What do you think?
Rate this book
Hauerwas: A (Very) Critical Introduction (Interventions
Stanley Hauerwas is one of the most important and robustly creative theologians of our time, and his work is well known and much admired. But Nicholas Healy -- himself an admirer of Hauerwas’s thought -- believes that it has not yet been subjected to the kind of sustained critical analysis that is warranted by such a significant and influential Christian thinker. As someone interested in the broader systematic-theological implications of Hauerwas’s work, Healy fills that gap in A (Very) Critical Introduction .
After a general introduction to Hauerwas’s work, Healy examines three main areas of his his method, his social theory, and his theology. According to Healy, Hauerwas’s overriding concern for ethics and church-based apologetics so dominates his thinking that he systematically distorts Christian doctrine. Healy illustrates what he sees as the deficiencies of Hauerwas’s theology and argues that it needs substantial revision.
After a general introduction to Hauerwas’s work, Healy examines three main areas of his his method, his social theory, and his theology. According to Healy, Hauerwas’s overriding concern for ethics and church-based apologetics so dominates his thinking that he systematically distorts Christian doctrine. Healy illustrates what he sees as the deficiencies of Hauerwas’s theology and argues that it needs substantial revision.
- GenresTheology
154 pages, Paperback
First published March 21, 2014
3 people are currently reading
36 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
June 9, 2016
Healy makes much of a supposed major shift in Hauerwas's focus from "interest in intentional action, vision, and the self-construction of character" to a more-or-less wholesale appropriation of MacIntyre's social theory and a consequent focus on the church (118, n12). As J. Platter notes in his review, quite a bit hinges on whether or not this description of Hauerwas's development is accurate.
Basically, Healy claims that Hauerwas's work is insufficiently theological--that his "system" ends up at least incipiently Pelagian because he overemphasizes churchly practices and underemphasizes God's action as antecedent to and foundational for our own action. Healy makes regular use of David Kelsey's categories of the logic of belief, the logic of coming to faith, and the logic of Christian living. Hauerwas, he claims, conflates these logics with the result, again, that his ethical writings are theologically underdetermined. This explains why Hauerwas has refused requests for a statement of his theological convictions: he sees the logic of belief as implicit in, or grounded in, the logic of Christian living, and he therefore believes that the truth of our confession is distorted when we try to discuss the logic of belief apart from the logic of Christian living. Healy seems to worry that Hauerewas, in conflating these logics and also in emphasizing our identity as embodied creatures, has ignored the reality that we are also thinking creatures who can get the form of a practice right but still fail to be formed rightly by that practice. For example, one can repeatedly kneel for corporate prayer but be formed against Christ if one misunderstands who God is and therefore what prayer is. In other words, getting a practice right formally isn't enough; the logic of belief, given through Scripture and the rule of faith, must generate, govern, and correct all Christian practices. Additionally, we misconstrue Christian practices, and therefore perform them wrongly, if we understand them primarily as means of spiritual formation. Healy thinks Hauerwas misconstrues Christian practices in this way; Healy emphasizes, alternatively, that Christian practices are inescapably and primarily theocentric, responses to the goodness of God. But Hauerwas is so concerned with the logic of Christian living and the the logic of coming to faith (the church as an apologetic for living in the way of Jesus) that he misses, or at least doesn't rightly emphasize, this most basic fact of Christian living.
In sum, this is a helpful critique of Hauerwas's work, though much of its force would be diminished if Hauerwas's earlier work on virtues and character can be shown to be assumed in his later work.
Basically, Healy claims that Hauerwas's work is insufficiently theological--that his "system" ends up at least incipiently Pelagian because he overemphasizes churchly practices and underemphasizes God's action as antecedent to and foundational for our own action. Healy makes regular use of David Kelsey's categories of the logic of belief, the logic of coming to faith, and the logic of Christian living. Hauerwas, he claims, conflates these logics with the result, again, that his ethical writings are theologically underdetermined. This explains why Hauerwas has refused requests for a statement of his theological convictions: he sees the logic of belief as implicit in, or grounded in, the logic of Christian living, and he therefore believes that the truth of our confession is distorted when we try to discuss the logic of belief apart from the logic of Christian living. Healy seems to worry that Hauerewas, in conflating these logics and also in emphasizing our identity as embodied creatures, has ignored the reality that we are also thinking creatures who can get the form of a practice right but still fail to be formed rightly by that practice. For example, one can repeatedly kneel for corporate prayer but be formed against Christ if one misunderstands who God is and therefore what prayer is. In other words, getting a practice right formally isn't enough; the logic of belief, given through Scripture and the rule of faith, must generate, govern, and correct all Christian practices. Additionally, we misconstrue Christian practices, and therefore perform them wrongly, if we understand them primarily as means of spiritual formation. Healy thinks Hauerwas misconstrues Christian practices in this way; Healy emphasizes, alternatively, that Christian practices are inescapably and primarily theocentric, responses to the goodness of God. But Hauerwas is so concerned with the logic of Christian living and the the logic of coming to faith (the church as an apologetic for living in the way of Jesus) that he misses, or at least doesn't rightly emphasize, this most basic fact of Christian living.
In sum, this is a helpful critique of Hauerwas's work, though much of its force would be diminished if Hauerwas's earlier work on virtues and character can be shown to be assumed in his later work.
July 25, 2020
Better to read Hauerwas.
February 27, 2017
The book is short and very readable. The cover is spectacular. The title is clever. And the argument is, generally, insightful and helpful. So I recommend Nicholas Healy's critique of Hauerwas both as a helpful engagement with an important contemporary theologian and as an example of how to engage ideas with which you disagree in a fair, charitable, and professional style. The basic argument of the book is that Hauerwas's project is too focused on the Church and therefore not focused enough on God. There are bits that are surprising and interesting (comparing Hauerwas to Schleiermacher!), bits that are spot on (Pointing to the anemic treatment of the Holy Spirit and the agency of God in Hauerwas's work) and bits that are less than helpful (Healy seems to offer a weak-kneed defense of cheap grace and the legitimacy of half-hearted Christianity that seemed to forget that the call to perfection in discipleship comes from Jesus before it come from Hauerwas). But on the whole, I thought that the book was excellent and recommend it to anyone interested in reading Hauerwas well.
P.S. If you read the book, you owe it yourself (and maybe to Hauerwas) to check out his response to Healy in the concluding essay of Hauerwas's book, The Work of Theology.
P.S. If you read the book, you owe it yourself (and maybe to Hauerwas) to check out his response to Healy in the concluding essay of Hauerwas's book, The Work of Theology.
August 27, 2024
Hauerwas is one of those theologians, or, more specifically, Christian ethicists whose name is almost inescapable. Healy, a Roman Catholic, offers a critical introduction to his thought. Healy compares Hauerwas to Schleiermacher to make the case that their shared turn to ecclesiology and to the self betrays modern methodological tools in Hauerwas's ethics. In sum, Healy makes the compelling case that Hauerwas's work is not sufficiently God-centered and thus not adequately or self-consciously aware of the bearing of God's grace upon the life of the church, brushing up, in turn, with something like Pelagianism as the "unsatisfactory Christian" (with all that term entails) is not well-accounted for in Hauerwas's vision. This is worth reading both for those drawn to and appreciative of Hauerwas's work and those who are not.
June 18, 2024
Would like to give 3.5 stars.
Really interesting but not convincing arguments. Healy has definitely read a lot of Hauerwas, but I am not sure he picks up some of the contextual nature of Hauerwas' work. Somewhat of a misread of Hauerwas in my opinion. I think I'll write more a response later.
Really interesting but not convincing arguments. Healy has definitely read a lot of Hauerwas, but I am not sure he picks up some of the contextual nature of Hauerwas' work. Somewhat of a misread of Hauerwas in my opinion. I think I'll write more a response later.
July 19, 2020
Valid Points
It seemed like a fair criticism to me. There was a lot of build up to get to the actual criticism.
It seemed like a fair criticism to me. There was a lot of build up to get to the actual criticism.
August 15, 2015
Healy's analysis of Hauerwas' "position" -- if it is correct, contrary to Hauerwas' statements to the contrary, to follow Healy in claiming Hauerwas has a position at all -- is worth reading and dealing with. Healy tries to read Hauerwas sympathetically and provide a (very) critical appraisal. This is worthwhile, according to Healy, because Hauerwas is an influential and important theologian.
It's important to bear in mind that Healy offers a critique at all because Hauerwas' work is worthy of serious reflection. Nonetheless, the bulk of the book is dedicated to offering and substantiating criticisms. Namely, Healy claims that Hauerwas is similar to Schleiermacher in his turn to the Church as a culture that is a counter to other extra-ecclesial cultures. Because of this, Healy continues to claim that Hauerwas is ecclesiocentric to the exclusion of important theological matters and thereby misconstrues the nature of the Christian life. In the final chapter, Healy navigates specifically theological lacunae in Hauerwas' work, which, if Hauerwas might give proper attention to, could correct the misplaced emphases in Hauerwas' thought.
I found Healy's discussion helpful, though at times he flattened Hauerwas' work. Specifically, I think he over-read a "development" in Hauerwas, from his earlier concern with the relation of description, action, and the virtues to a purported abandonment of these matters replacing them with an ecclesiocentric emphasis on MacIntyre's understanding of traditions and practices.
The correctives and critiques Healy offers here are interesting and helpful, but I'm not convinced that a straight-forward development along those lines can be properly found in Hauerwas' writing. The problem that Healy's reading of a "development" creates is that Hauerwas' early emphasis on the nature of language in the development of character and the virtues provides a counter-balance to the "ecclesiocentrism" Healy finds in his later work. If one sees in Hauerwas a new emphasis through his incorporation of MacIntyre's understanding of traditions (and applying this to the Church) without strong discontinuity, then much of Healy's criticism is off target.
Nonetheless, the book is worth reading, at very least because it honors Hauerwas' work by subjecting it to critical reading. Anyone interested in the ongoing value of Hauerwas' writing as a contribution to theology would benefit from this book.
It's important to bear in mind that Healy offers a critique at all because Hauerwas' work is worthy of serious reflection. Nonetheless, the bulk of the book is dedicated to offering and substantiating criticisms. Namely, Healy claims that Hauerwas is similar to Schleiermacher in his turn to the Church as a culture that is a counter to other extra-ecclesial cultures. Because of this, Healy continues to claim that Hauerwas is ecclesiocentric to the exclusion of important theological matters and thereby misconstrues the nature of the Christian life. In the final chapter, Healy navigates specifically theological lacunae in Hauerwas' work, which, if Hauerwas might give proper attention to, could correct the misplaced emphases in Hauerwas' thought.
I found Healy's discussion helpful, though at times he flattened Hauerwas' work. Specifically, I think he over-read a "development" in Hauerwas, from his earlier concern with the relation of description, action, and the virtues to a purported abandonment of these matters replacing them with an ecclesiocentric emphasis on MacIntyre's understanding of traditions and practices.
The correctives and critiques Healy offers here are interesting and helpful, but I'm not convinced that a straight-forward development along those lines can be properly found in Hauerwas' writing. The problem that Healy's reading of a "development" creates is that Hauerwas' early emphasis on the nature of language in the development of character and the virtues provides a counter-balance to the "ecclesiocentrism" Healy finds in his later work. If one sees in Hauerwas a new emphasis through his incorporation of MacIntyre's understanding of traditions (and applying this to the Church) without strong discontinuity, then much of Healy's criticism is off target.
Nonetheless, the book is worth reading, at very least because it honors Hauerwas' work by subjecting it to critical reading. Anyone interested in the ongoing value of Hauerwas' writing as a contribution to theology would benefit from this book.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews