<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A viable ethic for our post-ethics era.
Review: For four weeks I resisted the professor who had assigned Hauerwas; I battled Hauerwas on narrative's value and on his "obvious" lack of appreciation for the Brothers Niebuhr. I'd take Augustine's "just war" or Mouw's Divine Command ethics any day. Then it happened. I started doing ethics in the middle; I pitched three fourths of Kant and most of the consequentialists. I saw peace as the singular Christ trait, and I was ashamed and penitent. I read on through more and more Hauerwas to find how to "do church" as just such an authentic--albeit alien community. I don't know if I'm ready to walk over hot coals to march on Kosavo, but if Hauerwas left, I'd follow. To read Hauerwas changes Christians. Others probably won't "get" him because it takes a hefty amount of divine intervention to trust God that much. In the year since I first read this book I have had to re-think and/or re-tool everything about being a Christian. This is authentic Christianity--not the accommodationist Warrior-Christianity of Constantine, Belfast and Belgrade--and dare I say most American "chump-morality" preaching. Go ahead, fight with Hauerwas. I double dare ya! Watch the tools of peaceableness metamorphose you. I know.
Rating: 
Summary: A lot of fluff
Review: Hauerwas is like many theologians out there who say a lot about something without really saying much at all.
While there is much to commend this book on, most of it is surrounded by fluffy long sayings that don't actually mean very much. Hauerwas does well to point out as Christians we should not attempt to do ethics without qualifying our ethic as distinctively Christian, and that our ethic is built upon the foundations of the narrative of Scripture as well the community that is to embody that narrative- the Church. Also, I like how Hauerwas stresses that deciding what actions are ethical can only be properly understood based on our understanding of "being" a Christian. As commendable as all this is, Hauerwas does not deal too much with what the Scriptures actually say. He tends to make assumptions that sound like they are Biblical. For example, Hauerwas tends to put a virtue such as peace on top of his hierarchy of virtue. Yet, he doesn't really attempt to explore what the Scriptures say on peace. He eventually comes to understand peace as non-violence/war. However, is such Biblical? However, if that is so, then why did Jesus tell his disciples to carry around a sword? If Jesus was against violence, then why did He affirm the use of violence as a means of establishing justice, by dying on the cross? Scripturally speaking, there is a time when justice must choose violence in order for justice to be established. Scripturally speaking, there is a time for war (Eccl 3:8). It is ironic that while Hauerwas has much to say for Christians being faithful to the narrative of Scripture, that Hauerwas turns so little attention to what the Scriptures say. He consistantly is vague in dealing with the Scriptures, and really does not interact with them throughout this book. He simply pays mere lip service to them. He seems much more interested in interacting with Barth, MacIntyre, McCormick, Niebuhr, and Yoder, than with Jesus or Paul. I am not totally against the pacifist position, and it has much appeal to me. I believe that Christians should not participate in war that is ultimately selfish in nature. I believe if Christians partake in war, then it should only be for the purpose of defending the nation, or protecting another nation that is completely innocent. I believe such can be justified from the fact that Romans 13 teaches that the government has been given the sword by God. It does not take much of a leap in logic to say that if Christians are part of that government that has been given the sword, then Christians have the right and duty to, when is warranted, to participate in war in the name of justice. Even Hauerwas himself admits that he has sympathy for this position, and admits that it cannot be discounted as a possibility for Christians (p. 114-115). However, he refuses to really even dialogue with this position and simply says that most the time that justice is not really the underlying issue of why a war is waged. Then he goes on to say that true justice is never established through violence; in spite of the fact that justice was established through the violence of the cross. Ultimately the position Hauerwas takes up is that the Christian should rely on providence as the only option instead of taking up arms, and being patient enough to do so. This isn't exactly earth-shattering theology. All that Hauerwas does is a lot of tap dancing throughout this book, with the occassionally impressive maneuver that impresses the crowd.
Rating:
Summary: A lot of fluff
Review: Hauerwas is like many theologians out there who say a lot about something without really saying much at all.
While there is much to commend this book on, most of it is surrounded by fluffy long sayings that don't actually mean very much. Hauerwas does well to point out as Christians we should not attempt to do ethics without qualifying our ethic as distinctively Christian, and that our ethic is built upon the foundations of the narrative of Scripture as well the community that is to embody that narrative- the Church. Also, I like how Hauerwas stresses that deciding what actions are ethical can only be properly understood based on our understanding of "being" a Christian. As commendable as all this is, Hauerwas does not deal too much with what the Scriptures actually say. He tends to make assumptions that sound like they are Biblical. For example, Hauerwas tends to put a virtue such as peace on top of his hierarchy of virtue. Yet, he doesn't really attempt to explore what the Scriptures say on peace. He eventually comes to understand peace as non-violence/war. However, is such Biblical? However, if that is so, then why did Jesus tell his disciples to carry around a sword? If Jesus was against violence, then why did He affirm the use of violence as a means of establishing justice, by dying on the cross? Scripturally speaking, there is a time when justice must choose violence in order for justice to be established. Scripturally speaking, there is a time for war (Eccl 3:8). It is ironic that while Hauerwas has much to say for Christians being faithful to the narrative of Scripture, that Hauerwas turns so little attention to what the Scriptures say. He consistantly is vague in dealing with the Scriptures, and really does not interact with them throughout this book. He simply pays mere lip service to them. He seems much more interested in interacting with Barth, MacIntyre, McCormick, Niebuhr, and Yoder, than with Jesus or Paul. I am not totally against the pacifist position, and it has much appeal to me. I believe that Christians should not participate in war that is ultimately selfish in nature. I believe if Christians partake in war, then it should only be for the purpose of defending the nation, or protecting another nation that is completely innocent. I believe such can be justified from the fact that Romans 13 teaches that the government has been given the sword by God. It does not take much of a leap in logic to say that if Christians are part of that government that has been given the sword, then Christians have the right and duty to, when is warranted, to participate in war in the name of justice. Even Hauerwas himself admits that he has sympathy for this position, and admits that it cannot be discounted as a possibility for Christians (p. 114-115). However, he refuses to really even dialogue with this position and simply says that most the time that justice is not really the underlying issue of why a war is waged. Then he goes on to say that true justice is never established through violence; in spite of the fact that justice was established through the violence of the cross. Ultimately the position Hauerwas takes up is that the Christian should rely on providence as the only option instead of taking up arms, and being patient enough to do so. This isn't exactly earth-shattering theology. All that Hauerwas does is a lot of tap dancing throughout this book, with the occassionally impressive maneuver that impresses the crowd.
Rating:
Summary: If you want to understand Hauerwas, this is the book to read
Review: This book is the best introduction to "Christianity according to Hauerwas." This is not a general survery of different ideas about Christian ethics. But rather a presentation of a distinct way of doing "Christian ethics" (which really means a distinct way of doing Christianity). Hauerwas rejects both "liberal" and "conservative" versions of Christianity because both are ultimately based in the thought patterns of the classical Liberalism, which falsely presents itself as religion based on universal reason. In reality, all reason and religion is based on particular truth claims, embodied in the narratives that shape different communities. Hauerwas presents the truth of the Christian narrative, emphasizing how it must be embodied in the Church, if any one is ever to see that it is true. Particularly important in the demonstation of Christian truth claims is the Church's commitment to peace (a very particular form of Christian non-violence). To grasp the significance of what Hauerwas is saying in this book, is to have commonly accepted understandings of the Church and Christian "ethics" radically challenged, and possibly to have them replaced by a wonderfully compelling account of what it means to be a Christian.
Rating:
Summary: A viable ethic for our post-ethics era.
Review: This book is the best introduction to "Christianity according to Hauerwas." This is not a general survery of different ideas about Christian ethics. But rather a presentation of a distinct way of doing "Christian ethics" (which really means a distinct way of doing Christianity). Hauerwas rejects both "liberal" and "conservative" versions of Christianity because both are ultimately based in the thought patterns of the classical Liberalism, which falsely presents itself as religion based on universal reason. In reality, all reason and religion is based on particular truth claims, embodied in the narratives that shape different communities. Hauerwas presents the truth of the Christian narrative, emphasizing how it must be embodied in the Church, if any one is ever to see that it is true. Particularly important in the demonstation of Christian truth claims is the Church's commitment to peace (a very particular form of Christian non-violence). To grasp the significance of what Hauerwas is saying in this book, is to have commonly accepted understandings of the Church and Christian "ethics" radically challenged, and possibly to have them replaced by a wonderfully compelling account of what it means to be a Christian.
Rating:
Summary: THE Book on Christian Ethics
Review: This book is, I am convinced the best overall introduction to Christian ethics and the thought of Stanley Hauerwas. Hauerwas has certainly written many wonderful books, but this one stands out in that it encapsulates a fairly coherent and articulate manner, his conception of what Christian ethics is and how they are lived out in the life of the church.
Hauerwas first offers a critique of ethics that would have pretentions to a universal status. The way he states this is that all ethics require a qualifier ('Christian', 'Jewish', 'Hindu', etc.). Every concievable ethic is grounded in a tradition and a narrative that gives substance to the ethical claims. Thus, even though Christians believe that Christianity is true and Christian ethics are the right way for all people to live, this reality cannot be known without becoming a Christian, thereby making the stories of Israel and Jesus your story. Thus, Christian ethics are not universal in the sense that they can be percieved as correct by anybody. Rather to understand Christian ethics as true, one must be transformed through participation in Christ through the church. This, of course grounds Hauerwas's claim that the church as a concrete community is the locus of Christian ethical reflection.
Obviously, the major theme of this book is nonviolence. Hauerwas grounds this approach solidly on the narrative of the cross and resurrection of Christ which he holds to be decisive for the content of Christian claims about the world and life in it. Over-against those who advocate an ethic of justifiable violence, Hauerwas contends that Christian ethics must be informed by the Biblical narrative of Christ, who won God's victory precisly through rejecting violence and inaugurating God's kingdom of justice and peace which the church is called to embody. Hauerwas's ethic, contra Ramsey, Gustafson, Niebhur, Neuhaus, Stackhouse, Novak and others argues that Christ's teaching, life, death and resurrection should be decisive for our ethics, rather than dismissed as irrelevant. In much of this Hauerwas draws on the excellent work of John Howard Yoder in "The Politics of Jesus" and "The Original Revolution."
This is a vitally important book, even for those who disagree with Hauerwas's Christ-centered, ecclesial ethic. He very clearly shows in this book how his ethic takes into account the importance of deicisions and cooperating with non-Christians in the interest of social justice, issues that his critics often ignore in their overblown critques of his work. This is a vital book for Christian theologians, ethicists and the all Christians who desire to take the gospel seriously. Highly recommended.
<< 1 >>
|
