In a conversation with Stanley Hauerwas in March, he divulged that he was very much influenced by Søren Kierkegaard. I asked him about this because I have intuited, although never really read, a strong connection between their work. Now, I wouldn’t want to overdo it and claim that Kierkegaard is the key to understanding Hauerwas, but I do think there is something important to be said about this. Hauerwas is often misunderstood because of the harshness of his writing directed towards American Christians in general, and specifically Christians formed through Constantinianism. One example of this can be found here:
“I assume most of you are here because you think you are Christians, but it is not all clear to me that the Christianity that has made you Christians is Christianity.”
Many of you will know that he is speaking to a hand-picked group of 18-year-olds here, gathering for a Christian youth conference. No doubt a group that would self-identify as Christians. It is not at all clear to me that the Christianity that has made you Christians is Christianity. And then comes Kierkegaard:
Every one with some capacity for observation, who seriously considers what is called Christendom, or the conditions in a so-called Christian country, must surely be assailed by profound misgivings. What does it mean that all these thousands and thousands call themselves Christians as a matter of course? These many, many men, of whom the greater part, so far as one can judge, live in categories quite foreign to Christianity!…People upon who it has never dawned that they might have any obligation to God, people who either regard it as a maximum to be guiltless of transgressing the criminal law, or do not count even this quite necessary! Yet all these people, even those who assert that no God exists, are all of them Christians, call themselves Christians, are recognized as Christians by the state, are buried as Christians by the Church, are certified Christians for eternity!
That at the bottom of this there must be a tremendous confusion, a frightful illusion, there surely can be no doubt. (The Point of View for My Work as an Author, 22)
The illusion that Christendom produces Christians is deeply embedded in the Constantinian mindset. And so Kierkegaard can proclaim quite famously that the goal of all of his writing is to “reintroduce Christianity into Christendom.” (23) Likewise, Hauerwas can say that, “I have, of course, been spending a good part of my life trying to make Christianity hard to be ‘generally believed’ (Wilderness Wanderings, 159). Furthermore,
I remember the highlight of the camp was watching the sun go down on the last night from a mountain—well, a hill (it was Texas)—while we sang “Kumbayah.” This was an attempt to give us a “mountain top experience” that we could identify with being or becoming a Christian. About the last thing I would want is for you to have such an experience here. I do not want to make Christianity easy. I want to make it hard. (Duke Youth Academy, 2005)
Kierkegaard and Hauerwas are at least agreed upon a goal: the re-introduction of Christianity into Christendom and an unmasking of the illusion of Christendom. Their methods may differ but the spirit is the same. Where Kierkegaard speaks to ‘the solitary individual’, Hauerwas tries to rescue the ‘individual’ from individualism. Where Hauerwas tries to make Christianity hard, Kierkegaard tries to make it foolish. The problem that both Hauerwas and Kierkegaard address is fundamentally the same: How does one truly become a Christian?
I think you’ve got it right here. Thanks for posting.
Thanks David. I hope to write more about this connection in the future. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
This is fascinating discussion. Christians in our society are very concerned about creating an atmosphere of experience that will convince outsiders of an encounter with God. But when in the Scriptures, those who truly encountered God needed no fanfare to convince them. This experiential, mountaintop Christianity is the basis for producing Christians, and I too wonder if something is amiss.
Hey erin,
Yeah, it is an interesting combination: Christendom and the need for valid experience. it seems to me that what is missing from the equation is hope. Hope that, in spite of my lack of feeling and a desire for real experience of God, God’s Word in Jesus is true and his desire is to redeem the world. The hope is not that we will experience something spectacular today (although, that may happen), the hope is that Jesus Christ is Lord. period. It might not look like it, and it especially might not feel like it. Living out of hope, it seems to me, will have a much different result than living out of validated experience which can be proven convincing to the world.
ooo, yes, exactly! This is essence of faith, knowing that no matter what the experience, God can be trusted to keep His Word in ways that we are not seeing or feeling. Don’t get me wrong: I do love the warm fuzzies when they come. I am just no longer on a hunt for them as proof of God’s care for His people; I am not requiring this of Him in return for my allegiance.
Some friends and I meet regularly for discussion, and one topic we tossed about was this: Would we keep following God if we knew that there would be no more “felt” experiences of Him in this life?
See my post for more on this: http://erinstraza.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/walking-by-faith-_________/
I’ve always wondered if Hauerwas was familiar with Ellul’s theological writings, as they seem to have so much in common. But your post is making me think that he and Ellul are more like cousins — that is, they share a common theological ancestor.
Stephen,
Exactly! In this same discussion with Hauerwas I raised the question of his relationship with Ellul. His words were almost the same as his response for Kierkegaard: “Ellul was very important to my formation.”
When Ellul died in 1994 Hauerwas wrote a eulogy in The Ellul Forum. In it, he describes how important of a thinker Ellul was for a whole generation of theologians, himself included. He praises Ellul’s hard work of “reimagining the world through Christian discourse,” something Hauerwas has spent his own life trying to do. He also compares Ellul’s “courageous imagination” to fellow Frenchman Michel Foucault for their unflinching ability to see the world as it really is. Although he adds that what Foucault could not offer was hope.
Another Hauerwas connection with Ellul is through Katallagete, the “Journal of Southern Churchmen.” Both Ellul and Hauerwas (along with another “cousin,” William Stringfellow) were regular contributors to this radical, Barthian journal. It is no longer in print, but you may be able to find it online somewhere…
The major connection there is Barth. Of course Ellul is more similar to the ‘early’ Barth (if there is such a thing), while Hauerwas seems more like the ‘late’ Barth (who may or may not exist). The difference being, perhaps, the influence of Kierkegaard. But that is incredibly simplifying, and probably even wrong
Just a thought.
Marva Dawn also has an essay in which she connects John Howard Yoder’s understanding of the ‘powers’ to Ellul. Basically she says that Yoder “points to Ellul” (which might be the title of the essay).
Peace
KC
Thanks so much for that info. I didn’t know that Hauerwas had written that eulogy. I remember reading Resident Aliens and some of the essays in The Hauerwas Reader and wondering why he never referred to Ellul. Now I have another reason to spend more time on Hauerwas!
(oops — posted the wrong website on the previous post)
[...] latest post is a conversation about Kierkegaard and Hauerwas and how" the illusion that Christendom produces Christians is deeply embedded in the [...]
I realize that I have entered this discussion a bit too late (hopefully it is not too late), but I wanted to ask a question regarding Kierkegaard’s understanding of the individual and his/her relationship to “mountain top” experiences. I always felt that Kierkegaard’s work could support the personal experience of standing before God, but that this experience could not be communicated or reduced into philosophical/logical terms. In other words, SK would support the possibility of a “mountain top” experience (although, I think dread, fear and trembling might be the better way of describing it rather than warm fuzzies), but that it would not be re-presentable because of its singularity. The problem with contemporary churches is their desire to commodify and market the “mountain top” experience so that everyone could participate; this removes the singularity of the event and it tends to pigeon-hole the contours of said event. The point is that there would still be an event, but that it would be incommunicable beyond the single person,
A second thought regards Hauerwas’ relationship with Yoder. Yoder did not view Kierkegaard in a very positive light and I wonder how this affects the relationship between himself and Hauerwas? If Hauerwas claims (always hard to pin him down on what he really thinks because he seems to be playing a character half the time) that Kierkegaard plays such a formative role in his thought, then how does he continue to highlight his connection to Yoder?