With the Grain of the Universe: The Church's Witness and Natural Theology

by Stanley Hauerwas

"America's Best Theologian"
"Hauerwas is contemporary theology's foremost intellectual provocateur."--Time

Stanley Hauerwas is a no-nonsense, confessional Christian theologian whose scholarship, sometimes disputed yet always demanding a response, has earned him a prominent reputation on the theological horizon. Brazos Press is proud to present With the Grain of the The Church's Witness and Natural Theology, Hauerwas's distinguished Gifford lectures at the University of St. Andrews (2001).

These lectures explore how natural theology, divorced from a confessional doctrine of God, inevitably distorts our understanding of God's character and the world in which we live. Hauerwas criticizes those who use natural theology to defend theism as the philosophical prerequisite to confessional claims. Instead, after Karl Barth, he argues that natural theology should witness to "the non-Godforsakeness of the world, even under the conditions of sin."

Stanley Hauerwas has good news for the theology can still tell us something significant about the way things are. In fact, the church is more than a social institution, and the cross of Christ, never peripheral, is central to knowing God. Whatever our native moral intelligence, the truth that is God is not available apart from moral transformation. Ultimately--and despite the scars left by modernity--theology must translate into a life transformed by confession and the witness of the church.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Christianity

256 pages, Hardcover

First published October 1, 2001

About the author

Stanley Hauerwas (PhD, Yale University) is the Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. He is the author of numerous books, including Cross-Shattered Christ, A Cross-Shattered Church, War and the American Difference, and Matthew in the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible.

America's Best Theologian according to Time Magazine (2001), though he rejected the title saying, "Best is not a theological category."

Reviews

[Daniel Rempel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having read this a few years ago, I re-read it this week and was impressed both by the clear line of argument that Hauerwas puts forth, as well as the way in which he weaves a whole host of Barth’s writings together to provide the constructive grounds of his work. While I have some minor quibbles with the vision of witness presented herein, this book may be Hauerwas at his best (noting full well that “best” is not a theological category).

[Jake Owen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hauerwas gives us so much in this book. He primarily does so through people I only have limited familiarity with, yet I was able to follow along quite well and trace the trains of thought throughout the book. We get so many good nuggets from Hauerwas throughout whether it’s his critique of James’s psycho-religious pluralism, and Niebuhr’s more theological liberalism that follows, finally culminating with a kind of overview of Barths theology of witness and response to the age of post-Christendom. I wish parts of this book were significantly longer because I could read Hauerwas distilling down these philosophical ideas in an accessible way forever. Great book.

[Joe Arrendale · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent read, though chapter 8 (the concluding lecture) was its weakest point in many ways (Hauerwas himself hints as such in the afterword). Totally upended many assumptions I received about Barth. Absolutely worth your time

[Ethan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hauerwas' 2001 Gifford Lecture regarding MacIntyre, James, Niebuhr, Barth, Yoder, and Pope John Paul II, natural theology, and witness.

If I followed the line of argument correctly, Hauerwas spends his Gifford Lecture demonstrating the ultimate failure of Gifford's conception of natural theology to make a case for God according to rationalist assumptions, despite his best intentions, and does so by exploring the work of James, Niebuhr, and Barth: James, while not specifically Christian, can only make a rational case for religion through religious psychology; Niebuhr tries to make the case for liberal Christianity, attempting to find Christian terms to describe religious phenomenology so as to make the rational case, yet ultimately does so at the expense of historic Christianity, and finally Barth, whom Hauerwas champions as leading the way forward since he remains firmly attached to historic Christian ways of thinking, rejects natural theology as conceived of by Gifford, James, and Niebuhr, and instead provides a way forward to understand how the world, Christian, and church testify to God in Christ in a more accurate kind of "natural" theology, one in which God's being is taken seriously as all there really is and that all flows from Him. In this telling, Barth attempts to find a way to proclaim God in Christ to a post-Christian rationalist world, and sees the need for witness and testimony through the life of the church. Hauerwas concludes by identifying Yoder and Pope John II as examples of this type of embodied witness, leading to Dorothy Day as a premier example of what Yoder and JPII were aiming at. This particular edition also includes an afterword written a decade later by Hauerwas in which he talks about the reception of the Gifford Lecture and the first edition of the book, identifies some weaknesses, engages with some of the criticism, yet ultimately reinforces his confidence in what he originally wrote.

I personally am not nearly sufficiently read in any of these authors to judge how well Hauerwas has characterized them and found it challenging to keep both the line of argument in mind as well as trying to keep straight both what Hauerwas was primarily attempting to say as well as the line of thought in the notes, made that much more difficult on a Kindle galley edition. This is one of the rare books in which reading the concluding chapter first would help clarify the argument for the reader so that s/he could then go through the rest and understand why Hauerwas is telling the story he is telling.

In theological terms I felt Hauerwas did well in critiquing the way natural theology has been done; it melds nicely with other readings I have done of postmodernist critiques of rationalism and apologetics. I especially appreciated his insistence on witness, both in terms of oral proclamation as well as embodied living of life in God in Christ, especially as manifest in the church. His critique about the way we think we must "prove" our religious beliefs needs to be heard: we are under no obligation to provide a rationalist scientific (or even pseudo-scientific) "proof" for God's existence or our faith; instead, the faith is most attractive when it goes well beyond a series of propositions to be agreed upon and is lived and leads to transformation in the individual and the collective church. Faith is to be a matter of life, not a matter of ideas; modern rationalistic thought paradigms have always proven insufficient to explain or argue life choices and always will be. It is not enough, then, to attempt to inculcate a set or propositions and think that will be effective; instead, Christianity must always be rooted in its trust in the Person of Christ, His relationship to His Father, and His Lordship, and the living out of that faith in the life of the individual and communally in the church, and it is that kind of faith that can sustain and nourish no matter the antisupernatural secularist onslaught or the trials of life.

Recommended for those interested in any of the above authors/theologians/philosophers or Christian theology/philosophy in general.

**galley received as part of early review program

[Tyler Hurst · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hauerwas’s Gifford lectures on natural theology. While I am somewhat sympathetic to the premise that natural theology will only take you as far as one’s faith, his positive argument about the church as a public witness is hindered by selecting Barth and Yoder as examples. Their abhorrent behavior toward women undermines such a witness.

[Glenn Wishnew III · Rating 5 out of 5]

Phenomenal. Encapsulates so much of what makes him a singular and compelling witness in Christian theology. But the dividend is consistent with the investment. The argument demands a lot from the reader and the payoff is the only thing that makes it worth it.

[Daniel Crouch · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve never been much of a Barth guy, but I suppose I should start giving him a chance.

[Ross Jensen · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a long-time student of Hauerwas’s, I must confess that, by the end of these lectures, I was mildly disappointed. In many ways, they are classic Hauerwas, and I found the critical interpretations of the work of past Gifford lecturers William James and Reinhold Niebuhr to be especially interesting and illuminating. Even so, Hauerwas starts to lose momentum by the time he gets around to Karl Barth, and he never really returns to top form in any sustained way. Thus, even though Hauerwas’s work never fails to be essential, there are better places in his corpus to begin and to end up.

[Seth · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the Epistle to the Romans, Paul makes a claim for some type of natural theology: the invisible attributes of God, namely his divine nature and his eternal power, have been shown to men, have been clearly perceived since the creation of the world, through the things that have been made.

In the many conversations I've had where this passage has come up, usually in reference to an unnamed tribe in Indonesia who has never heard of the Christian God, people usually point out the most obvious fact about Paul's claim: Yes, God's divine nature can be known from nature, but that's quite a leap from a vague divine power to the particular Jesus Christ*. Hauerwas' project examines three 20th Century thinkers: William James, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Karl Barth, in order to find the limitations of natural theology (mainly through James and Niebuhr whose works as Hauerwas reads them were mostly a naturalism of the Gospel, flattened into apologies for humanism) and proclaim the need for the witness (not argument) of the church to proclaim Christ as the perfect particular expression for God's divine nature and eternal power in regards to humanity (for which he relies on Barth, who all but rejected the notion of natural theology).

It's a tough read with as much content being found in the footnotes as in the text itself. The book is essentially broken into three sections; one for each of his subjects and each section includes a distinct biography and criticism. It probably is an easier read for those who are familiar with the subjects' works, which is probably like 3 people in the whole world.

Anyway, Hauerwas' main thrust is that Barth was the type of thinker whose word proceeded into action - in his stance and denial of the Nazis - and that his witness displayed in ethics is exactly the kind of thing the world needs to make sense of Paul's claim in Romans. I'm apt to agree, although I might recommend something simpler like Barth's commentary on Romans - which I have not read but can only assume is at least easier-to-read. Also, I think Paul's life and writings do a pretty decent job of bearing witness to the particularity of Christ.

[Mac · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hauerwas's Gifford Lectures on Natural theology, published here as With the Grain of the Universe, need to be on the shelf of anyone who wants to understand the project of America's most influential theologian. The book pits William James and Reinhold Niebuhr against Karl Barth with Barth as the predictable winner. Hauerwas's basic thesis is that Natural Theology is only intelligible as one branch of a Christological and Trinitarian revelation of who God is. In his final thoughts (the last lecture/chapter), Hauerwas offers his own ideas about what Barth's vision looks like today and engages in a discussion of the nature and work of a university. Hauerwas seems especially careful in this book to make his arguments tight and well supported. His characteristically polemic tone is softened considerably, but one still finds a number of excellent quotes throughout the book. Personally, I wish that there had been less time spend on James and Niebuhr and more time spent articulating his own position, but it's still an excellent and an important book.

For those looking for an introduction to Hauerwas's theological project, I would say that this is the third book of his to read - Resident Aliens and The Peaceable Kingdom being the first two.

[Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I finally finished this book. Hauerwas surveys thre former Gifford Lecturers--William James, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Karl Barth--to tell a story of natural theology as an enterprise that must take on the character of Christian witness birthed out of revelation if it is to be anything other than a glorified anthropology. Very good.

[David Haines · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an intriguing look at the path that contemporary theology has taken (beginning with William James, looking at Reinhold Neibuhr, and finishing with a consideration of Karl Barth), specifically in regards to the question of man's natural knowledge of God. It is well worth the time to read it and the money to buy it. I will publish a review of it on my blog (philosopherdhaines.blogspot.ca)

[Tony Seel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book. The footnotes really add depth to the lectures and the lectures are masterful in themselves. Hauerwas moves from William James to Reinhold Niehbuhr to Karl Barth and his path makes sense. The figures that he finishes with are surprising, but they fit the trajectory that he maps out. I highly recommend this book.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not that I understood it all, but it was a good primer to a Barth course.

[Zach Waldis · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hauerwas is simply wrong in his treatment of Niebuhr. Roger Olsen has commented that "he wonders why it was even published at all".

[Dion Forster · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful book! Stanley Hauerwas at his best!