I Speak therefore I Am (in my own language, context, and syntaxt)

Last Thursday I went to Eastern University to hear the good Dr. Stanely Hauerwas speak on "The Dignity of Difference." It is always a treat to hear Hauerwas. Sometimes he is like Tony Campolo and gives the same old speech you have heard again and again. We all have our soapboxes. Other times (most of the time)he has something engaging and challenging to offer. The premises that Hauerwas works off of tend to stay the same, and the conclusions are not that shocking if you have read him and understand where he is going, but the meat of the talk is still gratifying and enriching. This was a good talk with good meat to chew on (sorry to all the vegan theologians...)

Hauerwas was using Rabbi Jonathan Sacks The Dignity of Difference as a launching off point, and relying heavily upon Herbert McCabe's work Law, Love and Language. McCabe was a Catholic moral theologian out of the Oxford school. After getting through his expected rant about liberalism Hauerwas considered McCabe's premise and suggestions. McCabe is basically suggesting that what makes one human is the ability to communicate. Language distinguishes us from other animals and from each other. The ability to communicate depends on our being a part of a particular community, and ethics is the study of what can or cannot be said in human language. This smells of early Wittgenstein and the end of his Tractatus - the idea that there are some things (ethics, ascetics, God...) that cannot be fully articulated through language.

I admit that I have not read McCabe's work and am only working with what I heard from Hauerwas, so my Wittgensteinian analysis may not be accurate. Regardless, Hauerwas then considered the language of Christianity, specifically that through the coming of Jesus one finds the coming of a new language - the Word is incarnate. This language unites us and fulfills us. In Pentecost we are born as a people living into God's future - our language is understood by all. At this point Hauerwas made the great point:

"The business of the church is to remember the future" and to make the future present.

This future that we are living into (the unity of language, the Kingdom of God) gives the church a hope that is unreasonable by many standards, but is the hope that we are to embrace. In that hope we (the church) are free and we are to transform the media of domination (world) into a media of communication, i.e. expressing love for one another without fear.

In a world that calls for conformity, in movements that look to uniformity Hauerwas (and Sacks) claims that we need difference for the sake of self recognition. The language of the church must be different from the language of the world, it must be a language of patience, understanding and a willingness to listen. We are to speak a language of peace within our own tradition.

Take a breath, for here ends the summary. Okay. Overall I like what Hauerwas is saying... like it a lot. But since I'm an arrogant bastard I should not just gush and gush without offering one thought to work with. It feels as if Hauerwas is speaking on behalf of Christianity catholic (universal) and suggesting that we have a shared/common language. I can see Christians agreeing on a language just as soon as they would agree on a flag (the current "Christian Flag" that many Constantinian Christians hang in their churches next to the state flag doesn't count... that was just a brilliant money maker). The church I currently serve in Bryn Mawr has a very different language than another Baptist church less then a mile away. We are both Christians, we are both Baptists, but our language is not uniform. Perhaps Hauerwas would respond that on the basic issues we would be of one voice, yet even there I would disagree. Hauerwas is a pacifist and claims that it is a basic, fundamental stance for Christianity. As much as I agree with him, I know there are other Christians who would disagree. Who is right?

Here is a thought. Jacques Ellul I believe speaks of the reliance of the Spirit in the institution of the church (or at least a friend of mine who loves Ellul speaks of the reliance of the Spirit). Perhaps when we consider the church universal we rely on the Spirit. This would mean calling each community to speak in a way that is authentic as possible to their understanding and interaction with the revelation of Jesus Christ. We should communicate with each other, critique each other (with Christian charity) call each other to question when necessary, but then come to the scary place of trust and hope that when a group of Christians interact with the world, the language used (even if it is not what we would use) would be true to the Word incarnate. Thus we would uphold the particularities of Christianity and avoid yet another council telling us how to speak.

This is a scary place to be, but may be the place where God can work, change and reach the world.

I speak, therefore I am. I speak the Word of Christ and therefore I am a Christian.