Friends will tell you that I have recently discovered a theologian named Stanley Hauerwas. Since then, things haven't quite been the same. What has prompted me to write was an essay I found at: http://itw.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Capstone/2000/clendenin.html. The author quotes:
"Hauerwas thinks this assumption behind the modern University is false. He is often quoted as claiming that he wants his students not to make up their own minds, but to think just like he does. First, students don't have minds worth making up in the first place. Students don't even understand the importance of the ideas in question, nor do they have a good set of criteria to determine good theories from bad ones. The University thus leads students to choose an idea based on whether or not they like it. It produces consumers of ideas, who think they are free to choose ideas just like they are free to choose a Panasonic or Sony radio. The situation in the University is likened to the surrounding society, which tells us that freedom means being able to choose our own beliefs."
I continue to contemplate Hauerwas' stance about not wanting students to make up their own minds, but to think like him. I have also read elsewhere that what he means by this is not that his students share his opinions, but "that only by developing a discipline of learning can they think creatively on their own." I applaud his stance. I have come to the opinion (ironically, considering that I do not have a mind to make up) that I do not know how to think. This is, quite frankly, a slightly distressing opinion considering that I have completed a university degree. What's even more distressing is that nobody informed me (until I read Hauerwas) that I do not have the knowledge or the discipline to be able to make up my own mind. I was allowed to graduate from university believing that I possessed the ability to think for myself.
I am glad, finally that somebody has said that I do not have a good set of criteria to determine good theories from bad ones. Not only that, but that I do not have a good set of criteria to determine what is even worth studying. How do I know what books are worth picking up? How do I know whether authors are comparable? How do I know whether or not to agree with an author? How do I know, even, that these questions are questions worth asking? I clearly must have come to some conclusion because of my decision to agree with Hauerwas. I think it likely that my choice of reading material has been influenced by those with whom I have been doing theology. As a result, it is not as though I have chosen what to read and who to agree with from an uninfluenced perspective. I have never been capable of "free-thinking" because of the influence of my lecturers, friends and family. That, of course, means that I have not freely agreed with Hauerwas in the sense that I came upon his work and weighed its merits and faults apart from what I knew already. I have agreed with his work because I have been shaped to be the sort of person who is likely to agree with him. I think Hauerwas would enjoy that conclusion. It means that the practices and people that have shaped me have impinged upon some of the freedom that the Enlightenment would declare to be mine.
Hauerwas does not answer how students might have made the decision to attend his classes or the decision to accept his conclusions. I shall cautiously say that my agreement with Hauerwas stems from the distillation of the theology that I have heard and read over the past few years and from the shared perspective of Christianity. I never formally encountered Hauerwas during my theology degree. I get the impression that he might have somewhat of a bad reputation in faculties of theology. I happened upon Hauerwas by accident. He kept appearing in the footnotes of the web pages I scanned and the books I read on my desperate search for theology done well. If you ask me when I will stop the quest for theology done well, my answer will be that it will be when I know enough and when I can explain the "enough" to others. I don't know that I'll ever know enough and I don't even know how much "enough" is. I've a nasty feeling that it will be when I have a coherent systematic theology under my belt, but you must remind me of this at that time. You see, I think maybe that there cannot be any such thing as systematic theology. One cannot systematise Jesus Christ. One cannot systematise the Church. Where did we pick up the idea that we could do systematic theology? That does not mean I do not think we can do theology intelligently. (However, I suspect that because theology is done by those shaped by a tradition, it is likely that those who define what it is to be intelligent may end up discounting theology). We must watch for being deceived by the hollow philosophies of this age, including the one that says theology must be accessible to those who stand outside of the practices that shape theologians. I began this theological quest because I wanted to know what to believe. I am beginning to discover that it is not so much about beliefs, but about practices.
The problem with discovering that I agree with an author is (as stated above) that I do not have a mind to make up to know whether my agreement is correct. Is there any such thing as "correct" anymore? I have just read the Oxford very short introduction to post-structuralism. I'll try and write something about it shortly, but it highlights some of the issues surrounding use of language and knowledge of truth. I've dismissed quite a few authors before now so it may be that Hauerwas is dismissed shortly. Another problem is that I happened upon feminist authors by accident. I abandoned them because I perceived that they do not call us to worship God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That does not mean I hold "unenlightened" (sic) views about women, just that perhaps, I see the feminist quest as one that seeks to serve its own ends rather than the ends of Christ. Perhaps I am wrong. I happened upon counselling literature - that of Carl Rogers and thought perhaps that his ideas were reconcilable with the Christian gospel. Maybe they are, but I think that the gospel (and thus Christ) is the ultimate loser in the reconciliation quest. This all raises the question about how (and whether) theology is (or should be) subservient to other disciplines and the question, (which occurs with increasing frequency) about what it means to do theology faithfully.
I've another essay to write... perhaps I shall entitle it, "On Failing To Choose The Church" about consumerism. I agree with Hauerwas and the above author of the web page that the marketplace of ideas leads to the most popular ones being chosen. I do not want to be a chooser of popular ideas. Instead I want to have been so shaped by a narrative that I do not choose, but my practices inform my actions and "choices". Unfortunately, the modern university has currently won in the quest for my mind (and probably the minds of others). The Bible insists that we have minds renewed by Christ, but the university suggets that we may choose who renews our minds. I strongly suspect that our minds must be renewed by Christ by the work of the Church, but the Church has a lot of work to do to compete with the world, with the television, with popular culture, with all who say that we are free to make up our own minds. All I would say, (hopefully with Hauerwas,) is that the world does not know what freedom is. Freedom, for the Christian, is found in Christ. It comes from being disciplined in prayer, in having been chosen by God to participate in His kingdom. Freedom is not being abandoned in a marketplace of ideas and left to sink.
I shall finish with a few more questions. Asking questions has always been the way in which I have done and have learned to do theology. How are we to know that we are being shaped in a way that is faithful to the way Christ shaped his disciples? What practices are we required to enact in order to partake in disciplined learning? How are we to know from whom we are to develop our learning? More importantly, what is about Hauerwas, that means that he thinks he has a mind worth learning from? Until those questions have been answered and that I know my practice is faithful, I will not be able to truly answer the question of whether I agree with Hauerwas. I have failed to make up my own mind and hopefully, in some small way succeeded in acknowledging that I do not yet have a mind to make up.