570 - Ally or Opponent? A Response to Stanley Hauerwas

Ally or Opponent? A Response to Stanley Hauerwas
By John B. Cobb, Jr.

When Stanley Hauerwas proposed publication of our exchange, I agreed, with the caveat that I would like a concluding word. One reason for my request was the fear that the relation of my initial essay to this exchange might be misunderstood. It was written as a contribution to a Northwestern University series on "Progressive Christianity in a Neo-Conservative Age." When I wrote it, I had no idea that Hauerwas would be the respondent. The essay was not written to be part of an exchange with him.

I have no objection to the label "progressive,," although if I am to accept it, I feel the need to provide my own definition. Hauerwas is correct that, by my definition, when I apply it to myself, it places me on the side of those whom I view as the "good guys." If it did not, I would not apply it to myself. Of course, the cut in Hauerwas "good guys" is that he means the guys considered good in our liberal society. Taking that definition, my answer is yes and no. I agree with some of these judgments and disagree with others.

The more serious problem with using the term to refer to myself is that it is confused (also by Hauerwas) with the assurance "that all this is going to come out right in the end." The fact that I hope for a favorable outcome in current crises and that I believe I am called to work for such an outcome does not mean that it is assured! Far from it. The move Hauerwas makes in interpreting my position-from believing that God is working to save the creation to the conclusion that it will therefore be saved-assumes a doctrine of divine power I have opposed for forty years.

Hauerwas and I share the view that modernity, or the period of the Enlightenment, is ending. In this sense, we agree that we are in a postmodern or post-Enlightenment time. I have used the term postmodern occasionally since the early sixties to describe my views. But, for me, this has never meant wholesale rejection of everything that came into being during the Enlightenment. I listed in my essay some accomplish-

571 - Ally or Opponent? A Response to Stanley Hauerwas

ments I want to keep. Hauerwas, on the other hand, thinks we cannot pick and choose.

This is an issue on which I take him very seriously. For example, the basis for the development of the rhetoric of human rights is closely bound up with the understanding of human beings that led to features of contemporary economic theory and practice that I deplore. We need to work toward affirming much of what has been said in the language of rights in ways that do not depend on the individualism built into that language. When we have done so, we may or may not retain the term "rights." But for now, I am convinced, it is dangerous to attack human rights. It may be that within the church we do not need this language, but in the public world we cannot quickly substitute the language of the New Testament for that of the Enlightenment. We should support, rather than undercut, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. My pragmatic approach, at this point, may be part of what Hauerwas opposes in my theological project.

My philosophical mentor, Alfred North Whitehead, wrote that it is more important that propositions be interesting than that they be true. For him, propositions are proposals or hypotheses. They suggest ways of looking at the world that may stimulate further thought and influence

"The move Hauerwas makes … assumes a doctrine of divine power I have opposed for forty years. "

action. By these standards, Hauerwas excels, and this is the reason that I admire his work, even when I cannot follow him. I remained on the Northwestern campus a day after he departed. Students and faculty wanted chiefly to talk about what he had said. I spent most of my time trying to explain it (not adequately, I am sure). In a time when most people have grown bored with theology, what Hauerwas did there, and what he does at many places, is a gift we can all prize. The most important parts of his response are not those in which he engages my thought. They are those in which he takes off on tangents that allow him to express his own.

Nevertheless, because this was presented as a response to me, the question of his understanding of my point of view is also relevant. Here, There are limitations. He depicts me as knowing a great deal more than he knows and as attempting "to make Christian convictions amenable to the epistemological conventions underlying the modern project." I find these comments on my work odd. As I read his essay and others of his writing, I have the sense that he knows a great deal about what can and cannot be known, about Jesus and the church, about what it means to be a Christian today, and about many other matters. His opinions are always interesting and challenging, but the style in which he expresses them

572 - Ally or Opponent? A Response to Stanley Hauerwas

leaves me puzzled as to how he can charge others with "knowing" too much.

My own view is that it is not given to us human beings to know anything. On the other hand, there are no questions that we should declare off limits to reflection. Our cultural formation and life experience, combined with this reflection, lead to strong convictions on some points, whereas we remain puzzled and tentative on others. One of my convictions is that all my convictions should be open to criticism and reconsideration. In my self-analysis, I understand this to derive from my Christian faith. The form of theology that emerges from this perspective is confessional, since it acknowledges and reaffirms the perspective of Christian faith from which it is written, and speculative, because it understands its every utterance as hypothetical.

My reading of the modern project leads me to see my confessional, speculative theology as quite opposed to it. From Descartes to Husserl to the logical positivists and linguistic analysts, there has been great concern to delimit the realm of reason as one in which theoretical knowledge can be attained. The turn to epistemology at the outset of modernity was to gain a foundation for such knowledge. Usually, it was assumed that human beings should restrict themselves to this sphere. But at other times, an additional realm of practice was acknowledged (Hume) or even

"I admire Hauerwas' work, even when I cannot follow him. "

of practical reason (Kant). Many Christians have celebrated the progressive modern narrowing of the realm of theoretical knowing because it has given faith a free hand.

I have opposed this whole turn to the primacy of the epistemological and the quest for certainty together with the duality of reason and practice or faith. I believe all thought expresses the perspective from which it arises and contains speculative elements. For me, confessional, speculative theology allows expression of my convictions about God, formed in the Christian tradition, developed by critical reflection, and open to hearing objections and being affected by them, without making any claim whatever to "knowledge."

Hauerwas comes from the side of modern assumptions, it seems to me, when he interprets my statement that I believe that God is working to save the creation as "knowing" too much. The conclusion of the modern project is that we can know nothing whatsoever about God. For some, this means a practical atheism, for others, a practical fideism, in which people are encouraged to live in and through those symbols that have formed their communities. The modern project has also turned the natural world into a mere object or context for human existence. I believe there are better alternatives, which the modern project continues to exclude.

573 - Ally or Opponent? A Response to Stanley Hauerwas

Hauerwas not only thinks I "know" too much about God but also feels distaste for what I "know." To him it depicts God as too "nice." No doubt, in addition to differences in taste and temperament and preferred rhetoric, there are real differences between us that have both theoretical and practical importance. I cannot sort those out here. But I do want to indicate that, as I understand "creative transformation," it is not as innocuous as Hauerwas supposes. In my vocabulary, Gandhi and King were engaged in struggles, partly successful, to transform creatively their societies. Both got themselves killed.

Despite the great differences in our personal styles and theological methods, I would much prefer to see myself as an ally than as an opponent of most of Hauerwas' program. I am concerned to do a number of things he rather cavalierly dismisses or ignores, but that is another matter. My attempt to clarify my own intentions, where I think them misunderstood, should not be interpreted as an attack on his. His is the most engaging and provocative voice calling us to shed accretions and distortions, gathered during the hegemony of Enlightenment thought, that have now become obstacles to renewal of the church. Even when his sharp analysis is directed against me, I recognize its value.