Why Emergent Needs the Hauerwasian Mafia
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Tony Jones recently posted a chapter on the Hauerwasian Mafia (HM) left out of his most recent book on the emergent church. He details his journey in and out of Hauerwas country. He highlights a conversation with one of our co-pastors at "Life on the Vine" - Geoff Holsclaw (boy Geoff, were you a wimp or what?) - where he asserts that Hauerwas would not approve of his chaplain role with the local police. Huh? I think this is a confusion. I think Tony's chaplaincy in service to his local police department provides an excellent example of how Hauerwas would say the church should engage the world (especially the 80's Hauerwas whom he seems to be characterizing). For it is here where we reveal the character of our Christian convictions as followers of Christ, laying down our lives to minister to the suffering. I don't think Tony should confuse his chaplain efforts with the kind of chaplaincy Hauerwas' rejects. Hauerwas rejects the American church's attempt to hold onto power in society through the maintaining of a chaplaincy relationship to the State. The error Hauerwas seeks to avoid is the one where the church, by maintaining its chaplaincy role to the State, aims to share in the State's power thereby becoming seduced into being the servant of the State and eventually finding itself compromised and subverted by the State. The result: the church finds itself supporting the Iraq War. I don't see how Tony's service as chaplain to the police would violate the Hauerwasian attempt to resist Constantianism. Unless of course Tony was tempted to take up arms, alongside the police force, and use his police weapon to coerce the Hindu to make a decision to covert to Christ, or arrest gay transgressors or pro-choice activists. Since I don't see Tony doing any of these things, I think Hauerwas would applaud and encourage Tony's ministry as a wonderful manifestation of the ministry of Christ's presense in society. I think he would approve of Tony's deft engagements of folk of other faiths ( see one of Hauerwas' earliest writings, Community of Character ch. 5).
Having said this, I propose the following three reasons why the Emergent church would be blessed by granting a sanctioned admission to a more vocal Hauerwasian Mafia in the Emergent conversation. Emergent would gain:
- A wherewithal to resist the Constantinian seduction to opt out for the easier way towards accomplishing justice in the world. I think we too quickly (not always!) opt out to collaborate with State agencies to achieve Christian ends (justice). The Emergent voices could use a sober sense of the mistakes of protestant liberal social strategies of the past ( which is why we're in this mess in the first place)
- The means to seriously consider the church as a social-political strategy (mirco-political) for justice in the world, as opposed to a Christian alumni association for the recruitment of individuals to talk about and engage in an ever elusive ethereal justice that never quite hits the ground.
- An alternative engagement with continental philosophy that takes things beyond the deconstructive discussions of Derrida, Caputo, Kearney and friends.
- In Hauerwas, they would have someone who could teach Mark Driscoll a thing or two about inappropriate language.
- Embracing the HM would allow Emergent to p_ss off the protestant liberal churches equally as well as they already p_ss of the evangelical fundamentalists
- Lastly, the Emergent leaders, by embracing pacificism, could make their first definitive doctrinal position ever on anything, realizing that pacifism is not actually a doctrinal position but the epistemological (Christological) basis which makes possible an open never ending conversation in the first place.
Posted by David Fitch | 8:39 AM
COMMENTS:
Thanks, David. I appreciate your thoughts.
1) If Geoff comes off as a wimp or semi-Hauerwasian in any way, that's due to my bad writing. As I recall, the short ride in my car was spent with me mainly giving Geoff a hard time about what Don Stanley would say about my chaplaincy. Geoff was as gracious as he ever is.
2) Hauerwasians are fully involved in the life of Emergent. You and Geoff are exhibits A and B. Stay around, please!
9:23 AM
Well said, David. Tony...there is "fully involved in the life of Emergent" and then there is "FULLY involved in the life of Emergent."
9:31 AM
Tony, I've heard of semi-Pelagians .. but semi-Hauerwasian?... hahhah. Seriously, I've been impressed with the way you have lead this conversation to include diversity such as us Hauerwasians ... Thanks for the leadership ... and P.S. sorry for calling Geoff a wimp, now I'm going to have to go into "confession-repentance" before our next pastoral meeting ...
Blessings .. DF
9:34 AM
Hah, I should act like a wimp more often. I've got dave and tony groveling before me.
Another reason EV should be open to HM:
Stanley could take Carson in a bar fight! (non-coercively of course)
11:12 AM
Mark, would FULLY involved mean leading the Emergent Village cohorts in Minneapolis and Chicago?
1:09 PM
Tony,
I've been down this road a lot before. But I think you see Emergent as more decentralized than I do. So from your perspective, the Hauerwas Mafia is an active part of Emergent. But from my perspective, it isn't part of the driving thrust of Emergent. But that all depends upon how one understands the place and function of Emergent in the larger conversation...so I don't want to get bent out of shape about it. I just see things from a different angle.
Emergent may have resisted having stated theological distinctives, but I think the consumer impulse has made Emergent into a brand anyways. And I don't see the Hauerwas flavors (or better yet, the flavors of Yoder or Cavanaugh or others with an Anabaptist or Anarchist vibe) finding their way into the brand.
2:46 PM
This all brings us back again to that quintessential question: WWHD?
;-)
Not speaking for Emergent here... I have no real ties... but I wonder if the issue is one of fundamentalism in general. Hauerwas is a fundamentalist (not, of course, with a capital F, but in the more popular, modern sense). I'm sure many (most?) Emergents like to think of themselves as radicals, but not fundamentalists. Hauerwas would not be offended at being labeled a fundamentalist, but would probably wear it as a badge of honor. I recall in an essay he wrote in The Church as Counterculture that he sees himself as a radical among radicals, i.e. a fundamentalist. But that is not Emergent (right Tony?).
For the record, I'm not a strict pacifist (I would fall in line somewhere closer to Stassen's Just Peacemaking), but very Hauerwasian apart from that. And I go to a satellite campus of a mega church.
Good times.
5:56 PM
Having Hauerwas as part of the conversation would be a great addition. Reading him closely will keep the conversation honest (toss in a little bit of the Gregory Jones comments on our amazing ability to be self deceptive) as Hauerwas, whether fundatmentalist or radical, or would that be more in line with the value of the liturigical practices, keeps the focus on the mission of being church in the world - and that caution applies both to the consumerist as well as the emergent
6:50 PM
By the way...kinda off subject...but William Cavanaugh (who in many ways surpasses his teacher Hauerwas) has just come out with a new book "Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire" that shows exactly the sort of Hauerwas-inspired thinking that us emerging-folk need to grapple with. I feel like so many of us tend to pick up the tools of late-modern liberalism to address the problems of the world.
6:55 PM
Mark, thanks for the tip on Cavanaugh's latest. I ordered it ... I for one am happy this conversation is going on (about the place of Hauerwas etc. in emergent) ... and so you got to hand it to Tony for making it happen. The fact that the HM chapter did not make it into Tony's book reveals (to me at least) that the publishing groups will probably not be the ones to lead the needed discussions. These things must happen on the grassroots levels over the blogs etc.. I have hopes that an Emergent Theological Conversation Conference on political theology will still happen in the future. Hopefully the discussion of this issue, of the church's relationship to the public and the intersection of various political theory with theology, will happen in the future. All in all, I am encouraged by what's happened in response to Tony's post in the blogosphere.
Peace ...
9:07 PM
David--
Thanks for your thoughts. I've posted longer comments on the original post. I think you're almost right when you say that Hauerwas is concerned with "American church's attempt to hold onto power in society through the maintaining of a chaplaincy relationship to the State." This much is true, but he would be equally concerned with any Christian ministry which is forced to play handmaiden to an organization which is ideologically opposed to Christianity. At least, he would think, this should remain an open question.
For a thoughtful piece on chaplaincy by one of H's students, see here.
Like the blog...keep it up.
10:08 AM
Mark, ditto on the tip on Cavanaugh.. geez.. so mnay books. David, loved this one.. "Embracing the HM would allow Emergent to p_ss off the protestant liberal churches equally as they already p_ss of the evangelical fundamentalists" LOL
11:40 AM
i too am loving this conversation... i was hanging out with tony in denver the day he posted his hauerwas piece and, in that it was the first time i was hanging out with him, and he is smarter than me i couldn't really formulate a cohesive response. So thanks david for posting a wonderful reply. My default blog search on my blog search engine is "hauerwas and emergent" so needless to say this is one of the areas of the emergent conversation that i am most interested in.
Anyway, I think that one of the great ways that the HM (i think i will count myself a member of) is how Christian is identity formed. For hauerwas christian character is the formed by skills acquired via a master (his analogy is of becoming a "brick layer") and this, as david alluded to, can help emergent form identities devoid of a constantinian character. I also think that Hauerwas etc... help with a critique of the quintessential modern structures guiding the world today... democracy and capitalism. Something that i have heard many in the conversation fairly silent on. Just some quick thoughts.
10:03 PM
I just thought I'd throw in a little food for thought "from the trenches" as it were. As much as I hate doing it, I have to plead ignorance on who H. is or what he professes except that I've gleaned that he's a pacifist.
So here's what I think - you heady guys tossing around names like Hauerwas makes you all sound really smart and thoughtful but it's not helpful for the broader conversation. And when people like me and my faith community see you all debating about this stuff and trying to draw lines in the sand in really hearkens back to the institutions from whence we came...in short, it makes us dislike the people and conversation on both sides.
If you want this dialog to be a part of the broader emerging conversation you're going to have to peek out from behind your books for a little bit and talk about this in terms that a non seminary grad practitioner or "lay person" can participate in.
...just sayin
9:15 AM
Makeesha,
Is modernity-postmodernity off limits too? How about Calvin, Luther and their influence on our understanding of Scripture? Augustine, sexuality? Where do we draw the line? It seems to many of us that Hauerwas (Time theologian of the year a couple years ago)and his insights on church and democaracy etc. are important insights for unlocking the ways we think about church and society. So who is really drawing the lines here? I'm not trying to be nasty here ... please don't take me wrong.
Peace .. DF
1:49 PM
Just to jump in. I know I'm a somewhat academic guy, but I remember reading Hauerwas when someone recommended Resident Aliens to me. At the time I was in my mid 20s trying to work my way through my undergrad. The book kicked my butt...and drew me more deeply into Anabaptist thought.
I understand how off-putting it can be to see a bunch of people debating academics. But we are all influenced by thinkers. If we read Rob Bell, we get influenced by the rabbinical teachers he reads. If we resonate with Mark Driscoll (which I don't recommend), we are influenced by John Piper and John Calvin. If we are inspired by activists like Shane Claiborne, we owe an intellectual debt to Peter Maurin and Ron Sider and many other activist-minded thinkers.
This whole "Hauerwas Mafia" distinction seems to be a bit silly on one level. But on another level, it is worth debating. Why? Because this guy (who really doesn't read all that much) has had his life in the trenches shaped, in part, by Hauerwas.
And...at the risk of sounding jerky...if you don't like reading intellectually volleyball, then why would you be reading websites like David's (who is a professor) or Tony Jones (who is a PhD student and more of a thinker than an in-the-trenches kind of guy these days?
You've struck a nerve, Mak. This stuff has its place. When we neglect it, we suffer. Just like we suffer when we don't actually DO something. So let the nerds have their nerd conversations. It is helpful. It has its place. There are plenty of other websites that talk about this stuff in a down-to-earth manner.
8:03 PM
I think Mark is exactly right ... and I would just add, that I seek on this blog I try to make accessible thinkers like Hauerwas, Milbank... even Zizek (who I need help with all the time from other blogs) ... so instead of drawing lines on academic versus non-academic ... I would at least like to try to bridge the two as often as possible ... for the reasons Mark sets forth ... thanks Makeesha for the push on this ...
DF
7:50 AM
I think your visceral and unnecessarily harsh responses guys demonstrates and makes my point exactly - that you are often very out of touch.
I am strongly in favor of reading and studying. I have read and studied much headier stuff than H. My point WAS NOT in ANY WAY to suggest these topics should be AVOIDED. My point was that you are suggesting that these topics be brought into the broader conversation and yet you are seemingly unwilling to bring it to the conversation in terms that would be interesting or usable to those involved.
I was only pointing out the contradiction in what you were saying.
I was bringing up my experience in the real world and giving voice to those who push on me when I use big words and talk about things that really only serve to make me sound smart.
Don't take it so personally guys - the level of your defensiveness is very telling. I have some of the most nerdy conversations around. I was "just sayin". Take it or leave it but there's no need to get pissy.
David - your thanks gets lost in your response. Sorry but it seems really disingenuous to me.
9:55 AM
I apologize for saying you guys are out of touch, that was uncalled for. I thought about it after I said it.
10:37 AM
Wow, makeesha, who seems to take this personal? Coming in from the side and reading trought the comments it sure seems more like you after that last response - than the two other ones trying to follow up your question.
11:15 AM
You're right Mak...I did get defensive. I think you got defensive right back...so I think we both need to step outside of the kitchen and into the livingroom, so to speak.
I guess, when it comes right down to it, it hurts my feelings when you say that I am "unwilling to bring it to the conversation in terms that would be interesting or usable to those involved." I am involved. And I'd like to think that JesusManifesto works hard to bring very VERY complicated ideas to a popular level.
Let me explain a bit about why I get so reactive about this. I came to faith among Pentecostals. My father came into Pentecostalism late in life. Both my father and many of my oldest friends think that my study is not only misguided, but also harmful and maybe even a bit evil. So when people say that my earnest desire to explore lofty issues is misguided is a bit hard to hear.
Although I got defensive...I wouldn't say that my response to you was at all harsh. You leveled a very harsh criticism...and I thought that my response was respectful to you. In no way do I feel any disrespect to you at all.
If I can't explore lofty ideas like this here, where can I? I'm not a student? I don't have many close friends nearby to explore this. I rely upon conversations (usually online for this). Almost all of the rest of my life is involved in very nitty gritty ministry.
My response was defensive because it not only brings up painful history, but because I felt slammed for doing somethign that I cherish and rely upon for intellectual development. I'm sorry if I push back too hard. Please believe me when I say I don't mean you any disrespect.
11:30 AM
Having had Hauerwas in several classes, I feel like I can say something about how he might approach this. First off, I think you all are right to note that he puts forward an improvisational ethic, but I also think that in that ethic the exception makes the rule, so to speak. For example, it's easy to say that a police chaplain won't ever be called upon "to take up arms, alongside the police force, and use his police weapon to coerce the Hindu to make a decision to covert to Christ, or arrest gay transgressors or pro-choice activists," but situations like that aren't what gives chaplaincy its difficulty.
The difficult moments are, for example, when you're tempted to use your relationship to the State to gain preferential treatment (a small example is getting out of parking/speeding tickets) that might compromise your ability/willingness to speak a hard truth later on. An even more difficult moment would be when you encounter that "1% of sheer terror" and see an officer draw down on someone (I'll bet it gets really sticky if he/she is drawing their weapon in direct defense of your own life). Those are the moments, Hauerwas might say, when your Christian witness can get compromised very easily if you haven't been formed to respond rightly and to act out of your identity as a Christian first and as an ally of the State second.
By the way, Hauerwas doesn't say that a Christian shouldn't run for public office. He says that a Christian that ran for public office and won could never be reelected because he/she, as a Christian, would refuse to compromise. The same would probably go for chaplaincy. If you refuse to act (or not act) in ways that compromise your Christian identity, then they may not want you as a chaplain anymore.
Because he hates casuistry, he'd never put forward a set of rules/guidelines to follow (outside of never sticking a waterhose up someone's rectum in order to blow their guts out), but he would say that your formation--and therefore your Church (and therefore your identity as a Christian)--would be revealed by your ethic.
Also, and this is just me talking, do we have to ask hard questions about what such an open allegiance to the State can do to our Christian witness to those who--rightly or wrongly--don't trust the State because they view its agencies (in this case the local police force, in others the military) as predatory and not to be trusted? Maybe this isn't as much of a problem in Minneapolis, but it certainly is in the South.
A buffer to this might be matching your time spent with the police force with time spent serving the neighborhoods where they/you patrol, or perhaps even volunteering as a prison chaplain as well.
12:16 PM
stepping back -
1. my original comment was intended in a very light tone. it clearly didn't come through
2. I should have seen that you didn't hear my light tone and clarified before getting defensive in return
3. I value study. HUGELY. I value the study and thoughtful conversation on this and other blogs. THAT WAS NOT MY POINT
4. my point was simply a SUGGESTION that before you say this topic isn't recognized or giving due process in the emerging conversation, you first need to make sure you aren't talking about it to the broader audience in the same way you do here - - in very academic terms without much practical application
I feel an unfair judgment was made by some that Haurwasian thought isn't recognized enough in Emergent and I was offering my perspective on why that might be the case and what you might do to help move the conversation along.
I apologize that I hurt your feelings, mine were also hurt being jumped on pretty rabidly by two of you at the same time - two people who I felt knew me better.
And then to get jumped on again after I responded was equally hard. I get dismissed constantly by those with letters after their names because I'm a vocational missionary without those letters. So I can relate to your frustration at not being recognized - - I get it on the other side.
But it was not loving of me to respond in kind..my intent was to raise my voice to the level of the conversation so as to be heard when I should have lowered it. Please forgive me
12:22 PM
on a lighter note, there's actually a local bad here called the Hauerwasian Mafia
12:43 PM
Mak. I certainly forgive you. And I hope that you can forgive me too. I didn't get the lightness of your first response. And I think that you might be mistaken in thinking that I rabidly jumped back...from my perspective, I was being exhortive (and defensive) but definitely not attacking. :)
Now that we are forgiving each other and have asserting our shared respect, let me just respond to your clarified points.
I don't care too much about Hauerwas being recognized or not recognized. My concern is that, in its desire to promote cultural engagement, Emergent Village misses the counter-cultural vibe. As someone I know once put forth: voting for Obama is NOT counter cultural. I think that Emergent Village fosters counter-conservativism more than a true, authentic counter cultural vibe in the way that I would hope. You may disagree with that, but that has been my perspective. EV has tried to become more connected with the established political and religious system in a way that doesn't really maintain the radically different nature of the Church.
I apologize if I somehow suggested that you don't value study. That wasn't my intention. I can understand how that may have come across.
I don't believe I talk to the broader audience in the same way I discuss it here. JM represents a step towards practice that does away, for the most part, with lofty theological banter. In my own ministry and conversations, the theological banter is even less. I think your point is important: we can't just stay at this theoretical level. At some point we need to connect it with everyday life. I completely agree.
1:16 PM
For the interested:
no form of "hauerwasmafia" now exists as a url.
Without Hauerwas I would have remained a statist, zionist, premillenialist, pawn.
Nathanael Snow
1:31 PM
Without the ministry of Hauerwas, I don't know if I could have remained a Christian ... sorry for getting so pietist ... but its basically true. as for this conversation I was out all day, and so I just want to say, we are all forgiven and loved in Christ, and we're all better for having this lively heated discussion.
Peace DF
4:40 PM
thanks guys :)
as for whether or not EV is counter cultural enough or not, I guess that seems like a silly issue FOR ME, I hear so many counter cultural voices that are involved I don't really care if EV as an organization is so or not. I guess I give them the benefit of trying to be a bit of a bridge building force and the fact that they welcome and even encourage very radical counter cultural voices is HUGELY admirable in my view.
But I don't really care about all that anyway :)
off to read some Hauerwas ;)
7:00 PM
If I can jump back to an earlier point of the conversation, I have to say I agree with Tony that the Hauerwasian Mafia seems to me to be just as much a part of the emerging conversation as any other contributing stream. So maybe it's not THE central driving force, but hey, you're competing against dozens of other streams of the EC (I've outlined just a few that I see here); how much airtime do you really expect to get?
I think you guys are included for a number of reasons:
1) I disagree with Mark's idea that there is some higher level of "FULLY involved in the life of Emergent". This is a decentralized movement. Tony's opinion is just his opinion. It has nothing to do with whether or not you're welcome in Emergent Village or in the broader emerging conversation.
2) I was introduced to Hauerwas' ideas primarily through my emerging friends, so in other words, he was already part of the conversation before I had even heard of him.
3) Being here in Chicago in the shadow of the HM (you know I love you guys ;-) I guess I feel like this stuff, far from being marginalized, already is and long has been a substantial part of the conversation. In fact, much of the time I feel overloaded with it, to the point where I'm ready to give some pushback of the kind of Tony was offering. I guess maybe it's just different up in Mark's neck of the woods, but down here there nothing marginal about the HM's participation in all things Emergent.
9:41 PM
Mike, thank you for making that point, I heard of Hauerwas and other "fringers" (made up word, note, it's not fingers LOL) THROUGH the E(e)merging conversation so that should say something about how involved the HM is....or any other mafias for that matter...wow...this conversation would look so incredibly strange to my friends who aren't "churchy" lol
1:49 PM
Mike ...
Thanks for speaking into this. I think where some of this is coming from is that there has been in the past (three-four years ago?) some sense of antagonism between the main gatekeepers of EV and those attached to post-liberal Wittgenstinian understandings of epistemology etc...I don't think it's either side's fault ... both sides have been a little combative. Having said this, I think things have improved greatly, and the conversation has really opened up. I think this represents a major step forward and I give the credit to people like Tony.
10:37 AM
Hehe - I saw this article a couple of days ago and it made me laugh. The title made me wonder how many roles Hauerwas’ll take over the coming years. Thought I’d share it with you
What Would Pope Stanley Say?
http://www.ctlibrary.com/bc/1998/novdec/8b6016.html
1:47 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home