69 - Sectarian Passivism?

Sectarian Passivism?

By Wilson D. Miscamble

Stanley Hauerwas is an important and controversial contemporary Christian ethicist. In this symposium two critics take a look at some of his more recent work, and Hauerwas responds. Much of the controversy is over the issue of whether Hauerwas is a sectarian; if so, in what sense; and is that good?
-Ed.

OVER the past decade the Protestant ethicist Stanley Hatterwas has pursued energetically the task of formulating a distinctively "Christian" ethics.¹ Focusing on narrative and its relation to character and the virtues, Hatterwas has pressed a vigorous challenge to more mainline (and mainly Catholic) ethicists and moral theologians such as Richard McCormick and Timothy O'Connell, who rely basically on natural law to give them common ground in contributing to the pluralistic debate over public policy.² In his well integrated collection of essays, A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic, and in his book, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics, Hauerwas has outlined his alternative. This alternative he has sought to defend in his recent Against the Nations: War and Survival in a Liberal Society.³ For Hauerwas, "Christian ethics begins in a community that carries the story of the God who wills

Wilson D. Miscamble, C.S.C. is at Moreau Seminary, Notre Dame, Indiana. Trained as a historian with a doctorate from Notre Dame University, he has published essays in the area of American Catholicism and foreign policy. He is presently completing his theological studies in preparation for ordination as a priest in the Congregation of Holy Cross. He wishes to thank Drew Christiansen, S. J. for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this essay.

¹See Hauerwas' earlier works: Character and the Christian Life: A Study in Theological Ethics (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1975); Vision and Virtue: Essays in Christian Ethical Reflection (Notre Dame: Fides/Claretian, 1974); and Truthfulness and Tragedy: Further Investigations in Christian Ethics (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1977).

²Hauerwas has felt obliged lately to explain his critique of Catholic ethicists and thought. "Some might well think that I have a peculiar animus against Roman Catholics," he noted, "when the exact opposite is the case. The reason I so often criticize Roman Catholic sources is very simple-they are the ones I know best. For fourteen years I worked and lived among Roman Catholics... ." See Stanley Hauerwas, Against the Nations: War and Survival in a Liberal Society (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1985), p. 19.

³Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 198 1); and The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983).

70 - Sectarian Passivism?

us to participate in a kingdom established in and through Jesus of Nazareth." Because Christians have this distinctive narrative which forms their community, they are distinct from the world. As Hauerwas interprets the Jesus story, Christians "are required to be nothing less than a sanctified people of peace who can live the life of the forgiven."⁴ Non-violence is central for him.

Presumably, Hauerwas is aware that his is not the only version of the "Jesus story." But, at least as is evidenced in A Community of Character and The Peaceable Kingdom, he does not write accordingly. Foregoing such manifestations of the Jesus story as Franciscan poverty and Benedictine community and reflecting the influence upon him of the Mennonite John Howard Yoder, Hauerwas weaves his various themes together to focus on an ethic of peaceableness and nonviolent resistance.⁵ My project, however, is not to contest Hauerwas' interpretation of the Jesus story. Although that is a fundamental issue concerning his work that demands attention, the aim here is to examine his contrast between the church and the world and to analyze critically his explication of their relationship. This is a basic issue for Hauerwas who argues that "how the task of Christian ethics is to be conceived is as much an ecclesiological issue as an issue having to do with nature and grace, creation and redemption."⁶

I

The church, according to Hauerwas, is the distinctive people formed by the narrative of God and capable of carrying this story. The sacraments are crucial here, "for the story of Jesus is not simply one that is told; it must be enacted"' which is what the sacraments do.⁷ Although the church is not the Kingdom, "it is in the church that the narrative of God is lived in a way that makes the Kingdom visible." For Hauerwas this implies that "the church must be a clear manifestation of a people who have learned to be at peace with themselves, one another, the stranger, and, of course, most of all, God." The church is also "the locus for Christian ethical reflection."⁸ But for Hauerwas this reflection, as it relates to a Christian's social responsibility in the world, should not address itself to such questions as what should be done to ensure social justice. He challenges "the very idea that Christian social ethics is

⁴See The Peaceable Kingdom, pp. 59-63. The direct quotations are from p. 62 and p. 60, respectively.

⁵The alternative "interpretations" of the Jesus story were suggested by Drew Christiansen, S.J., in a lecture on "Scripture and Ethics," Notre Dame, Indiana, January 23, 1985. Hauerwas acknowledges the assistance of John Howard Yoder in the prefaces to both A Community of Character and A Peaceable Kingdom. In the "Introduction" to the former, he describes his belief "that the most nearly faithful form of Christian witness is best exemplified by the often unjustly ignored people called Anabaptists or Mennonites" (p. 6).

⁶The Peaceable Kingdom, p. 60.

⁷Ibid., p. 107.

⁸Ibid., pp. 96-7.

71 - Sectarian Passivism?

primarily an attempt to make the world more peaceable or just" and argues instead that "the first social ethical task of the church is to be the church-the servant community." In his distinctive phrasing: "What makes the church the church is its faithful manifestation of the peaceable Kingdom in the world. As such, the church does not have a social ethic; the church is a social ethic."⁹

The centrality of ecclesiology in Hauerwas' social ethics is starkly obvious. But what does this imply for how the church deals with and relates to the world? Hauerwas suggests that "the church serves the world by giving the world the means to see itself truthfully."¹⁰ Borrowing from Yoder, Hauerwas distinguishes between church and world not as between different realms of reality, nor as between orders of creation and redemption, nor as between nature and supernature, "but rather 'between the basic personal postures of men, some of whom confess and others of whom do not confess that Jesus is Lord.'"¹¹ Doctrines of creation and incarnation, which would serve to allow the world to be considered less censoriously, have no place. Understood in this way, the church first allows the world to see itself truthfully "by having the patience amid the injustice and violence of this world to care for the widow, the poor, and the orphan."¹² The church can provide a contrasting model to the world-a model of unity and universality against the divisions resulting in violence and war. Hauerwas contends that "calling for the church to be the church is not a formula for a withdrawal ethic; nor is it a self-righteous attempt to flee from the world's problems; rather it is a call for the church to be a community which tries to develop the resources to stand within the world witnessing to the peaceable kingdom and thus rightly understanding the world."¹³ This was, no doubt, an attempt to respond to his critics in advance-a practice be adopts quite explicitly in the introductory chapter of Against the Nations.¹⁴

For the church to fulfill the fundamental role of witness to the world, Hauerwas explains, "a certain kind of people are required to sustain it as an institution across time"-people of virtue. For him, this means "the virtues necessary for remembering and telling the story of a crucified savior," notably patience and hope. As Hauerwas puts it: "the church

⁹Ibid., p. 99. In the first essay in A Community of Character, entitled "A Story-Formed Community: Reflections on Watership Down," Hauerwas offers "ten theses toward the reform of Christian social ethics." The fifth of these is that "the primary social task of the church is to be itself-that is, a people who have been formed by a story that provides them with the skills for negotiating the danger of this existence, trusting in God's promise of redemption" (p. 10).

¹⁰The Peaceable Kingdom, pp. 101-2.

¹¹Ibid., p.101. Hauerwas is quoting from John Howard Yoder, The Original Revolution (Scottsdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1971), p. 116.

¹²Ibid., P. 100. Hauerwas accurately observes that "the scandal of the disunity of the church is even more painful when we recognize this social task. For we who have been called to be the foretaste of the peaceable kingdom cannot, it seems, maintain unity among ourselves" (p. 100).

¹³Ibid., p. 102.

¹⁴See Against the Nations, p. 1.

72 - Sectarian Passivism?

must learn time and time again that its task is not to make the world the Kingdom, but to be faithful to the Kingdom by showing to the world what it means to be a community of peace. Thus we are required to be patient and never lose hope."¹⁵ In doing this, the church is to be like the poor and powerless and to live totally within the control of others.¹⁶ Christian social ethics is to be written not from the perspective of those in power but from that of those who are subject to such people.

But what is the church to do? Even Hauerwas admits "that all this still remains very abstract." Should the church have a social ethic that reaches out in strategic terms in the societies in which it finds itself? Hauerwas seems rather confused in his response to this question. At one point, he says "yes," although he also notes that there is no universal social strategy and no situation in which the use of violence can be justified.¹⁷ He also speaks of the possibility of cooperating with others outside the church in order to secure justice in the world.¹⁸ The qualification to all this is that "Christian social ethics should not begin with attempts to develop strategies designed to make the world more Just,' but with the formation of a society shaped and informed by the truthful character of the God we find revealed in the stories of Israel and Jesus.¹⁹ In Hauerwas's ethical approach, however, such strategies for justice have no significant place, despite his caveats. Indeed, Hauerwas alleges that for the American liberal context such social strategies are inappropriate. Christian enthusiasm for such strategies has led to a "failure to challenge the moral presuppositions of our polity and society." He comes back -to his fixed point of departure: "the church must recognize that her first social task in any society is to be herself."²⁰

This is not only Hauerwas' departure point. It is also his conclusion. He ends The Peaceable Kingdom almost by counseling against finding ways to deal with the problems of the world such as world hunger and injustice. He advises against trying to influence decisions "at the top" and issues a reminder "that the violence that provides the resources for the powers of the world to do their work lies in each of our souls." He goes on to explain that this "does not mean that we can begin only by changing hearts and then, later, look to wider structural issues." This would be a "false dichotomy," because for him "our hearts are within the wider structures." But in the end, he advocates basically that we change our hearts and alter our lives so as to be led further into God's

¹⁵The Peaceable Kingdom, p. 103.

¹⁶Ibid., pp. 105-6. Hauerwas' sixth thesis is: "Christian social ethics can only be done from the perspective of those who do not seek to control national or world history but who are content to live 'out of control,' " A Community of Character, p. 11.

¹⁷The Peaceable Kingdom, pp. I I 1-1 5. The direct quote is from p. 111.

¹⁸Ibid., p. 101.

¹⁹A Community of Character, p. 92.

²⁰See Hauerwas' essay, "The Church and Liberal Democracy: The Moral Limits of a Secular Polity," in A Community of Character, pp. 72-86. The direct quotations are from p. 73 and pp. 83-4.

73 - Sectarian Passivism?

peaceable kingdom and together build "those cells within each nation that [can] unite in a higher loyalty than nation or class-that are in fact God's international."²¹

II

Hauerwas' work is provocative. Even if one disagrees with his interpretation of the Jesus story as at its essence simply one of nonviolence, it is impossible not to be moved by his call for us to live out a truly Christian life in this divided world and thereby to witness to God's Kingdom. My criticism of his work does not seek in any way to question his call for nonviolent witness as appropriate for some Christians. My objection is that it is offered as the sole model for the church. Let us be frank. Although he has denied the appellation, Hauerwas' ecclesiology is quite sectarian.²² Although he needs to develop further and focus his ecclesial stance, it is clear from what he has outlined to this point that Hauerwas sees the mission of the church as one of standing apart from society and witnessing to it. His church certainly stands "against culture," to borrow from H. Richard Niebuhr's categories. His approach runs counter to traditional Catholic ecclesiology which places the church directly in history and sees the church as having an integral role in the development and defense of societies and cultures.²³ And in doing so, Hauerwas effectively removes the church from the life and death policy issues of the human community.

This is apparent when one looks at his approach to cooperation with those outside the church who work in the pursuit of justice. Although he admits there may be points of contact between Christian ethics and other forms of the moral life, he makes no effort to explicate them.²⁴ Although he expresses hope for some cooperation with those outside the church, he gives no guidance on how this should be approached.²⁵ In fact, he has little expectation that common ground can be reached with those "in the world." He is specifically critical of natural law ethics precisely because it seems to entail a strong continuity between church and world, and searches for common ground.²⁶ But in denying the value of dialogue and in virtually dismissing the possibilities of cooperation, Hauerwas-much as he would deny it-lays the ground for the church to pull back so as to avoid confronting the terrible dilemmas of our times.

²¹This paragraph is drawn entirely from the section "On the Grace of Doing One Thing," in The Peaceable Kingdom, pp. 149-5 1.

²²For his denial, see A Community of Character, p. 253, note 37, where he writes: "The claim that the first social task of the church is to be herself is not 'sectarian' if by that is meant a retreat or withdrawal from the world." Also see, Against the Nations, p. 7.

²³This relies on John T. Pawlikowski, "Ethics, Jesus and Non-violence," Commonweal 111(July 13, 1984), p. 408.

²⁴The Peaceable Kingdom, p. 60.

²⁵Ibid., p. 101.

²⁶Ibid., p. 63. His criticism of natural law ethics rests also upon its failure "to provide the critical perspective the church needs to recognize and deal with the challenges presented by our societies and the inherent violence of our world."

74 - Sectarian Passivism?

Hauerwas criticizes the ecclesiological and methodological approach of the American Catholic bishops in writing their pastoral letter, The Challenge of Peace. Here the bishops, following the model of the Second Vatican Council, sought dialogue with the world. Their effort was to foster and help shape a public debate, to define the questions and speak as a church on a crucial public issue, but in a way that was open to those of other faiths and of no faith.²⁷ Hauerwas especially objects to the bishops seeking to contribute to the wider public debate by relying on the natural law assumptions of the just war theory.²⁸

Certainly, the bishops' posture of dialogue moves away from the stance of separation and witness advocated by Hauerwas. Theirs is a "precarious posture," as Cardinal Bernardin admits.²⁹ To seek to contribute to public policy formation does risk compromising the gospel message, as Hauerwas alleges. But the greater risk lies in Hauerwas' position, for it consigns the decision-making about our world to those neither formed nor informed by Christian faith. To separate oneself from the world in order to give witness does not remove one's culpability for what takes place in the world. Hauerwas, effectively, runs from responsibility.

Despite his caveat, Hauerwas' ethical stances involve a dichotomy between individual morality (changing one's heart) and working to overcome structural evil, the social sin, which besets our world. In part, this relates to his rejection of working within the system and results from a poor appreciation of what that involves. Hauerwas rather selfrighteously dismisses efforts to deal with the "problems of the world" which involve "acquiring power at the top," which I take to mean influencing public policy. He argues that "even if we do start there, such power is not sufficient, since any steps to alleviate world hunger [for example] must be balanced against other foreign policy objectives designed to keep the world in order.³⁰ But here Hauerwas naively or, perhaps, deliberately misses the point. Christians do not need to start at this level, but their faith should lead them to contribute at this level. Hauerwas is right in noting that dealing with world problems involves "balancing." The point for Christians should be what type of balance? How many guns? How much butter? These are matters toward which our faith should direct us and concerning which social ethics should provide some guidance. Hauerwas' social ethics does not provide such guidance.

²⁷On the ecclesiological approach of the bishops, see two addresses by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, "A Consistent Ethic of Life: An American-Catholic Dialogue," delivered at Fordham University, December 6, 1983; and "The Church in the Public Life of the Nations: The American Bishops' Pastoral Letter," delivered at the University of Chicago, January 16, 1984. These may be found in a collection entitled The Seamless Garment (Kansas City: NCR Publishing Co., 1984).

²⁸See Against the Nations, esp. pp. 173-79.

²⁹Bernardin, "The Church in the Public Life of the Nation," in The Seamless Garment, p. 20.

³⁰The Peaceable Kingdom, pp. 149-50.

75 - Sectarian Passivism?

One suspects that his contempt for liberal democratic politics has led Hauerwas to ignore the fact that, kept in right perspective, politics provides a modest but essential way to face up to the violence and injustice in our world and to assure some measure of equity and human welfare. Indeed, Hauerwas is extraordinarily confused in his own approach to politics. Intent on defending himself against the charge that his "position entails a withdrawal-strategy by the church," he strongly denies advocating a disavowal of all political involvement. But he never elucidates what form such involvement should take. Instead, he offers the basically contradictory view that "the church is the only true polity we can know in this life" and implies that other polities, such as the nation-state, are tainted hopelessly.³¹

Hauerwas' ambivalence and vagueness is evident and frustrating at the level of guidance to action. Should members of the church vote, participate in public life, influence debates on public policy? It is not clear from his work thus far. Hauerwas gives few examples of the church acting in a manner he would approve. He does note approvingly the achievement of black church congregations in the South in combatting racism, but he does not develop the point to provide any guidance as to how the church should act.³² He simply restates his basic point.:

The church serves the world first by providing categories of interpretation that offer the means for us to understand ourselves truthfully, e.g. we are a sinful yet redeemed people. Interpretation does not preclude action, but our actions can only be effective when they are formed according to a truthful account of the world.³³

Yet, tantalizingly, there is no description of action. Unlike the Latin American base communities which serve to foster social and political responsibility, Hauerwas' communities of character-which exist solely in the abstract-appear inwardly focused and self-absorbed.

Hauerwas is quite unlike Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. They advocated not only being nonviolent, but also actively seeking justice in the world through nonviolent resistance. Hauerwas founders in being. He gives us a corporate ethic of disposition but is not interested in the ethics of action. He never moves effectively from reflecting on the narrative to ethical decision-making, and he seems to delight in refusing to undertake the move. All we have is the injunction to care for the widow, the poor, and the orphan plus jibes that "the church's first task is not to make the nation-state system work.³⁴ The difficulty in Hauer was' position is that in our world, where the widow's husband may have been murdered by Chilean police, where the poor include the starving millions of Africa, and where the orphan may be seeking sanctuary in the United States, what this nation-state does and how it works are

³¹Against the Nations, pp. 7, 130.

³²A Community of Character, p. 109.

³³Ibid.

³⁴Ibid.

76 - Sectarian Passivism?

directly relevant to a Christian's concerns. Caring for the widow, the poor, and the orphan surely is to be done on an individual basis. But surely it must be done on a more corporate basis as well. Interestingly, Hauerwas' approach is rather similar to that of many conservatives who say the church should stick to "religious" matters. Conservatives have no objection to the church caring for the widow, the poor, the orphan on an individual level. They do have problems when the church recommends a more just and equal distribution of societal resources and wealth or advocates that public monies be allocated to reduce poverty.³⁵ At least so far, they have not had to hear any of this from Stanley Hauerwas. He has focused on witnessing and has failed "to come to grips with the practical norms the peaceable community requires if it is to be involved at all in the decision-making processes of our society nationally and internationally."³⁶

III

The forcefulness of this critique has been deliberate. It is important that the professedly radical posture of Hauerwas, which challenges the traditional framework of the church's involvement in and relationship to the world, be subjected to searching examination. This does not mean that Hauerwas' work is not of value. It has an unsettling effect by calling us to reflect more carefully on the story of Jesus and to live this out faithfully. Hauerwas' ability to name the evils of violence and division in our world and his call for us to undertake in our personal lives to witness to God's Kingdom and against these evils is of real benefit. His criticism of the dominant liberal culture in the United States contains much that is insightful and instructive.

The fundamental problem is that Hauerwas does not reveal to church members bow the shaping of their personal lives should lead them on to make a public difference. Indeed, he implicitly argues against them even seeking to do this. But this is the real challenge to and demand of the church today. The church through its members needs to provide hospitality and care on the personal level and to work to eliminate hunger and injustice on the national and international levels. There is no reason why there should be a dichotomy between these two. They complement each other.³⁷ Both should be pursued concurrently. The fact that as members of the church we are imperfect and sinners should not lead us to avoid the public domain. We should work on changing our hearts and our world together. To focus only on the former is a recipe for paralysis in the latter, for our hearts will always need to be changed further. The challenge for the church as a whole is not simply to stand

³⁵Hauerwas would be offended, no doubt, by being linked to religious conservatives of whom he is critical. See The Peaceable Kingdom, pp. 12-13.

³⁶Pawlikowski, p. 407.

³⁷See J. Bryan Hehir, "The Discipline and Dynamic of a Public Church," Origins 14 (May 31, 1984) 3, pp. 40-43.

77 - Sectarian Passivism?

apart and to witness. Nor is it to surrender and acquiesce in the present culture. The challenge is to engage the world, to engage in dialogue with it, to contest its prevailing ethos, to make clear to it what we know to be right and true and to seek to bring this about-to transform our world so that in whatever small ways it may more nearly approximate the life of the Kingdom of God.