merefaith: discipleship in the ruins of empire

Interestingly enough, the same assumption was on display two days ago when I orally presented my PhD proposal in the research colloquium at the International Baptist Theological Seminary, where I shall remain for another week. One professor's assessment of my proposal was that the broad range of disciplines it brings into discussion reminded him of Hauerwas. He went on to say that he, too, had been a student under Hauerwas and understood the influence, but that he was concerned Hauerwas should not be one to emulate for dissertation work. Once again, it was assumed that Hauerwas is a critically formative figure for me.

On the surface, the assumption is reasonable. I attended Duke Divinity School. I took Hauerwas' "War and Peace in the Christian Tradition" my first semester. I consider myself an adherent to Christological pacifism and I am more concerned with letting the Church be the Church than figuring out how to get the State to align more with the Kingdom of God. Ergo, Hauerwasian?

But I humbly suggest that this is far from actually the case. First of all, when I sat in Hauerwas' lectures I had no idea what was going on. Though I appreciate the training I received at Louisiana College it was largely in historical-critical and exegetical methods. I was not genuinely prepared for theological discourse, so the reasoning that Hauerwas employed was alien to me. His lack of interest in defending his pacifism with exegetical work puzzled me and, in fact, continues to be one of his major weaknesses from my point of view. When we read Reinhold Niebuhr's Love and Justice it sounded very reasonable to me...so much so that I hid that acceptance under calm detachment as I listened to a friend light into Niebuhr. In the end, coming together with a study group helped me piece enough together to do well on the final examination. I came out of that class with a greater awareness of the positions and issues in this great debate of moral theology, as well as a greater awareness of how to think theologically about all of it, but nevertheless I emerged an undecided on issues of war and peace.

And that was the last I had of Hauerwas apart from the occasional lecture or sermon. I was never interested in the courses he taught or co-taught in Catholic moral theology or Anglican ethics. I stayed away from the course he co-taught with Romand Coles on Christianity and radical democracy, intrigued but a bit scared by a course intended primarily for PhD students. It's a regrettable decision given my own research is in that arena now.

But the point here is that, despite being so close to the Sun, I didn't catch on fire. I didn't even read much of Hauerwas' writings outside of what was assigned in that one class. My acceptance of pacifism came gradually over the course of several months afterward and through a variety of influences. I read Yoder's The Politics of Jesus. I had conversations with friends who had already made the journey. Elements of theological reasoning from other classes stirred my thoughts. Exegetical indicators gradually emerged. For a while I would describe myself as a believer in Christian nonviolence but not as a "pacifist," perhaps partly out of a fear that others would quickly conclude that one formidable figure stood behind that declaration.

If I sound so much like Hauerwas, then in truth it is because I have been heavily influenced by the giant that has influenced Stanley and so many others - John Howard Yoder. Some may think that Hauerwas is the centerpiece of Duke but it is Yoder who is like the northern star around which all others turn. And I wouldn't say Yoder himself. I've been fond of saying that Yoder and Barth are the ghosts that "haunt" the halls of Duke Divinity. I would add George Lindbeck to that list but he would take exception to the idea that he is dead!

Independently of Hauerwas, Yoder has impacted so many at Duke. I remember Sam Wells, Anglican clergy-theologian and dean of the Chapel, recalling in a sermon how he simply came across Yoder's writings in a bookshop by accident but was transformed in the encounter. Others at Duke (and IBTS) may share similar stories. Of course, Hauerwas is a particularly prominent interpreter and promoter of Yoder - that cannot be denied. And, in the end, that is what I owe Stanley. Yes, I do think Stanley has good things to say on his own terms. But, in the end, that is not what Stanley did for me. He introduced me to John Howard Yoder, whose work I have had far more interaction with. And I don't think Stanley would disagree that, a few centuries from now, the odds are much better that Yoder will still be read and discussed instead of Hauerwas.