Stanley Hauerwas on Reformation Sunday
Oct 25th, 2009 | By Bryan Cross | Category: Blog Posts29 October 1995
by Stanley Hauerwas
Joel 2:23-32 – 2 Timothy 4:6-8, 16-18 – Luke 18:9-14
Wittenberg Door
I must begin by telling you that I do not like to preach on Reformation Sunday. Actually I have to put it more strongly than that. I do not like Reformation Sunday, period. I do not understand why it is part of the church year. Reformation Sunday does not name a happy event for the Church Catholic; on the contrary, it names failure. Of course, the church rightly names failure, or at least horror, as part of our church year. We do, after all, go through crucifixion as part of Holy Week. Certainly if the Reformation is to be narrated rightly, it is to be narrated as part of those dark days.
Reformation names the disunity in which we currently stand. We who remain in the Protestant tradition want to say that Reformation was a success. But when we make Reformation a success, it only ends up killing us. After all, the very name ‘Protestantism’ is meant to denote a reform movement of protest within the Church Catholic. When Protestantism becomes an end in itself, which it certainly has through the mainstream denominations in America, it becomes anathema. If we no longer have broken hearts at the church’s division, then we cannot help but unfaithfully celebrate Reformation Sunday.
For example, note what the Reformation has done for our reading texts like that which we hear from Luke this morning. We Protestants automatically assume that the Pharisees are the Catholics. They are the self-righteous people who have made Christianity a form of legalistic religion, thereby destroying the free grace of the Gospel. We Protestants are the tax collectors, knowing that we are sinners and that our lives depend upon God’s free grace. And therefore we are better than the Catholics because we know they are sinners. What an odd irony that the Reformation made such readings possible. As Protestants we now take pride in the acknowledgment of our sinfulness in order to distinguish ourselves from Catholics who allegedly believe in works-righteousness.
Unfortunately, the Catholics are right. Christian salvation consists in works. To be saved is to be made holy. To be saved requires our being made part of a people separated from the world so that we can be united in spite of — or perhaps better, because of — the world’s fragmentation and divisions. Unity, after all, is what God has given us through Christ’s death and resurrection. For in that death and resurrection we have been made part of God’s salvation for the world so that the world may know it has been freed from the powers that would compel us to kill one another in the name of false loyalties. All that is about the works necessary to save us.
For example, I often point out that at least Catholics have the magisterial office of the Bishop of Rome to remind them that disunity is a sin. You should not overlook the significance that in several important documents of late, John Paul II has confessed the Catholic sin for the Reformation. Where are the Protestants capable of doing likewise? We Protestants feel no sin for the disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to confess our sin for the continuing disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to do that because we have no experience of unity.
The magisterial office — we Protestants often forget — is not a matter of constraining or limiting diversity in the name of unity. The office of the Bishop of Rome is to ensure that when Christians move from Durham, North Carolina to Syracuse, New York, they have some confidence when they go to church that they will be worshiping the same God. Because Catholics have an office of unity, they do not need to restrain the gifts of the Spirit. As I oftentimes point out, it is extraordinary that Catholicism is able to keep the Irish and the Italians in the same church. What an achievement! Perhaps equally amazing is their ability to keep within the same church Jesuits, Dominicans, and Franciscans.
I think Catholics are able to do that because they know that their unity does not depend upon everyone agreeing. Indeed, they can celebrate their disagreements because they understand that our unity is founded upon the cross and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth that makes the Eucharist possible. They do not presume, therefore, that unity requires that we all read Scripture the same way.
This creates a quite different attitude among Catholics about their relation to Christian tradition and the wider world. Protestants look over to Christian tradition and say, ‘How much of this do we have to believe in order to remain identifiably Christian?’ That’s the reason why Protestants are always tempted to rationalism: we think that Christianity is to be identified with sets of beliefs more than with the unity of the Spirit occasioned through sacrament.
Moreover, once Christianity becomes reduced to a matter of belief, as it clearly has for Protestants, we cannot resist questions of whether those beliefs are as true or useful as other beliefs we also entertain. Once such questions are raised, it does not matter what the answer turns out in a given case. As James Edwards observes, “Once religious beliefs start to compete with other beliefs, then religious believers are — and will know themselves to be — mongerers of values. They too are denizens of the mall, selling and shopping and buying along with the rest of us.”
In contrast, Catholics do not begin with the question of “How much do we need to believe?” but with the attitude “Look at all the wonderful stuff we get to believe!” Isn’t it wonderful to know that Mary was immaculately conceived in order to be the faithful servant of God’s new creation in Jesus Christ! She therefore becomes the firstborn of God’s new creation, our mother, the first member of God’s new community we call church. Isn’t it wonderful that God continued to act in the world through the appearances of Mary at Guadalupe! Mary must know something because she seems to always appear to peasants and, in particular, to peasant women who have the ability to see her. Most of us would not have the ability to see Mary because we’d be far too embarrassed by our vision.
Therefore Catholics understand the church’s unity as grounded in reality more determinative than our good feelings for one another. The office of Rome matters. For at least that office is a judgment on the church for our disunity. Surely it is the clear indication of the sin of the Reformation that we Protestants have not been able to resist nationalistic identifications. So we become German Lutherans, American Lutherans, Norwegian Lutherans. You are Dutch Calvinist, American Presbyterians, Church of Scotland. I am an American Methodist, which has precious little to do with my sisters and brothers in English Methodism. And so we Protestant Christians go to war killing one another in the name of being American, German, Japanese, and so on.
At least it becomes the sin of Rome when Italian Catholics think they can kill Irish Catholics in the name of being Italian. Such divisions distort the unity of the Gospel found in the Eucharist and, thus, become judgments against the church of Rome. Of course, the Papacy has often been unfaithful and corrupt, but at least Catholics preserved an office God can use to remind us that we have been and may yet prove unfaithful. In contrast, Protestants don’t even know we’re being judged for our disunity.
I realize that this perspective on Reformation Sunday is not the usual perspective. The usual perspective is to tell us what a wonderful thing happened at the Reformation. The Reformation struck a blow for freedom. No longer would we be held in medieval captivity to law and arbitrary authority. The Reformation was the beginning of enlightenment, of progressive civilizations, of democracy, that have come to fruition in this wonderful country called America. What a destructive story.
You can tell the destructive character of that narrative by what it has done to the Jews. The way we Protestants read history, and in particular our Bible, has been nothing but disastrous for the Jews. For we turned the Jews into Catholics by suggesting that the Jews had sunk into legalistic and sacramental religion after the prophets and had therefore become moribund and dead. In order to make Jesus explicable (in order to make Jesus look like Luther — at least the Luther of our democratic projections), we had to make Judaism look like our characterization of Catholicism. Yet Jesus did not free us from Israel; rather, he engrafted us into the promise of Israel so that we might be a people called to the same holiness of the law.
I realize that the suggestion that salvation is to be part of a holy people constituted by the law seems to deny the Reformation principle of justification by faith through grace. I do not believe that to be the case, particularly as Calvin understood that Reformation theme. After all, Calvin (and Luther) assumed that justification by faith through grace is a claim about God’s presence in Jesus of Nazareth. So justification by faith through grace is not some general truth about our need for acceptance; but rather justification by faith through grace is a claim about the salvation wrought by God through Jesus to make us a holy people capable of remembering that God’s salvation comes through the Jews. When the church loses that memory, we lose the source of our unity. For unity is finally a matter of memory, of how we tell the story of the Reformation. How can we tell this story of the church truthfully as Protestants and Catholics so that we might look forward to being in union with one another and thus share a common story of our mutual failure?
We know, after all, that the prophecy of Joel has been fulfilled. The portents of heaven, the blood and fire, the darkness of the sun, the bloody moon have come to pass in the cross of our Savior Jesus Christ. Now all who call on that name will be saved. We believe that we who stand in the Reformation churches are survivors. But to survive we need to recover the unity that God has given us as survivors. So on this Reformation Sunday long for, pray for, our ability to remember the Reformation – not as a celebratory moment, not as a blow for freedom, but as the sin of the church. Pray for God to heal our disunity, not the disunity simply between Protestant and Catholic, but the disunity in our midst between classes, between races, between nations. Pray that on Reformation Sunday we may as tax collectors confess our sin and ask God to make us a new people joined together in one might prayer that the world may be saved from its divisions.
(Stanley Hauerwas is the Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke Divinity School.)
[...] Hauerwas on Reformation Sunday in 1995. I noticed that Bryan Cross had posted this sermon at Called to Communion earlier today, and since this morning I have seen it reposted on several other Catholic sites. So [...]
I love how the Wittenberg Door has a depiction of Christ crucified over it. Very Catholic.
I love the hook Jesus puts into the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. We all read it and immediately begin to think of someone who is like the pharisee. In that moment we become the pharisee. It is so hard to ignore the sins of our fellow Christians and focus on our own sins. But that is needed for unity.
Reformation Sunday is just honest. Protestants need to understand how much changed with the reformation. How big a deal it was to break with the Sacred Tradition. Growing up protestant we didn’t get that. That Sola Scriptura is a super doctrine. That is tells us how to answer doctrinal questions so it has the power to destroy any other doctrine. That this principle was not one that Christians lived by before the reformation. That right or wrong a central tenet of the Christianity we knew was introduced at the reformation.
Sola Scriptura would be an excellent doctrine . . . if I could just find it somewhere in Holy Scripture.
I was sent here to complete the reading, which I started on Patrick Madrid’s blog (a Catholic apologist of some note). Praise God for Patrick. And praise God for Mr. Hauerwas. Though separate, we are never closer together than when we can clearly see our differences. “Look at all the stuff we get to believe” indeed! Pray for me, brother, and I will pray for you. – Ken
As a Catholic it is wonderful to hear a protestant speak so frankly on the reformation’s (or revolution as we call it) effect on the average Christian in the pews.
There is not a mention anywhere in Scripture of a “super doctrine”. If there was such a thing and it was given the name “Sola Scriptura” then it would have been a central teaching of Jesus and His Apostles from the very beginning of the Church.
To think that such a central tenet of Christianity would not only be overlooked and not taught by Our Lord Himself as well as His Apostles and every early father of the Church can only make for all of Christianity itself being based on the Son of God being wrong.
I would doubt very much that God the Father would let His Son endure the Passion, His death by being nailed to a cross and Resurrection all for a false start of the Church He came to establish just so a normal human being could come along 1500 years later and correct it by nailing a list to a church door.
This is a terrible essay with very sloppy thinking. The arguments made here just don’t fly in many cases. I’m not certain why the author remains a Methodist if Protestantism is so bad and Catholicism is so good. And some of it is just plain wrong.
Take for example statement that Catholics don’t have to read scripture/tradition the same way. That’s absurd. They don’t have to believe in transubstantiation? They don’t have to believe in the Immaculate Conception? That Jesus named Peter the Pope? If Catholics could believe as they wished, I could be a Catholic tomorrow :) He makes Catholic sound like Protestants which is absurd. It’s Protestants who say we all don’t have to believe the same way, not Catholics. I’m ok with Reformed churches baptizing infants as well as with Baptists baptizing professed believers only. I’m ok with a churches with more centralize authority (bishops) as well as those more congregationally based. But that’s not really a choice with Catholics. He’s got it totally backwards.
Then there’s his claim that Protestants have gone to war killing each other for no more than their nationality. That’s absurd. The US didn’t go to war against Nazi Germany because they were Germans – in fact many Americans were of German heritage themselves. We want to war to put an end to an evil dictatorship we declared war on us. If we were killing Germans because they were Germans, we wouldn’t have stopped once the war was over, we would have finished the job. And it’s not as if Catholics haven’t slaughtered other Catholics through the centuries. Heck, even the Catholic French supported the Protestants in the 30 Years War to thwart Catholic Hapsburg ambitions. And I don’t remember reading the Pope trying to stop either side.
And what is this about Catholic’s not constraining the work of the Holy Spirit? He really needs to go back and read his Reformation history. There were any number of Catholic reform movements crushed by the Counter Reformation because they had Protestant sympathies or leanings, yet wished to remain under Rome. It was Trent that finally drew the line in many areas where it had been ok to have had different beliefs previously. After Trent there was never the same freedom to believe various doctrines as had existed previously. Lines were drawn.
This essay is just sloppy IMO.
This essay is absurd. Anyone who say’s “Catholics do this” while “protestants do this” is living in la, la land. Those generalities only exist in theory and not in actuality. I know Catholics who believe next to nothing. I know Catholics who are full of legalism. I know Catholics who love Jesus and their lives reflect that fact. I know protestants who are closer to atheists. I know protestants who are incredible servants of God. These generalities have got to go, because they are the product of childish thinking.
Dear Jim,
It strikes me that it is very difficult to conduct a discussion about Catholic and Reformed Christians without speaking in generalities. Do you have an alternate proposal? How is it childish, a venture into “la, la land,” to speak in such generalities? I would dare to guess that every one of us has employed this rhetorical device (i.e., generalizing).
It might be more helpful to identify a conclusion which you believe to be false, and then articulate why you believe it to be false.
Peace in Christ,
Tom
I, too, happened upon this wonderful sermon via Patrick Madrid’s posting on his blog–and I’m glad I did! As a Catholic, I pray for the day when we can all worship together again under one roof. I would say the above comments calling your sermon “messy” and “absurd” are naive and ungrounded. God’s speed to you, Brother Hauerwas.
Generalities, i.e. the ability to categorize, is a key mark of intelligence. Horses have a poor ability to generalize. Frogs even less so. Horses and frogs only take things for what they are. They cannot evaluate them in terms of the broader categories to which they belong. Smart men can generalize well; men of lesser wit have trouble getting things into the right categories. Trees cannot generalize at all.
Speaking in general terms helps us to make decisions when we don’t have enough information. It isn’t ‘childish thinking.’
Even if you do not agree with each and every point of the sermon, or even if you do not agree with most of the sermon, it is remarkable for its Christian Charity.
Professor Hauerwas applies his critical analysis to his own tradition with a minimum of “buts.” He no doubt has reservations about the Roman Catholic Church, but those were not the purpose of the sermon. I am reminded of some of the Papal apologies of the last several decades where the Popes have issued those apologies without addressing mitigating circumstance. This sermon, and those apologies, are excellent beginning points for beginning a dialogue that can include reservations and mitigating circumstances in a charitable manner.
If we look at the comments, we see Steve using the term sloppy twice. But amidst some of his valid criticism he misses entirely the Hauerwas’ point on the diversity allowed under the umbrella of Roman Catholic unity. Steve brings up the differences between Protestants, but that only illustrates the divisions and not the unity of Protestants. He allows that he is okay with these divisions, but doesn’t really spell out what that okay means and how it is different from the Catholic viewpoint.
Meanwhile, a number of Catholics have comments that use the sermon as a kind of surrogate form of patting their own backs. If they wanted to reply in the spirit if the sermon, they would address issues where they think they could learn something from their Protestant brothers and sisters.
The dialogue found in “Common Ground: What Catholics and Protestants can learn from one another’” featuring Father John Riccardo and Pastor Steve Andrews is what we need more of.
“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” John 17:21 KJV
Michael, right on. I think what is missing is the comments about it being “absurd” is that Hauerwas is not making a syllogistic argument that says Catholicism is right nor that Protestantism was wrong which seems to be how it’s being taken by some. The spirit of the article is one that assesses the state of Christianity and dares to hope in the possibility of reconciliation. Right or wrong, the Reformation is nothing to celebrate. The re-union of all Christians into the apostolic faith will be right, and it will be something to celebrate.
Coming from a Southern Baptist background, we never had “Reformation Sunday” services. I had neveer even heard of them until I went to College, and got a job working for a Dutch Remormed family. As a Baptist, historically, we aere persecuted from BOTH sides of the Reformation. Jesus knew what he was doing when he prayed that all may BE one, not all THINK the same.
Yes, now as a Catholic, I believe in the Transubstanciation in the Eurcharist. At the point of consecration, the host and wine ACTUALLY becomes the Body and the Blood of Jesus, our Lord.
Yes, I believe in the all the Church teaches, and I confess that belief eveery Sunday when we recite as community the Nicene Creed.
As Jim noted, there are many in various churches who believe or don’t believe, Jesus calls us to His table, Jesus calls us to conversion, for those who don’t believe it is a job to pray the Holy Spirit convict and convert them to believe. For those of us who do believe, it is a job to continue to work and do the will of God in our lives, to live as community in the love and peace of Jesus.
“If we look at the comments, we see Steve using the term sloppy twice. But amidst some of his valid criticism he misses entirely the Hauerwas’ point on the diversity allowed under the umbrella of Roman Catholic unity. Steve brings up the differences between Protestants, but that only illustrates the divisions and not the unity of Protestants. He allows that he is okay with these divisions, but doesn’t really spell out what that okay means and how it is different from the Catholic viewpoint.”
Yes, I missed his point about Catholic diversity entirely because I don’t see that it exists. The alleged “diversity” of Catholicsm doesn’t seem to be very real to me in comparison with Protestantism. What you call “disunity” among Protestants I call “diversity”. Speaking in generalities :), most Protestants hold to the same core Christian beliefs, and the “Five Solas”. But beyond that we don’t feel a need to agree, nor do we demand that other Protestants hold to what our particular church/denomination believes. That’s what I mean when I am “okay” with Protestant practices that differ from my own denomination. I am “okay” with them because I don’t see them as essential to Christian belief, and I still recognize them as Christian brothers despite those differences.
As for how that differs from Catholicism that should be clear, I would think.
“I think what is missing is the comments about it being “absurd” is that Hauerwas is not making a syllogistic argument that says Catholicism is right nor that Protestantism was wrong which seems to be how it’s being taken by some. The spirit of the article is one that assesses the state of Christianity and dares to hope in the possibility of reconciliation.”
The problem I see is that the sermon was less than evenhanded. Perhaps as a Protestant he felt more of a need to confess the sins and failings of Protestantism which I can understand. But seeing it posted on a Catholic blog gave it a different twist, especially without a Catholic commentary from a similar confessing and repentant perspective.
I’m just saying . . .
PS, Tim, I live in Charlotte, NC also.
Steve,
I can see where you’re coming from in your need for Diversity within Chrisitianity. You hold that most Protestants hold the “Five Solas”. What Catholicism maintains is a unity of teaching. If you have one Protestant saying that you do not need Baptism and then another saying that you can’t get into Heaven without it, which one is true? This is a literal matter of life and death! That’s the unity that has to be upheld, the unity of truth.
Even within the Catholic Church there are several different types of Catholics! Eastern Rite, Latin Rite, and so forth and so on. Each culture adds to the liturgy and makes it thier own. An African American Mass is very different from a Mexican Mass. But the core teachings are the same throughout the world.
The Catholics do embrace diversity, but they also have a duty given to them by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit to ensure that Truth is proclaimed throughout the world and not fall into relativism. Because Christ promised perpituity and guidence of the Holy Spirit so that Satan could not cause division within His Church Teachings. MAn then has the responisiblity to trust that promise and listen to His Church’s words spoken by the Holy Spirit.
Wow! I couldn’t agree more…no one (Catholic or Protestant) should celebrate a separation or division in the church. I would argue that in Jesus’ mind there is only one church and I think we’d all be surprised to find out that his church is neither wholely Catholic or any one denomination of Protestantism. I’m glad to see people are convicted in their beliefs, but I am more impressed that Hauerwas is rising above this ancient battle and doing some self-examination of his faith. We should all do that. In the end, we’re all Christians, separated by doctrinal differences. I’ve always said that people have too much religion and not enough relationship with Christ! As humans, we’re all flawed. This includes the individuals who make up the church and even the leaders, Catholic or Protestant alike. There will always be Catholics and Protestants who miss the point and don’t know God even though they’re continually in his presence. There will always be Catholics and Protestants who KNOW God. In short, there are holy, God- loving people that come in both the Catholic and Protestant flavor. So, just love God and does his will no matter what you call yourself and I think you’ll be okay. Approach life with love, no matter the issue, and you’ll always come out on top.
BTW, I’m a Protestant who converted to Catholicism and I must say, I’ve not yet found anything that’s not biblically based and I haven’t had to give up ANY of my Christian beliefs. This is a journey of faith and woe to the one who thinks they know it all. Go with God and love one another!!
Steve, there is actually a great deal of diversity within the Catholic Church. I didn’t see it until after I became Catholic myself. Certain things, like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, are non-negotiable, but there are lots of other things that people are free to have other opinions on. Marian apparitions, personal devotion to the saints, church music style (sound familiar? I think this one crosses all lines), roles of women, some liturgical styles, charismatic stuff, prayer style. Lots of things, but until one is familiar with the different levels of teaching, it’s hard to shake it all out.
No historical event, even the proliferation of new teachings that purport to rediscover the lost, true primitive church, can ever be a valid reason for manually dismembering the Body of Christ. “By their fruits you shall know them”. My reading of the late letters of Luther and Calvin suggests that they rued the day they’d created such rupture in the Church, because the bases for continued church dismemberment became visibly unbounded. The thing spun out of control, and continues to do so to this day, with tens of thousands of distinct versions of Protestant Christianity. The thing that’s gotten lost is the concept of Truth, which has become thoroughly relativized by the ongoing process of division in the Body of Christ. I think B16 has gotten that right, and I admire the radical steps toward the recovery of true ecumenical Church unity he has begun taking. As a former Baptist, I appreciate Prof. Hauerwas’ Reformation Sunday thoughts.
Joe
“If Catholics could believe as they wished, I could be a Catholic tomorrow :)”
If Catholics could believe as they wished, why bother to be Catholic?
Amen, Brother Hauerwas and to each who has responded so far. The love of Christ comes through in each statement, charitable correction and defense. Michael says it all in quoting our Lord and the importance of unity during His last supper discourses. How powerful is Jesus’ parting prayer (please reread all of John 17) for his apostles, as well as each and every one of us…
If we don’t unite to THE truth we will continue to undermine each others efforts. We will continue to undermine the gospel and the very credibility that Christ was indeed sent by the Father. We are called to be Christ’s arms. legs. and voice in the world today. If we don’t pull together and move in the same direction, and speak with one voice, then we don’t witness Christ to this world that desperately needs Him. Instead we create an ineffective and unappealing din of noise. The noise of false freedom, individualism, and relativism that has splintered Christianity into our current shattered state. Our divisions are why the world is in such a mess.
If not us, who? If not now, when?
Dear Lord, thank you for not leaving us orphans. For remaining among us through both your Word and your Church which you established to guide us through today’s moral issues that “we could not bear to hear” at the Last Supper. Empty us of pride and prejudices to make room for You as you consecrate us in your Truth so that we may fulfill your great commissioning: to TEACH the world all that YOU have COMMANDED. (Mt 28:20).
[...] favorite Protestant theologians is Stanley Hauerwas (whom I was only recently introduced to). Read this sermon for an example [...]
Steve,
While Hauerwas does generalize several points, your main criticism misses the point. It’s not the fact of diverse beliefs (big or small) that distinguishes between a unified Church and fragmented gatherings of professed Christians. It’s the principle of unity which consists of (as Hauerwas points out) “the unity of the Spirit occasioned through sacrament.” Now, it happens that in order to partake of the sacraments of the Church, the life of the Church, obedience and receptivity to apostolic teaching is required, and that apostolic teaching is authoritatively seated in the Church – in the Pope and the bishops through apostolic succession, and in the faithful through the light of the Spirit. But the principle of Reformation, or at least the principle of fragmentation, that Hauerwas denounces here is the understanding of Christian unity which says that intellectual assent to certain formulas (which none of the fragmented Christians can agree on, anyway) is the life of the Church. Instead, though a Reformed Christian, Hauerwas can see that the life of the Church is in fact the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, which is imparted to his Church through his own Body, his own words, his own sacraments. And he recognizes that the Catholic Church as retained a *principle of unity* without which there *can* be no true diversity, only fragmentation and isolation. Catholics listen to the words of the Pope and the Tradition, and gather at the one table, and that is why there can be real diversity within the one Church. It’s not as if it’s impossible for a Catholic to break away from this unity, and so you rightly point out that the Church censures those they understand to have actually thrown off the unifying principle of faith and obedience. But his point is that Protestantism actually collapses this distinction, so that there is *no discernible difference* between a faithful or a faithless member of the Body. In fact – there is no discernible Body.
Thanks for a lovely piece–saw it on Patrick Madrid. Have you ever read Soloviev (there are various other spellings) on the AntiChrist and Christian reunification? There is a scene in there that in some ways reminds me of your essay. God bless.
I’m a Catholic convert of 2+ years now after spending 20+ years in various forms of Evangelical Fundamentalism tracing mostly to Darby and the early 19th century. My final two years as a non-Catholic were spent in a wonderful PCA Presbyterian Church and in my own study of Calvinism. That deeper “connection” (much earlier than revivalism /dispensationalism) to the so called Reformation-era in church history is actually what helped me become Catholic.
I applaud Dr. Hauerwas for this work.
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I can only “read it and weep”. Not because there is no mention of Holy Orthodoxy or Eastern Christianity in all this discussion of unity – clearly the good pastor’s focus is on the Western Church, which has engendered the vast majority of the 30,000+ differing Christian churches and doctrinal systems. And few seem to know – or care – much about Eastern Christianity’s very different spirituality and practice, in which I can – and do – feel totally at home and comfortable worshiping with Arabic speakers in Jerusalem or Nazareth, or in Russia or the Republic of Georgia, or with Orthodox Christians in Corinth or Thessaloniki, Tanzania, France or Chicago. Rather, I weep for all the centuries of bickering and warfare, all the hideously disfiguring divisions in the Body of Christ, divisions which continue to multiply and metastasize as I write these words.
The Reformation happened only yesterday – a local feud between Christian brothers which has spread scandal and controversy throughout the entire world. We in the Eastern Church still grieve over doctrinal disagreements with the Non-Chalcedonians in 451 AD, which separate me today – if only slightly – from my Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox brothers and sisters. And then came the horrific disaster of the Great Schism with the Roman Church in 1054, since which time we continue to grow farther apart, to our immense pain and distress. I appreciate Dr. Hauerwas’ candor and obvious good intentions. May God bless him as he works to bring unity, and clarity of thought in considering what is indeed a great disaster.
St. Paul tells us in 1st Corinthians 25 and 26: “…that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.”
Forgive me, brothers and sisters, as I am a great sinner and do not presume to teach. But it seems to me that until all Christians rejoice for each other, grieve for each other, sincerely try to understand and respect each other – in short, until we truly, intentionally love and seek to serve each other, as precious living images of our Lord and Savior, and as beloved common children of God – until we achieve this, we are poor Christians indeed, and false witnesses of our Lord to the world that knows Him not.
Please pray for us all that we may be granted the strength for repentance, fasting, unceasing prayer and sincere humility of spirit. Perhaps we could all use less reading and arguing ABOUT Christianity and doctrinal differences, and more frequent prayer? And most of all, let us pray that we all may be granted the grace of a genuine, deep personal relationship with our heavenly Father the Creator of the universe. When we are truly in Christ, we can not help but be One Body, as we are called to be.
Amen John. Well said.
Very good article. As a Catholic I believe in being a reformer. There are many hearts that need conversion (mine included). I choose to be a reformer within the Church.
[...] Stanley Hauerwas is right, Reformation day “names failure” for the church. It is right that we should remember it. But it should not be with songs of thanksgiving and praise but that much under-used (never-used) component of Christian worship: lament. [...]
Thanks for a great post. I must say that as an Anglican, the unity the Roman Church has is very attractive. I do get so tired of seeing our communion splintered.
Pax.
Bryan
As an Anglican your tradition would have alot to contribute, especially liturgically. I’m sure there would be Catholics who coveted the contributions of authentic Anglican worship. Welcome home.
[...] of denominations and virtual theological anarchism. Stanley Hauerwas explains it well enough here, from a Protestant point of view. I had never thought of the diversity of theologies espoused by [...]