanael Snow]

I'd like to participate in a group-read of some Hauerwas if you like. I have a few of his books on my "to read" pile. I have read Resident Aliens, and portions of the Hauerwas Reader. I snuck into his Christian Ethics class for a semester at Duke (I wasn't a student at all then!) Pick a text, and I'll join you in reading it an discussing it.

[Scott Peterson]

I would love to get in on a group-read of a Hauerwas text. Let me know if you guys decide to really do it.

[Jason Winton]

This article started my current rethinking. What do you think about discussing it first? http://digital.library.ptsem.edu/default.xqy?src=PSB2007282.xml&...

And then, if we're all up for it, here is a title (Better Hope, A: Resources for a Church Confronting Capitalism, Democracy, and Postmodernity) that I think would get us going in the right direction:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1587430002/ref=sr_1_olp_1?ie...

[Jason Winton]

Interesting point about the term Christian. It makes sense that it was an external choice of words--at least at one point in time. I've read somewhere (maybe Jesus for President) that the term Christian means "little Christ" or, like you say, those people who are known for their Christ-likeness.

I'd be interested to read what you think about the judgments Hauerwas makes in the essay I reference on Nathanael's and Scott's comment below. Here's a short snippet from his essay:

• How many of you worship in a church with an American flag? I am sorry to tell you your salvation is in doubt.
• How many worship in a church in which the Fourth of July is celebrated? I am sorry to tell you your salvation is in doubt.
• How many of you worship in a church that recognizes Thanksgiving? I am sorry to tell you your salvation is in doubt.
• How many of you worship in a church that celebrates January 1 as the “New Year”? I am sorry to tell you that your salvation is in doubt.
• How many of you worship in a church that recognizes “Mother’s Day”? I am sorry to tell you that your salvation is in doubt.

I am not making these claims because I want to shock you…but rather to put you in a position to discover how odd being a Christian makes you (Hauerwas, 2007).

The Princeton Seminary Bulletin, Vol. 28. No. 2.“Why did Jesus have to die?: an attempt to cross the barrier of age.”

Does he goes too far? How would you interpret what he has to say in terms of community membership?

[Nathanael Snow]

I have read the first article linked here (just now). I really liked the ending to Kierkegaard's story. "Jesus is peasant clothes all the way down." I had read this story before, as I suppose many Christians have, in one of Phillip Yancey's books, I think it is in Disappointment With God.
It is crucial to recognize that Jesus is peasant clothes all the way down. How that clashes with church ministries which impart to children that they are "King's Kids!" and fairy tales which tell little girls that they are all princesses. Do they know what a princess is?
I have also wrestled with the way ministry to young people falls into consequentialist arguments for righteous behavior. "Don't have sex, so the you don't get pregnant or get an STD..." how that clashes against, "Marriage is a reflection of God's love for man, and the sexual union has meaning..."
An excellent piece, Jason, one that gives a good flavor of Hauerwas' overall contribution. Thanks for the link.
Nathan

[Andrew Cornelius]

Well, he could also say, "How many of you voted in this year's presidential election? I'm sorry to tell you..."

But he himself voted.

Also, I really doubt his home church is predominantly comprised of 'radicals'. While it may not have an American flag near the pulpit, I suspect many members celebrate Thanksgiving, celebrate the new year the night of December 31, etc. I personally believe he is going too far, yes. No one of us is 'perfect', and we sure could point out inconsistencies in all our lives to a certain degree. my take on it anyway

[Jason Winton]

Good points, Andrew. I like the way you are approaching his writing and example/experience. You say it right, inconsistencies do abound.

More questions, though. What would he say to bring about change in an already established community or institution of non-radicals? And is what he's saying inconsistent with the demanding nature of being disciples in the Way? Perhaps Hauerwas' judgments indict all of us (including him) by sneaking in the suspicion that we're not called to be the same. Like he wrote, he wants "put [us] in a position to discover how odd being a Christian makes [us]."

Nice conversation. Your thoughts?

[Jason Winton]

Thanks for the reply Nathanael. Sorry mine is somewhat tardy. My wife is only days away from having our first baby (woohoo!!).

As far as the article goes, the main points that struck me were the ones I commented on above (with Andrew) as well as Hauerwas' section in the essay titled, "Why Love Is Not The Answer." It's provocative to say it like that, of course, but I think the content stands on its own as a convincing (albeit uncommon) way to approach the Gospel message. I recognized myself many times in Hauerwas' mock imitation of contemporary Christian stories about Jesus, especially his example of how we interpret Jesus going out--not "driven out" right?--into the wilderness. It's as though we've thought Jesus went into temptation to go "find himself." Being a trained marriage and family therapist intern, I readily recognize that kind of language. It comes from the Humanist tradition and its search for authentic self expression. Not horrible, as far as theories go, but also not compatible with the message of Jesus.

Your points about royalty, fairy tales, and fantasy are really good. With my little one almost born, I am especially aware of the difficulty we will face when it comes to our child's ongoing spiritual formation. How can I (we) teach my child that becoming a prince or princess may not be, in any Christian sense, good.

And to add to your point about consequentialist arguments toward young people, those arguments also tend to be based on a biological foundationalism (is that the right word?). In other words, speaking about culture or faith (as opposed to biology and disease) in any authoritative way has become quite the embarrassment for people who tend to identify as "smart." Thus, we are left with consequentialist arguments based on the hermeneutics of a privatized (and neutered) religion.

[Scott Peterson]

Sorry about not joining the conversation. I read the article and have some thoughts but I also have to write too many final papers to write them all down right now. I'll be back after this next week.

[Nathanael Snow]

Word on the finals and papers! I'll write again next Tuesday!

[Jason Winton]

My first son--actually my first child--was born last Saturday. So, needless to say, I've been a little tied up. And enjoying every minute of it!

I hope the papers and finals get/got done with time and mental energy to spare. :)