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 ( )

In With the Grain of the Universe (a direct quotation from one of his chief dialogue partners, John Howard Yoder), Hauerwas subverts the original intent of the Gifford Lectures. The lecture series was set up to discuss Natural Theology, defined by the Gifford website as "the part of theology that does not depend on revelation." Hauerwas spends eight lectures arguing that there is no theology that can be divorced from revelation. A bold move to be sure, but not unexpected given his reputation!

As a way of showing that natural theology cannot be divorced from revelation and witness, Hauerwas allotted the core of his lectures to the lives of three former Gifford speakers: William James, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Karl Barth. Most people, when confronted with such a list, would lump Niebuhr and Barth together while leaving the lone atheist out. Not Hauerwas—he saw a deeper affinity and capitulation to modernist culture between James and Niebuhr, leaving Barth to be the hero of the lectures. Where the first two understand man to be the fundamental subject of theology, Barthian theology places God at the centre.

Barth never understood any sort of "natural theology" apart from revelation. The Christian God is not first approached by logic and then revealed in full. His self-revelation is always first. God as Trinity is not a later add-on to the faith, but the fundamental core which can only be understood by revelation.

In the last lecture, Hauerwas placed another unlikely trio of characters together to demonstrate Christian witness: John Howard Yoder, Pope John Paul II, and Dorothy Day. Lives like theirs are the truest testimony to God. Lives like theirs are lived with the grain of the universe.

This book was a mental workout. Hauerwas is lucid and direct, but the copious amounts of footnotes (often 1/3 to 1/2 of each page) was a challenge to take in. I think it would be helpful to read the lectures a second time now, ignoring the footnotes, to follow the fundamental argument more closely. The other challenge was reading lectures which presupposed significant knowledge of the lives of James, Niebuhr, and Barth. I admit, my knowledge is lacking in that area. This book had the bonus effect of fleshing out those theologians in my mind.

With the Grain of the Universe is an important challenge to the presumptions of modernity (and post-modernity). It will help you understand the nature of revelation and the necessity of witness. ( )

Hauerwas writes that he would rather be wrong than boring. "Boring" is an unlikely description of his work to date, and these 2001 Gifford lectures are true to form. Hauerwas begins with a critique of the rationale for the lectures, established to promote the study of natural theology understood as a basis "on which to test the rationality of theology proper." He then offers critical readings of three predecessors--William James, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Karl Barth--before turning to his now familiar vision of a countercultural Christianity and its less familiar implications for the shape of the university. Hauerwas is closest to Barth; he will surprise some readers by the close connection he argues between Niebuhr and James. He joins Barth in a resounding "no" to any natural theology disconnected from "witness," which he places in the context of a post-Constantinian church exemplified by John Howard Yoder, Dorothy Day, and (surprisingly) John Paul II. Hauerwas is always good for a good argument, and, like John Milbank, he criticizes theology's "false humility" for sidetracking such argument in modernity. "Humility" is an even less likely descriptor than "boredom" for Hauerwas's style; readers can expect a forceful argument that is also an entertaining and illuminating discussion--not a big book, but a significant one.

Contains chapters on 'God and the Gifford Lectures', 'God and William James,' 'the Liberalism of Reinhold Niebuhr', and 'The Witness that was Karl Birth.'