Community and Tradition by Religio

RELIGIO REL Interfaith Diplomacy

Hauerwas’ Alternative

Faith, Sex,

and

Violence

THE UNDERGRADUATE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT AT DUKE Fall 2010 | Volume 4 | Issue 2

Community & Tradition

NOTE FROM THE EDITORS

W e are pleased to bring you the eighth issue of Religio examining the role of various Christian communities and traditions. In the spring of 2007, Religio began as a way for students to read, write and reflect on the Christian faith. Duke University is founded on the premise that knowledge and religion, eruditio et religio, are fundamental to the development and formation of all persons. Our mission at Religio is to bring Christianity into dialogue with the learning of the university. This ecumenical project draws from a diverse range of Christian traditions and fellowships on campus. This journal is part of a larger initiative called “The Augustine Project,” seeking to establish journals of Christian thought on college and university campuses across the nation. Our journal is a grateful partner of Pathways, a ministry of Duke Chapel that helps students discover their calling through programs of theological exploration and vocational discernment. The Church is the community of all Christians—home to many traditions stemming from the apostolic example. Christians are called by God into this community to live corporately out our common faith, resting in the mystery and the beauty of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. The nexus between community and tradition is fundamental to Christian life. While Scripture and tradition reveal Jesus Christ to us, the community of believers nurtures and teaches us the Bible that we may “work out our salvation.” Duke’s own Stanley Hauerwas writes, “Saints cannot exist without a community, as they require, like all of us, nurturance by a people who, while often unfaithful, preserve the habits necessary to learn the story of God.” Despite the brokenness and the feebleness with which we attempt to follow Christ, God overcomes our weaknesses and failings through the reality of the gracious promises found in Jesus Christ. This reality of the gospel of Jesus Christ remains at the heart of Christian tradition. The authors in this issue tackle topics as diverse and complex as Kierkegaard’s unique vision of Christian community, liturgy as a virtue ethic, the role of interfaith dialogue and religion’s relationship to violence. We are pleased to present such a stellar tradition of thought within the Religio community. We hope you enjoy reading and reflecting on these articles as much as we have enjoyed putting them together. Religio is now accessible online at www.duke.edu/religio. You can view this issue and our archives on this site. If you are interested in contributing to our next issue or exploring opportunities on our staff, please email us at religio@duke.edu. Peace, Matthew Gay Trinity ‘11

2 Religio Fall 2010

Gregory Morrison Trinity ‘11

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 2 Fall 2010

Content

A Liturgical Ethic Troy Shelton

“That Kind of Thing Goes on Everywhere”: Reflections on Faith, Sex, and Violence in Jon Krakauer’s Under the Banner of

Heaven

Adam Hollowell

The U.S. University Model for Obama’s Interfaith Diplomacy Johnathan Amgott

Reflections on Kierkegaard’s Community: God and the Individual Hannah Peckham

Hauerwas’ Alternative: The Identifiable Church in Postmodern Society Janet Xiao

The Next Stanza Sam Zimmerman

tradition

Duke’s best is that it’s not stuck in traditions. You’ll show yourselves true Duke students to the extent that you regard this university as yours to envision and yours to make. I challenge you to

make it something great... -Richard Broadhead

President of Duke University

EMAIL TO THE STUDENT BODY

14 3 Religio Fall 2010

A Liturgical Ethic

By: Troy Shelton

uch of twentieth-century ethical debate has focused on the moment of decision. This decision is seen as one of “crisis,” when the moral agent must decide where he locates the good. Some modern ethical systems locate the good within the actions and motivations themselves, like following a rule because a deity commands it; some within the outcomes our actions produce, like the utilitarian who believes that the ends justify the means.* Both, however, focus on man’s short-term action; neither consider man’s ultimate end. Such a narrow focus is criticized by Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: “If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”1

Instead, an alternative ethical system, virtue ethics, resolves this dilemma; it considers the whole man, as well as his relations with the community and God. Virtue ethics is as old as Aristotle, but many modern proponents have given it a particularly Christian interpretation. Among them are Dean of Duke Chapel Sam Wells and Duke Divinity School Professor Stanley Hauerwas. Virtue ethics cultivates the individual’s character through moral exertion: the moral agent rigorously practices the virtues such as honesty, temperance, and faithfulness in order to form his overall character. In this way, the moral agent avoids much of the “crisis of decision” because much of the moral effort has already been performed, and the “decision” to make is just the repetition of a well-formed habit. In Wells’ words, “In every moral ‘situation,’ the real decisions are ones that have been taken some time * For example: Kant’s categorical imperative and utilitarianism, respectively.

4 Religio Fall 2010

before…. The moral life should not be experienced as an agony of impossible choice. Instead, it should be a matter of habit and instinct.”2 This essay analyzes virtue ethics in a Christian context, specifically its consistency with Christian theology and its manifestation in the Christian liturgy.

Virtue Ethics and Christian Theology

he fourth century bishop of Alexandria, St. Athanasius the Great, wrote a treatise entitled On the Incarnation. In this work, Athanasius explains the purpose of humanity in terms of Christ’s incarnation: Christ “became man so that we might be made divine.”3 Athanasius’ claim is bold and lies at the heart of Christian salvation—known as sanctification in the West and theosis in the East. Our capacity for the divine virtues is possible “because God has become like us; and God has become like us, so that we might find no impediment in the life of true virtue.”4 Virtue ethics requires us to consider man’s long-term end, and Christian theology teaches that God’s plan is for us to return to the divinity we were made for. To achieve such an end, the Christian needs the right type of moral “imagination”—the ability to understand the ambiguity of what currently is, and the creative capacity to see how things can be for the best.5 A traditional Christian method of forming the moral imagination is the liturgy.** Liturgy is a common practice for most Christian churches; it is the formal structure, if not the exact prayers themselves, by which the community worships God. In the liturgy, God convokes the Church so that we may “commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.”6 ** By liturgy in this essay, I mean the Eucharistic liturgy, in which all other liturgies (like matins or vespers) find their true meaning. This is commonly known in the West as the Mass, and in the East as the Divine Liturgy. Wells, Samuel, and Ben Quash. Introducing Christian Ethics. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.

In so doing, we become both fellow-workers with God and partakers of the divine nature.7 The liturgy teaches us the virtues through its particular movements, and these virtues heal the fragmented relationships we have with the world, our community, and God.

of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.*** The former primarily illustrates how Christians are to relate to each other and as a community to God. In this part of the liturgy, the community prays to God with several litanies, announcing the concerns of the community and presenting them to God. The priest or minister Virtue Ethics and the Movements of the Liturgy gives voice to the specific concerns, and the community asting is the first movement of the liturgy, and it responds with “Lord, have mercy.” Such communal occurs before we even arrive at church. Christians prayers commit each of us to the hardships and concerns have traditionally abstained from all food in the of our brothers and sisters; it also reveals our complete morning before receiving communion, ensuring that reliance upon God. The litanies foster a love for others the Christian partakes of nothing before the Body and in the community, and teach us the humble position Blood of Christ. Fasting is crucial for the virtuous life: it from which we must approach God. develops temperance and self-discipline. By controlling what enters our bodies, we can better control the The Liturgy of the Word concludes at its climax: the thoughts and actions that exit. St. Paul counsels the reading and proclamation of the Gospel. The book Corinthians, “All things are lawful for me, but not all appears through an entrance whereby it is presented to things are helpful.”8 The foods are not inherently wrong, the community as, in Alexander Schmemann’s words, of Christ’s manifestation to and presence but without self-control, they can lead to sin. Through “a verbal icon 9 fasting, we begin the liturgical work on the right foot, among us.” The priest performs his ministry, reading and establish a proper relationship between the created the text aloud and exhorting the community to the life *** My analysis roughly follows the chronological structure of world and ourselves.

the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as it is the standard

The liturgy itself consists of two main parts: the Liturgy liturgy for Eastern Orthodox Christians. However, traditional Western liturgies conform to a very similar structure.

5 Religio Fall 2010

in Christ through a homily; the laity perform their ministry in receiving the teaching and giving their consent with a triumphal amen.10 The church here uses her authority to determine the truth, but the interaction is not a relationship of power. Rather, the Gospel reading practices the virtues of unity and humility.

the liturgy until we are reconciled with our brothers and sisters or else we approach the chalice unworthily. For as St. Paul warns, “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”13 Such love and unity recalls the Elder Zosima from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov: “There is only one salvation for you: take yourself up, and make yourself responsible for all the sins of men. For indeed it is so, my friend, and the moment you make yourself sincerely responsible for everything and everyone, you will see at once that it is really so, that it is you who are guilty on behalf of all and for all.” Unfortunately many churches today omit this ancient practice, even churches with very old roots. They do this to the detriment of the entire congregation. In the kiss of peace, Christ’s command to love is made manifest, for “the assembling as the Church is above all the sacrament of love. We go to church for love, for the new love of Christ himself, which is granted to us in our unity.”14

All of these virtues reach their fullest expressions during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. An entrance (or procession) of the gifts to be consecrated commences immediately after the homily. In this entrance, the faithful sacrifice to Christ the bread and wine that are His already. Such a sacrifice is one of love. We have been given to and so we give, knowing that Christ will accept us and our gifts. Such love remembers Christ’s beckoning, “Abide in me, and I in you.”11 This movement was intended to incorporate the entire community. In the early church, even the penniless orphans brought water to prepare the communion for distribution.**** In this way, Christians learn the virtue of sharing and generosity but do not forget humility: we can give nothing that was not first given to us by God. Immediately after the kiss, we recite The liturgy then moves into two the Creed, the symbol of the faith, acts that give full expression to our because unity naturally follows love. relationships with each other. The To love is to unite, and Christians are kiss of peace immediately precedes called to a unity of faith: “that they Father, are in the recitation of the Nicene Creed all may be one, as You, 15 and dates from apostolic times. St. Me, and I in You.” Without this Paul enjoined the Romans to “Greet unity of faith, without being able to one another with a holy kiss.”12 The say collectively “We believe,” there early church also combined the cannot be communion. The call sacrament of confession with this to partake of the Body and Blood movement of the liturgy, confessing necessitates that we be of one mind. all sins to the entire community. In such a way, the moral agent is Either way, we cannot continue in bound to his community through a virtue of unity. **** The water being combined with the elements after consecration.

6 Religio Fall 2010

The priest or minister then proceeds

to consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. The earlier entrance with the gifts taught sacrifice, humility, and generosity— and these three reach their conclusion with the consecration. Our actions consummate in the virtue of thanksgiving. Such is the whole mystery of the Eucharistic liturgy, which derives from the Greek word εὐχαριστία, thanksgiving. Christians, together in community, offer to God His own creation. Christians are a royal priesthood that have been renewed by the grace of God, and we are called to bless the world through thanksgiving. Communion follows shortly afterward, where the community receives its nourishment from God. The liturgy is the Christian application of virtue ethics. Having practiced the virtues, and completed the consecration, the Christian is ready to commune. For in communion, man will see his ultimate end. Christ condescends and saves man from the clutches of death. But he does not stop there. Rather, Christ deigns further and exalts us up to Himself. As the Bride of Christ, the Church communes as a whole community: both the saints triumphant in heaven and the saints still persevering on earth worship the King of all virtue.

EndNotes 1 Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956: an Experiment in Literary Investigation (New York: Perennial, 2002), 75. 2 Samuel Wells, Improvisation: the Drama of Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2004), 75. 3 St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word of God, 54:3. 4 Joseph Woodill, The Fellowship of Life: Virtue Ethics and Orthodox Christianity (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1998), 19. 5 Samuel Wells, Improvisation: the Drama of Christian Ethics, 76. 6 The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. 7 1 Corinthians 3:9; 2 Peter 1:4 (NKJV) 8 1 Corinthians 10:23 (NKJV). 9 Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Seminary Publishers, 1988), 71. 10 Ibid., 79-80. 11 John 15:4 (NKJV) 12 Romans 16:16 (NKJV) 13 1 Cor. 11:28-29 (NKJV) 14 Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom, 138. 15 John 17:21 (NKJV)

How Do We Fix Poverty?

Ethics in an Unjust World

Public Policy Studies 195S Fall 2011 Sam Wells 7 Religio Fall 2010

“That Kind of Thing on Everywhere”:

Reflections on Faith, Sex, and Violence in Jon Krakauer’s Under the Banner of He

By: Adam Hollowell

his summer two members of my family – a pious Presbyterian Christian and her agnostic brother – both enthusiastically suggested that I read Jon Krakauer’s 2003 national bestseller, Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith.1 Krakauer is the author of several popular works of non-fiction, including Into Thin Air, the story of his ascent of Mt. Everest and Into the Wild, a profile of a young college graduate who sold all of his possessions, hitchhiked to Alaska, and eventually died of starvation in the wilderness. What struck me 8 Religio Fall 2010

as most interesting about the recommendations from my relatives was that, despite their divergent beliefs and practices, both found Under the Banner of Heaven to be a compelling and “frightening” glimpse into the destructive power of religious belief.

Since most readers of this essay will be unfamiliar with Krakauer’s book, let me offer a quick summary. The “story of violent faith” suggested by the book’s subtitle describes the brutal 1984 murders of Brenda Lafferty

g Goes

eaven

9 and her infant daughter, Erica. While initial suspicion turned to Brenda’s husband, Allen, two of Allen’s brothers, Ron and Dan Lafferty, were responsible for the murders. The town surrounding the Lafferty family was deeply committed to Mormonism, yet Ron and Dan became increasingly marginalized for their radical beliefs. They were excommunicated from the church for joining a sectarian fundamentalist movement, the School of the Prophets (from which they were also eventually dismissed). Further complicating the story, Ron claimed that God delivered a revelation ordering him to kill Brenda and Erica. Krakauer supplements this investigation into the bizarre world of the Lafferty brothers with a wider presentation of a history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), including a variety of profiles of fundamentalists who embrace practices and doctrines no longer held by the Mormon Church. Chief among these distinctly fundamentalist practices, for Krakauer, is the custom of plural marriage and the taking of multiple wives. He provides a number of snapshots into the destructive effects of this custom, including profiles of abused women and children, as well as stories of men and women who abandoned fundamentalism, Mormonism, and faith altogether. As we learn, part of the process of radicalization for Dan and Ron Lafferty included embracing the doctrine of plural marriage. You can begin to see why my family members found Under the Banner of Heaven so disturbing. The story of the Lafferty brothers and LDS fundamentalism includes details of murder, polygamy, and child abuse. Such an unsettling story undoubtedly leaves us with lingering concerns about the connection between communities of faith and deviant social behavior. We wonder how such practices can persist in a country with deep-rooted commitments to individual and religious freedom. Krakauer reinforces these concerns by openly searching for a link between the ritualistic murders and a wider phenomenon of faith. He says, “If trying to understand such people is a daunting exercise, it also seems a useful one – for what it may tell us about the roots of brutality, perhaps, but even more for what might be learned about the nature of faith.”2

I’d like to investigate the assumption that we can learn quite a bit about the nature of faith from an exploration of the roots of such brutal and deviant behavior. Duke University counts a small but vibrant Mormon community among its 29 Religious Life groups. Over 100 undergraduates call the heartland of the LDS Church in the US – Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico – home. Perhaps most importantly, almost half of the undergraduates at Duke selfidentify with various faith traditions. If Krakauer is right that there are lessons to be learned here about the nature of faith, then those lessons apply to a significant portion of the Duke community. Fall 2010 Religio 9

School of the Prophets

here are three lasting images from the book on which we can focus our attention and through which we can consider the connection between sex, violence, and faith. The first image comes from a meeting of the aforementioned School of the Prophets, a group founded in 1979 by the pacifist, fundamentalist, and polygamist Robert Crossfield (who received a revelation from God indicating that he should be called the Prophet Onias). As Krakauer notes, “Onias intended his School of the Prophets to be a mechanism for instilling crucial Mormon principles that had been forsaken by the modern LDS Church: plural marriage; the tenet that God and Adam … were one and the same; and the divinely ordained supremacy of the white race. All of which was customary fundamentalist fare.”3 By the start of 1984, the Lafferty brothers connected with the Prophet Onias and quickly rose to positions of leadership in the school.

angry, got up, and walked out of the meeting, ending their association with the school.4

Three and a half months later, after wandering the country, developing alcohol and drug habits, and picking up a few drifters, Ron and Dan carried out the revelation on July 24, 1984.

As mentioned earlier, Krakauer reads these bizarre events as a window into the nature of faith. He says clearly in the introduction, “Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion. And when religious fanaticism supplants raciocination, all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen.”5 There’s no doubt that in the case of the Lafferty brothers, fanaticism supplanted ratiocination. All bets were off. But what about the Prophet Onias and the other leaders present? It was, after all, a roomful of men who’d been excommunicated from the LDS Church – they were all marginalized fundamentalists. Yet some accepted the The remarkable image, however, is revelation and some rejected it. Was it not the founding of the school or its faith or reason that motivated them to connection with the unstable Lafferty say, “Don’t even consider it!” in response brothers. Rather, it is the moment when, to the revelation? At that moment would in a meeting of the school’s leaders, you say injudiciousness was a crucial Ron Laffery presented his “removal component of their spiritual devotion? revelation” calling for the murder of I raise these questions to unsettle the Brenda and Erica Lafferty. As fellow pattern of interpretation that Krakauer leader Bernard Brady recalls, in April of presents for such situations. I suppose 1984 after Ron read the revelation, I’m unconvinced that what happened The nine men who were present that evening earnestly discussed the revelation, then held a vote to determine its legitimacy as a divine commandment. Ron, Dan, and Watson [Lafferty] were in favor of accepting it as a valid revelation. Everybody else said, “No way! Don’t even consider it! Forget the whole thing!” At which point Ron, Dan, and Watson became really

10 Religio Fall 2010

in the School of the Prophets meeting that night can be explained with the observation that faith and reason are opposites, and that spiritual devotion is injudicious. Krakauer says, “The aim of the book is to cast some light on [Dan] Lafferty and his ilk.”6 In this case, we have Lafferty’s ilk – the School of the Prophets – acting in what appears to be a quite reasonable manner by terminating the relationship with dangerous associates. That is not to say that I, in any way,

From the Publisher “Jon Krakauer’s literary reputation rests on insightful chronicles of lives conducted at the outer limits. He now shifts his focus from extremes of physical adventure to extremes of religious belief within our own borders, taking readers inside isolated American communities where some 40,000 Mormon Fundamentalists still practice polygamy. Defying both civil authorities and the Mormon establishment in Salt Lake City, the renegade leaders of these Taliban-like theocracies are zealots who answer only to God. At the core of Krakauer’s book are brothers Ron and Dan Lafferty, who insist they received a commandment from God to kill a blameless woman and her baby girl. Beginning with a meticulously researched account of this appalling double murder, Krakauer constructs a multi-layered, bone-chilling narrative of messianic delusion, polygamy, savage violence, and unyielding faith. Along the way he uncovers a shadowy offshoot of America’s fastest growing religion, and raises provocative questions about the nature of religious belief.”*

11 endorse the marginalized religious beliefs of the School. Far from it. But the story does leave me with some hesitations about Krakauer’s interpretive choices, especially as he is claiming to connect those choices to the nature of religious faith as a whole. The Retrial of Ron Lafferty

he second image I want to consider takes us to the retrial of Ron Lafferty in March of 1996. In his first trial in 1985, Ron refused the option of an insanity defense, and he was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. By 1991, however, this original ruling was thrown out by the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado because it was determined that the lower court applied a “faulty legal standard” in declaring Ron mentally competent to stand trial.7 After psychotherapy and antipsychotic medication, in 1994 the court ruled Ron was competent to stand trial a second time for the murders. This time, while insisting on his sanity, he allowed his lawyers to pursue an insanity defense.

you talk to God, it is prayer; when religious faith. But it’s interesting God talks to you, it is schizophrenia. that the medical experts did not During the trial, however, several seem to draw the line simply at of the medical experts consulted religious beliefs – they suggested argued that Ron’s beliefs were that everyone depends in various not necessarily indicative of a ways on unverifiable beliefs. Stephen psychotic illness. Dr. Noel Gardner, Golding, a forensic psychologist, a psychiatrist affiliated with the noted that, “The existence of an University of Utah Medical School, extreme religious, personal, or observed that what makes the political belief system is not, per se, 12 deviant religious beliefs “so striking an indication of mental illness.” is not that they are somewhat Dr. Gardner adds, “There are many strange or even irrational, because irrational ideas that are shared in the all religious people have … irrational community that are non-psychotic. ideas; what makes them different is We all* hold to non-reality based that they are so uniquely his own.”9 ideas.” Dr. Richard Wooten, a psychologist from Utah County, argued that, “All kinds of things are

“

I’m reminded of the old adage: when you talk to God, its prayer; when God talks to you, it is schizophrenia.

”

I confess that I am not entirely sure what to make of this analysis, although I remain fascinated by it. Perhaps it is enough to say that both the religious and non-religious among us seem unavoidably implicated in various unverifiable belief systems. Communities of shared experience and shared reality recognize and normalize systems of unverifiable belief to the point that they provide no reliable indication of mental illness. This, of course, takes us beyond specifically religious belief and into the nature of humanity. It also robs us of “verifiable belief ” as a test of rationality. In other words, the inverse of Ron’s marginalized unverifiable beliefs is not strict rationality, but broader communities and networks of accepted practices and thought-systems.

accepted by one culture or another that would appear crazy or extreme to those outside the culture.”10 Gardner added further that Ron’s frequent laughter and sociability were indicative of his ability to have shared experiences based on shared realities. He observed that a “rather sensitive marker of psychosis is whether people have enough of the same shared reality to not only understand the facts of one’s reality, but the subtle and social meaning and significance that is * Ibid., 302 For those interested, Dr. irony.”11 In his opinion, Ron clearly Gardner suggested that Ron was not demonstrated such capabilities. psychotic, but did exhibit symptoms of

Some of the most fascinating material in Under the Banner of Heaven appears in the chapter retelling the arguments of this second trial. The questions at hand are whether fervent religious belief constitutes a mental illness and whether Ron’s revelation is irrational, psychotic, or both. As Krakauer notes, “In the view of psychiatrists and psychologists, any individual who proclaims to be a prophet or a guru – who claims to communicate with God – is, almost by default, mentally or emotionally Krakauer interprets this analysis unbalanced to some degree.”8 I’m as evidence of an irreducible reminded of the old adage: when irrationality in the nature of all

narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). He judged that in addition to grandiosity and lack of empathy, Ron also exhibited (to the extreme) the contemptuous behavior associated with NPD.

Fall 2010 Religio 11

“That Kind of Thing Goes on Everywhere”

he third image draws our attention a bit more directly to the issue of sex and sexual violence. Many of the scenes in the book take place in Colorado City, a large town on the Utah-Arizona border almost entirely inhabited by LDS fundamentalist sects. Throughout the book Krakauer occasionally breaks from other narratives to follow the story of DeLoy Bateman, a science teacher at Colorado City High School who is an apostate from the fundamentalist church and an atheist. Despite the fact that Bateman is not connected to the Lafferty family and plays no significant role in the narrative surrounding the murders, in many ways he emerges as the hero of the book. Although Krakauer does not say so explicitly, the reader gets the impression that over the course of his research the author felt a certain kinship with Bateman. In fact, the closing scene describes Bateman reflecting on the changes in his life (presumably with Krakauer) at the top of Canaan Mountain outside of Colorado City.

The contradiction between his allegiance to the community and knowledge of these troubling practices is strange, and Krakauer does not push Bateman to resolve that tension. Bateman does say, however, referring to the women: “I don’t doubt that their stories are true. … But that kind of thing goes on everywhere, and I actually think there’s less of it here than in the outside world.”15 It’s here that I think Krakauer passes over one of the most genuine glimpses into the nature of faith that he wishes to explore. Despite openly acknowledging some of the darkest horrors of the fundamentalist community, Bateman still fears the “outside world” even more than he fears home. But what exactly does he fear in the outside world? Either Bateman doesn’t say or Krakauer doesn’t tell us. In a fascinating recent book titled The Myth of Religious Violence, William Cavanaugh argues that naming certain kinds and categories of violence as “religious” can have the effect of legitimating and directing moral scrutiny away from violence understood as “liberal” or “secular.”16 In a country constitutionally committed to religious freedom and the separation of church and state, the very term “religious violence” suggests something morally bankrupt. The question Cavanaugh presses to his readers, though, is whether in naming one form of violence as corrupt and wholly “other” we divert moral scrutiny from closer forms of violence. This kind of diversion surely appears in Bateman’s statement, “that kind of thing goes on everywhere.” But what about Krakauer? Does he divert our moral scrutiny from certain forms of violence by focusing on a wholly religious “other”?

At one point Bateman directly acknowledges the disturbing forms of sexual deviance that plague the city’s fundamentalist communities. Many of these are related to the practice of plural marriage and the sexual manipulation of young women and children. Krakauer notes that Bateman “has talked at length to several women in the town who’ve reported being sexually abused as girls and insist that pedophilia is rampant within the community.”13 At the same time, Bateman insists that, “It’s hard for outsiders to accept, but there is so much that’s positive about this town. The people that live in those houses down While claiming to explore the nature of there, they’re extremely hardworking. faith, Under the Banner of Heaven never And strong. … I think it’s a real good once turns the critical lens onto what community to raise a family in.”14 Bateman calls the “outside world.” If 12 Religio Fall 2010

From the Publisher “The idea that religion has a dangerous tendency to promote violence is part of the conventional wisdom of Western societies, and it underlies many of our institutions and policies, from limits on the public role of religion to efforts to promote liberal democracy in the Middle East. William T. Cavanaugh challenges this conventional wisdom by examining how the twin categories of religion and the secular are constructed. A growing body of scholarly work explores how the category ‘religion’ has been constructed in the modern West and in colonial contexts according to specific configurations of political power. Cavanaugh draws on this scholarship to examine how timeless and transcultural categories of ‘religion and ‘the secular’ are used in arguments that religion causes violence. He argues three points: 1) There is no transhistorical and transcultural essence of religion. What counts as religious or secular in any given context is a function of political configurations of power; 2) Such a transhistorical and transcultural concept of religion as non-rational and prone to violence is one of the foundational legitimating myths of Western society; 3) This myth can be and is used to legitimate neo-colonial violence against non-Western others, particularly the Muslim world.**”

certain religiously-motivated forms of sexual violence (say, marrying multiple young girls to older men) are windows into an irrationality at the very heart of religious faith, then how are we to understand forms of sexual violence characteristic of modern liberal society (say, the abuses of underage women through pornography and child pornography industries)? What are they windows into? In fact, Krakauer doesn’t give us any resources for relating the forms of violence he highlights to any larger societal patterns and practices outside fundamentalist communities. In Cavanaugh’s language, our moral scrutiny is diverted away from certain forms of violence characteristic of our own culture and aimed at the fanatical religious “other.” I think this is, at the end of the day, why both members of my family found the book so engaging. The story is frightening because it is close enough to feel real. It is set in America, after all. At the same time, the behaviors described are just far enough away from the world we live in to avoid illuminating more common forms of brutality and deviance that might mark our own lives. Krakauer gives neither the Presbyterian nor the agnostic reader any real indication that there might be lurking forms of irrational violence in their own communities that need to be confronted. We’re left rubbernecking at small fundamentalist sects without any helpful resources for translating these troubling narratives into an opportunity for reflection on the complexities of our own communities.

“

It may be that the dark side of religion is ignored. But it may also be that focusing on the dark side of religion is a comfortable way of diverting moral scrutiny from the dark sides of our more immediate communities.

”

I mentioned earlier that if Krakauer intends to draw conclusions about the nature of faith, they will apply to a significant section of the Duke community. I would suggest that a more challenging issue arising from these narratives concerns the ways that our community is complicit in subtle and overt forms of sexual violence and brutality. This will not be as easily identified as fundamentalist polygamy or senseless murder. It will certainly not fall easily into categories of religious and non-religious behavior. And it will apply to the whole Duke community, not simply the religious among us. We may even have nonverifiable systems of belief that legitimize such forms of violence. It will not be “out there” but in and among our ways of life. Krakauer suggests in the introduction that “There is a dark side of religious devotion that is too often ignored or denied.”17 That religion can have a dark side is readily apparent. But I wonder if it is truly ignored, especially in a world where most of America’s political enemies are identified primarily by their brand of religious extremism. Although Under the Banner of Heaven preceded much of the modern media infatuation with

Mormon fundamentalism, HBO’s series on a polygamist family, Big Love, is entering its fourth season and stories of escape from such communities were on the New York Times bestseller list not long ago. It may be that the dark side of religion is ignored. But it may also be that focusing on the dark side of religion is a comfortable way of diverting moral scrutiny from the dark sides of our more immediate communities.

EndNotes 1 Jon Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (New York: Doubleday, 2003; reprint, New York: Anchor Books, 2004). 2 Ibid., xxiii. 3 Ibid., 85. 4 Ibid., 170. 5 Ibid., xxiii. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., 295. 8 Ibid., 309. 9 Ibid., 302. 10 Ibid., 303. 11 Ibid., 305. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid., 331. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 William Cavanaugh, The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 17 Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven, xxi. *Random House, Inc., “Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith Written by John Krakauer,” available from http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/ display.dsdfpperl?isbn=9781400032808 dadfpperl?isbn=9781400032808; Internet, accessed 20 November, 2010. ** Oxford University Press, “The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict written by William T. Cavanaugh,” available from http://www.oup. com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/Theory/?view=usa&ci=9780195385045; Internet, accessed 20 November 2010.

13 Religio Fall 2010

The U.S. University Model for

Obama’s Interfaith Diplomacy By: Jonathan Amgott

Interfaith Action: President Obama, Speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009.

resident Obama made international headlines for his 2009 speech in Cairo addressing Muslim-majority societies. His call for a “new beginning” provided a clear picture of his Administration’s diplomatic priorities related to religious communities in general and Muslims in particular. Yet little of the subsequent media attention focused on the President’s push for more interfaith dialogue and collaboration. In the past year, the White House, the State Department, and USAID have organized a variety of religious outreach and interfaith programs, which have been publicized by U.S. embassies. Interfaith engagement programs like these, particularly those involving youth and emerging leaders, are very promising and can yield significant long-term diplomatic gains. As they expand these initiatives, policymakers would benefit from considering programs at leading American universities that model approaches to religious pluralism and, in turn, engaging these universities as partners in advancing the Obama Administration’s goals.

The Speech and the Follow-Up

n Cairo, President Obama announced a new era of collaboration with Muslim communities in an atmosphere of “mutual interest” and “mutual respect.” He proposed to “turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action.” This speech set a high standard, and it proved challenging to many officials in Washington who often shy away from specific discussion of religion in foreign policy, either due to personal discomfort or fear of somehow violating the Establishment Clause. As it reads, however, the 14 Religio Fall 2010

A version of this article first appeared on www.RFIAonline.org, the online publication of The Review of Faith & International Affairs. 1.

15 Establishment Clause does not prohibit interaction with has increased during the last year, religious engagement religious groups and leaders for the purposes of secular with young foreign audiences remains one area where more U.S. Government goals. The Cairo speech prompted could be done in order to sustain the fruits of interfaith the U.S. Government to begin seeking ways to engage collaboration in the long term. Emerging leaders who religious actors and communities more intentionally than better understand their neighbors of other faiths should ever before. have more success in their pursuit of development and President Obama’s proposal requires a definition of the security goals in their countries. term “interfaith” and an explanation of its importance for A University Model U.S. diplomacy. For the purposes of the U.S. Government, olicymakers and diplomats can further promote “interfaith” activities link two or more religious groups interfaith dialogue and collaboration by learning without compromising their distinct identities. Interfaith from the experiences of American university campuses. dialogue and collaboration are certainly important for Although scholars such as George Marsden have building bridges between the religions involved. However, chronicled the decreasing prevalence of universitythese activities are equally important for the U.S. sponsored religious activity in elite American institutions,1 Government to foster as a way of advancing U.S. interests student-driven religious life on campus flourishes in through several means. Working across religious lines is greater diversity than ever before. American universities necessary to achieve development are frequently microcosms of the goals, such as strengthening public effects of globalization, and one of health, education, and infrastructure, these effects is an increase in religious which affect people of all religions in diversity. Many universities have pluralistic countries. Development is responded to such pluralism by critical to achieving and preserving increasing opportunities for interfaith peace and security. Interfaith activity dialogue and collaboration. These also facilitates the intangible healing universities could be a model for process among communities scarred by policies and programs which the U.S. violence. The resulting international Government can export overseas. peace and security permit the U.S. to For instance, Duke University was focus on constructive goals, such as founded as a Methodist institution trade and domestic priorities, rather but retains few official vestiges of than on mere self-preservation or its religious affiliation aside from its protection of interests. landmark chapel and the graduateA year after Cairo, U.S. level Duke Divinity School. Among Government agencies have successfully engaged religious the nominal references to religion remaining in the actors in a variety of ways. For instance, a number of university bylaws, the United Methodist Church officially embassies around the world hosted iftars to break the confirms two-thirds of the university’s Board of Trustees.2 fast during Ramadan, to which both Muslim and other Today, the campus hosts more than 25 registered Religious religious leaders were invited. The U.S. Government also Life groups involving more than 1,500 students,3 only 60 hosted interfaith conferences in Jakarta, Indonesia, and of whom report being United Methodist undergraduates Dhaka, Bangladesh, which focused on building dialogue as of Fall 2010.4 As just one example of the religious and collaboration among religious leaders in pursuit of community’s vibrant diversity, Imam Abdullah Antepli, peace and development goals. Embassies and consulates the Muslim campus minister, is one of a handful of frequently utilized existing U.S. exchange programs, such Muslim chaplains who has led prayer on the floor of the as the International Visitor Leadership Program, to send U.S. House of Representatives.5 influential domestic religious leaders to programs in the At Duke, many of the reasons for interfaith dialogue U.S. Many participants in the iftars, conferences, and and collaboration parallel those motivating U.S. policies. exchange programs reported leaving with vastly better perceptions of the U.S., particularly its respect for Islam. First, given Duke’s religious diversity, students must work with those of other religions in their courses and While the U.S. Government’s interfaith activity abroad extracurricular endeavors if they are to succeed. Students’

President Obama’s proposal requires a definition of the term “interfaith” and an explanation of its importance for U.S. diplomacy.

15 Religio Fall 2010

academic and professional standards and those of the university would make religious discrimination inefficient and counterproductive, even if it were not unethical. In other countries, development objectives likewise demand interfaith dialogue and collaboration in an increasing number of settings. Second, though less critical at Duke than abroad, interfaith dialogue and collaboration on campus can imbue students with positive mental associations with religious groups to which they might not otherwise have positive exposure in their formative years. This author, for example, arrived at Duke from suburban Florida having scarcely met any Muslims, but he now values friendships with a number of them. Duke graduates will carry these better impressions of other religions into careers and communities, where they will influence others’ perceptions. This “spillover effect” demonstrates on campus the kind of healing which the U.S. Government’s interfaith activities encourage in scarred communities abroad. Duke‘s interfaith dialogue and collaboration are expanding. At the administrative level, the Faith Council regularly convenes staff and faculty sponsors of campus religious groups to discuss crosscutting issues and host joint events. At the student level, the Interfaith Dialogue Project (IDP) provides a space for diverse students to meet and build understanding of each others’ faith traditions. Several IDP members have taught a well-received interfaith dialogue “house course,” a reduced credit course taught by students to students. The Duke Partnership for Service, Duke’s governance body for student-led service initiatives, recently introduced a liaison to faith-based organizations. As the inaugural liaison, this author is currently recruiting the participation of campus religious groups and intends to promote their collaboration as a way of pooling resources, enlarging impact, and building bonds. Finally, many religious groups on 16 Religio Fall 2010

campus have liaisons dedicated to building their own relationships with other groups in Duke’s dynamic religious community through such events as a Muslim-Jewish iftar and a Jewish-Catholic Shabbat. Applying University Lessons

bviously, the interfaith context in other countries differs from American universities in important ways. Most relevant here, there is a higher urgency for interfaith dialogue and collaboration in contentious international contexts than in the peaceful, contructive interfaith settings in many American universities. At the same time, these international settings present more potential barriers to dialogue and thus less chance of collaboration. A history of conflict or socioeconomic disparity between religions both begs and inhibits conciliatory measures. Thus, the U.S. Government faces an “interfaith Catch-22” in which interfaith engagement is often most difficult in the countries which need it most. Nevertheless, lessons from universities are applicable and exportable for U.S. Government purposes in a majority of settings. One notable opportunity lies in efforts to reach youth of diverse religious backgrounds. Currently, the U.S. Government primarily engages universities in international interfaith efforts by sending professors on speaking tours. Although these speakers undoubtedly impart important knowledge abroad, laying the groundwork for interfaith dialogue and collaboration, American university students are better positioned to tell their foreign peers how interfaith interaction actually takes place in pluralistic American society. For example, the State Department could tailor some of its International Visitor exchanges to give foreign student religious leaders firsthand exposure to the interfaith activities common at American universities such as Duke. Even more easily, the U.S. Government could leverage its existing Digital Video Conference (DVC) program to connect domestic and foreign youth at

Abdullah Antepli “As the Muslim chaplain at Duke University, Imam Abdullah Antepli is one of only a handful of full-time Muslim chaplains at U.S. colleges and universities. His work at Duke focuses on three primary areas: religious leadership for Duke’s Muslim community; pastoral care and counseling for persons of any faith, or of no ascribed faith; and intra- and interfaith work. In addition to his pastoral duties, Imam Abdullah also serves as an adjunct faculty member in the Divinity School and teaches introductory courses on Islam. A proverbial presence on campus, he engages students, faculty, and staff through seminars, panels, and other avenues to provide an Islamic voice to discussions of faith, spirituality, social justice and other topics.”*

17 lower cost and higher impact. Through visitor programs N otes End and/or DVCs, American youth would not only share their experiences but in turn learn from their foreign peers the unique challenges to interfaith dialogue in other contexts. 1 See George Marsden, The Soul of the American Both parties should leave enriched. University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Such an initiative could be built through existing Nonbelief (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). U.S. Government contacts with American interfaith 2 Bylaws of Duke University, Duke University website. organizations such as the Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC). Available from: http://trustees.duke.edu/governing/ IFYC cultivates partnerships with American universities, bylaws.php (accessed 13 October 2010). making the organization a tremendous resource for 3 “Religious Life at Duke,” Duke University website. identifying campuses with strong records on interfaith Available from: http://www.chapel.duke.edu/ dialogue. The U.S. Government could also leverage its religiouslife.html (accessed 13 October 2010). internship programs to identify students excited about 4 Information obtained from Christy Lohr Sapp, sharing their interfaith experience with foreign peers. Associate Dean of Religious Life, on her request from Opportunities for applying the American university the Duke University Registrar (email 22 September model should rapidly present themselves once this model 2010). receives more attention from U.S. Government officials. 5 See video of the prayer at http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=2xiRa6h7KBQ (accessed 13 October 2010). Interfaith Diplomacy In conclusion, interfaith dialogue and collaboration have * Duke University Student Affairs, “Muslim Life at received less attention relative to the other components of Duke: Abdullah Antepli,” available from http://www. the President’s Cairo address and less absolute attention studentaffairs.duke.edu/muslimlife/profile/abdullahthan they should given their strategic importance. The antepli; Internet; accessed 20 November 2010. U.S. Government need not reinvent the wheel in order to overcome the problem posed by the “interfaith Catch-22.” Rather, officials can look to American university campuses for interfaith engagement models and to college students for willing partners. Promoting religious pluralism abroad using human resources from home just might be one of the most effective ways of achieving President Obama’s initiatives for the Muslim world.

17 Religio Fall 2010

Interested in Creating an Interfaith House? Email: christy.lohr@duke.edu

eflections on

iving in intentional Christian community has a long history in the church, from the beginning chapters of the book of Acts to the New Monasticism movement today. This emphasis placed on Christian community, particularly in modern life, seems primarily to be a reaction against

20 Religio Fall 2010

the perceived modern culture of individualism or an attempt to return to the ways of the early Christian church. In its highest form, the impulse to emphasize community stems from the conviction that the best expression of Christian life is found in community. This emphasis could lead to a rush to find a church

home, a campus fellowship or another communal activity to meet our specific needs without pausing to consider the eternal implications of our choice. If this is the case, we are in danger of losing something essential in the Christian faith. True community can only take place, particularly in a Christian context, when the

n Kierkegaardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Community: God & the Individual By: Hannah Peckham members of that community are in a proper relationship with God as individuals. What ought to distinguish a Christian community from any other group or organization is that its members truly relate to each other as individuals standing before God and not as members of a crowd. Paradoxically, this

emphasis on our responsibility to the world and to God as individuals will lead to a healthier understanding of the role of community in Christian life and, ideally, to a promotion of unity in our broken world.

of individuals in right relationship to God, one must understand why a firm grasp on the individual is essential. In his book, Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing, SĂ¸ren Kierkegaard argues that all people will stand as individuals In order to understand how to before God at the end of their have a truly Christian community lives and will give an account for how they failed to will one

21 Religio Fall 2010

thing, the Good, exclusively and with the correct motives. Kierkegaard’s emphasis on individuality stems from the recognition that, in the end, individuals will no longer have excuses for why they did not glorify God and live life to the fullest. This means that individuals must remember “the most important thing of all: to support righteousness and justice with selfsacrifice in the service of the truth.”1 The eternal responsibility that this mandates must always be at the forefront of our minds.

God’s voice as an individual.”4

Living life in a crowd, even in a group of like-minded people seeking the heart of God, can lead people to neglect their own individual responsibility before God. “If you do not live in some out-ofthe-way place in the world, if you live in a populous city, and you direct your attention outwards, sympathetically engrossing yourself in the people and in what is going on, do you remember each time you throw yourself in this way into the world around you, that in this relation, you relate…to yourself as an individual with eternal responsibility?”5

In the day-to-day struggles of life, in the process of getting older, in trying to live well in relation to our families and communities, how do we continually resolve to will only one thing? Repentance and remorse are a Caring for the needs of others, trying constant part of the eternal nature of to be with people and not just work for them, must never be done without man, and not the temporal one. remembering individual responsibility. “For in the temporal, and sensual, True community is difficult to achieve and social sense, repentance is in because of the inherent tension fact something that comes and between unity and individuality, or goes during the years…[But] to “seamed seamlessness”, as Joseph assert anything of this sort is to Swanson calls it. confuse the Eternal with what the Eternal is least like—with human “Community suggests a group that forgetfulness.”2 is able to see itself in two kinds of different light at the same time, a Kierkegaard calls the process group that is able to see itself as both of repenting and remembering consisting of isolated and separate eternal responsibility ‘renewed individuals and at the same time as remembrance.’3 one unified and organic whole.”6 Kierkegaard argues that this repentance and remembrance should This tension, and the corresponding take place in silence and in solitude, refusal to acknowledge this tension, because he considers the temptations means that most communities, including Christian ones, are far more of the crowd very alluring. like Kierkegaard’s worldly crowd “The most ruinous evasion of all than they are true communities of is to be hidden in the crowd in an individuals in right relationship to attempt to escape God’s supervision God. of him as an individual, in an Since the individual is so important, attempt to get away from hearing 22 Religio Fall 2010

“Søren Aabye Kierkegaard (b. 1813, d. 1855) was a profound and prolific writer in the Danish “golden age” of intellectual and artistic activity. His work crosses the boundaries of philosophy, theology, psychology, literary criticism, devotional literature and fiction. Kierkegaard brought this potent mixture of discourses to bear as social critique and for the purpose of renewing Christian faith within Christendom.” *

how can a community truly function as a community of individuals? “This does not demand that you withdraw from life, from an honorable calling, from a happy domestic life. On the contrary, it is precisely that consciousness which will sustain and clarify and illuminate what you are to do in the relations of life.”7

While repentance, in solitude if necessary, is essential, you cannot best glorify God in the world by withdrawing from relationships and the other ‘distractions’ of life. Remembering our eternal responsibility means that we can relate properly to other people and, in this way, create true community. Paradoxically, individuality creates unity when a community embraces each person’s perpetual responsibility to will the Good with a pure heart. “For all clannishness is the enemy of universal humanity. But to will only one thing, genuinely to will the Good, as an individual, to will to hold fast to God, which things each person without exception is capable of doing, this is what unites.”8

EndNotes 1 Søren Kierkegaard, Purity of Heart Is to Will One Thing

(New York: HarperCollins, 1956), 112. 2 Ibid., 45. 3 Ibid., 31. 4 Ibid., 185. 5 Ibid., 189. 6 Joseph Swanson, “Toward Community: The Relationship Between Religiosity and Silence in the Works of Søren Kierkegaard,” Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council 4, no. 2 (2003): 17. 7 Søren Kierkegaard, Purity of Heart Is to Will One Thing, 197. 8 Ibid., 206. 9 Ibid., 98. * Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy“Søren Kierkegaard” Pulblished by William McDonald available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard; Internet; accessed 26 November 2010.

The purpose of Christian community is two-fold: to create a God-glorifying environment where people feel welcome and find a home, and to make the world a better place for everybody in it. This purpose can really only be fulfilled when our relationships within community are ordered around the remembrance of our relationship to God. The recognition of the value of each individual before God allows a Christian community to fulfill both of these objectives. “When the good man truly stands on the other side of the boundary line inside the fortification of eternity, he is strong, stronger than the whole world. He is strongest of all at the time when he seems to be overcome.”9

Living in intentional Christian community means joining with good-willed men and women who embrace their responsibility before God and work together to heal a broken world.

23 Religio Fall 2010

24 Religio Fall 2010

Photo Courtesy of Les Todd of Duke Photography

By: Janet Xiao

Hauerwas’ Alternative: The Identifiable Church in Postmodern Society1

n any culture, religious groups and individuals must find a means of interacting with the world surrounding them. For some, this means delineating a distinction between the public and private life. For others, religious beliefs begin to justify political beliefs and encourage individuals to influence larger society into pursuing or avoiding certain activities. Deliberately or not, religious communities wrestle with how to act politically and ethically without losing their traditions and languages or compromising the integrity of their faith. Within the Judeo-Christian tradition, dissension abounds regarding the Church’s role in politics. Stanley Hauerwas, a Protestant theologian who teaches at the Duke Divinity School, writes prolifically regarding this issue. His set of views deviates from mainstream Protestant theology, but allows the Christian Church to uphold a deeply distinctive identity. His view of Christian ethics can be distilled into one statement: that “the political task of Christians is to be the church rather than to transform the world.”1 In this essay, I will summarize Hauerwas’ theology and offer some reflective insights through the critiques of Reinhold Niebuhr and James Gustafson. Liberalism & Hauerwas’ Postliberalism

Instead of diving straight into an explanation of Hauerwas’ assertion that the Church must “be the Church,” I will first attempt to unwrap Hauerwas’ theology from its source. Hauerwas identifies with the philosophical view of antifoundationalism, which eschews the epistemological starting point of mainstream modern philosophy – Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” – in favour of the presumption that one starts in a “sea of knowing.”2 Ontology, thus, precedes epistemology, and the condition for assessing arguments is no longer found internally in the rationality of our minds, but within the traditions of a community.3 In addition to this dismissal of modernism, one of Hauerwas’ most salient statements is that the Church’s traditions do not mesh with those of liberalism. Thus, the Church should also reject liberalism as a social and A Voice of the Church: political system.

Hauerwas (left) is the Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Ethics at Duke Divinity School

Hauerwas quotes Hans Reiders in defining liberalism as a system in which “individuals are free to live their own lives as they prefer, provided that they allow other people equal freedom to do the same, and provided that they accept and receive a fair share of the burden

1. This is an adaptation of an essay written for Public Policy 195S

25 Religio Fall 2010

and benefits of the social cooperation.”4 This affirms the Rawlsian criterion of reciprocity.5 Essentially a social contract theory, this model often confines religious opinion to the private realm, applicable only to its practitioners, and barred from entering into the public arena. In Rawls’ words, political action is appropriate only when we “reasonably think that other citizens might also reasonably accept [our] reasons.”6 Therefore, in order for religious assertions to be suitable in politics, they must be phrased in a way that is relevant to all of society.

Political philosopher Jeffrey Stout, with whom Hauerwas has exchanged lengthy academic dialogue, voices an alternative view on liberalism. Unlike many liberal voices that dismiss religious voices in the public arena, Stout welcomes religious opinions in public political discourse. Stout sees American liberalism as a social and political system that “encourages individuals to stand up, think for themselves, and demand recognition of their rights.”7 A religious individual, then, should exercise the right of free expression of religion in the political realm. Stout’s views on liberalism evolved mainly out of necessity within modern pluralistic American society. Stout allows space for religious individuals and institutions to continue the conversation speaking from their personal religious beliefs because of his “dialogical” view of ethical and political discourse. 8 “On [Stout’s] model, each individual starts off with a cultural inheritance that might well come from many sources.”9 Thus, whether religious or not, each individual’s perspective is shaped by the narrative of his or her community. Although both Hauerwas and Stout share this postmodern framework, Hauerwas disagrees with both Rawls’ and Stout’s conceptualizations of religious discourse in the political realm.

in the context of postmodernism, “finding some way to communicate in a universal language of morality is impossible, so Christians should not even try.”12 For instance, Hauerwas identifies some of this common language in phrases such as “peace” and “justice,”13 and he criticizes liberal American Protestantism for making these concepts into ends themselves. A Church that focuses on the language of peace or justice loses the language of the Cross, a trade-off that is not worth the inclusiveness or seeker-friendliness that may be gained. If the Church were to lose sight of the Cross, it would lose itself.

“

Hauerwas points out that both the liberal and conservative churches are “basically accommodationist (that is, Constantinian) in their social ethic. Both assume wrongly that the American church’s primary social task is to underwrite American democracy. In doing so, they have unwittingly underwritten the moral presuppositions that destroy the church.”14 Unapologetically, he pits nationalism against adherence to God, equating democratic liberalism with idolatry. A major reason behind this strong assertion is that liberalism is founded upon individualism. Hauerwas describes the narrative of liberalism as one in which “the primary entity of democracy is the individual … [therefore] society is formed to supply our needs.”15 The Church then succumbs to this system, “existing to encourage individual fulfilment rather than being a crucible to engender individual conversion into the Body.”16 The “freedom” of liberal democracy is what Hauerwas refers to as “the tyranny of our own desires,”17 18 According to Hauerwas, for the Christian Church, the and what Bernard Shaw calls “Hell.” rejection of modernism must be accompanied by a rejection The Confessing Church of liberalism – namely, post-liberalism. Theologically, According to H.R. Niebuhr, the church can either Hauerwas draws upon the Johannine concept of the “be willing to suppress its peculiarities in order to “kingdom of God” versus “the world.”10 The liberal- participate responsibly in the culture,”19 or otherwise leaning church has long sought to make Christianity withdraw irresponsibly from the world. Hauerwas reasonable “within the epistemic presuppositions of fundamentally rejects Niebuhr’s statement because the modernity” by finding a common moral language with church’s narrative is one that necessarily sets it apart which to engage the rest of the world.11 He asserts that, from the rest of the world. As a collective community,

26 Religio Fall 2010

A Church whic language of peac the language of t

27 “[Christians] are a ‘storied people’ because the God that sustains [them] is a ‘storied God.’”20 Due to the necessity to exist as “a people who are clearly differentiated from the world,”21 the Christian community thus, in H.R. Niebuhr’s words, “lives and defines itself in action vis-à-vis the world.”22

ethics as separate from secular ethics because of its marked community identity. Both scholars find themselves living and writing in a postmodern context, and thus share an understanding of the essential role that history and the narrative plays in the determination of the individual’s and In Hauerwas’ view, it does so by “be[ing] the community’s morality and ethics. Nevertheless, community of the cross.”23 Instead of having the two Christian ethicists have significantly to pick between the Troeltschian framework of different evaluations for what is considered truth, a “world-affirming ‘church’ or world-denying and Gustafson strongly disagrees with Hauerwas’ ‘sect,’24 Hauerwas challenges the church to emphasis on the Church’s sociological separation “confront the world with from larger culture. a political alternative While Hauerwas’ theology is rooted in the the world would not Biblical narrative and seeks truth and knowledge otherwise know,”25 a within the tradition and language of the Christian church that Yoder names community, Gustafson’s evaluation for truth “the confessing church.”26 is still grounded in rationalism. In describing Hauerwas identifies such Gustafson, Richard McCormick notes, “his major a Church’s role as twofold: sources are human experiences and the sciences. prophetic and priestly. The Biblical materials must pass the test presented former is contingent upon the Church’s belief by these twin sources. Similarly, if piety has no that “it exists not for its own sake but for sound base in these sources, it must32be regarded the world”27 – not in the activist Church’s as deceptive and be reconstructed.” Gustafson prioritization of “the building of a better society perceives his own view as fundamentally … [over] the reformation of the church,”28 nor theocentric: “Gustafson’s deity is not one who is with human benefits in the conversionist Church’s privatization of chiefly or solely concerned 33 religion, which lacks a social ethic of its own. The and well-being.” For humans to take on an means, by which the Christian community is to anthropocentric theological view (as Hauerwas prophetically witness to the world surrounding does) is, in his eyes, ignorant of the history of it, is to “face heavenwards … and others will be nature that scientific study has revealed. For inspired to look heavenwards for themselves.”29 Hauerwas, however, there is no other way for The principle priestly role of the Church, then, is humans to practice and understand God outside “ordering the life of those inside the body … to of the narrative through34 which they experience model sustainable life before God.”30 Whether the him: the “storied God” of the Scriptures and church understands and practices things rightly their community. Thus, he accuses Gustafson of 35 is thus a key concern: the confessing church’s “an unchastened Enlightenment rationalism.” sole political commitment is “the congregation’s Reynolds measures the fundamental disagreement between the two scholars as the level to which determination to worship Christ in all things.”31 they perceive that “the received Christian story Critical Reflections: Contrasting Gustafson directs us to truthful living”36 – Gustafson rejects & Hauerwas it because it does not measure up to his standards Hauerwas was a student of James M. Gustafson at of coherence and performance, whereas Hauerwas Yale’s Divinity school. Many of his key concepts he must adhere to it faithfully because the biblical learns from or shares with Gustafson, including the Christian story is the basis for the story that narrative theology and historicism, and Christian his Christian community lives out. According

ch focuses on the ce or justice loses the Cross...

”

27 Religio Fall 2010

to Hauerwas, for Christians, concepts such as “peace” or “justice” can only be understood, therefore, in the context of the biblical narrative: “it is Jesus’ story that gives content to our faith, judges any institutional embodiment of our faith, and teaches us to be suspicious of any political slogan that does not need God to make itself credible.”37

the traditions and languages that their faith communities nurture in them. To Hauerwas, a Christian Church is marked to be an outstanding “alternative” when it is a community that, amongst other Biblical acts and attitudes, seeks reconciliation, practices nonviolence, “people are faithful to their promises, love their enemies, tell the truth, honor the poor, [and] suffer for 44 Gustafson’s main criticism of Hauerwas righteousness.” According to Hauerwas, arises from a Troeltschian categorization of by uncompromisingly adhering to these churches. Troeltsch categorizes Christian practices as a global community, the bodies as either “sect” or “church”38 – the Christian Church most effectively exists former being “irresponsibly detached”39 as the “salt 45of the earth … [and] light of from the surrounding culture, and the the world.” latter, responsibly transforming the world. Gustafson regards Hauerwas’ model of ecclesiology to be the former – a sectarian withdrawal. Although providing a clear identity and distinction for the church, it isolates Christianity “from the wider world of science and culture and limits the participation of Christians … in the patterns of interdependence in the world.”40 Hauerwas’ response is to reject the dualistic Troeltschian typology of complete involvement or complete withdrawal, and describes the role of the Church as “provid[ing] the interpretative categories to help Christians better understand the positive and negative aspects of their societies and guide their subsequent selective participation.”41 He concludes that the church community’s “form of … participation will vary given the nature of the societies in which we find ourselves.”42

auerwas’ Church is one that seeks to exist as a witness, rather than actively seek ways to identify with outward culture in order to transform it. As he points out, however, this does not mean that the Christian community is cloistered from society, or cannot participate in social justice-related causes – by setting up the Church as an alternative way, Hauerwas frees it from “the false … dilemma of whether to be in or out of the world,”43 and calls people of faith to act out of 28 Religio Fall 2010

“Ernst Troeltsch was a German Protestant theologian who made major scholarly contributions to theology, social ethics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of history, and sociology of religion. Troeltsch was preoccupied for much of his academic career with the advent of modern civilization and its implications for Christianity. His scholarly research was driven by a passionate concern for the wellbeing of the church and its relationship to society. Troeltsch perceived that the church in Europe at the dawn of the twentieth century was encountering an entirely new set of social realities in the wake of the Enlightenment: industrialization, urbanization, the emergence of the nation state, and revolutionary intellectual developments in scientific and historical studies. As Troeltsch surveyed the landscape of Europe in the early years of the twentieth century he worried about the present condition and future prospects of western civilization; he did not share the optimism that many of his contemporaries in church and society exhibited.”*

EndNotes 1 Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, Resident Aliens (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989), 38. 2 Stanley Hauerwas, interview by PP196S.02, 26 March, 2010, Duke University, Durham, NC. 3 Ibid. 4 Stanley Hauerwas and Jean Vanier, Living Gently in a Violent World: The Prophetic Witness of Weakness (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 81-82. 5 John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), xlii. 6 Ibid. 7 Jeffrey Stout, Democracy and Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 25. 8 Ibid., 74. 9 Ibid. 10 Stanley Hauerwas, interview by PP196S.02. 11 Stanley Hauerwas, Dispatches from the Front: Theological Engagements with the Secular (Durham: Duke University Press, 1995), 7. 12 Mark Toulouse, God in Public: four ways American Christianity and public life relate (Louisville, KY: 2006), 173. 13 Stanley Hauerwas, Resident Aliens, 42. 14 Ibid., 32. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid., 33. 17 Ibid., 32. 18 Ibid., 33. 19 Ibid., 41. 20 Ibid., 57. 21 Ibid. 22 Stanley Hauerwas, “The Church in a Divided World: The Interpretative Power of the Christian Story,” The Journal of Religious Ethics 8, no. 1 (1980), 57.

23 Stanley Hauerwas, Resident Aliens, 47. 24 Ibid., 40. 25 Ibid., 41. 26 Ibid., 45. 27 Stanley Hauerwas and Samuel Wells, The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 21. 28 Stanley Hauerwas, Resident Aliens, 44-45. 29 Stanley Hauerwas and Samuel Wells, The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics, 21. 30 Ibid., 22. 31 Stanley Hauerwas, Resident Aliens, 45. 32 Richard A. McCormick, “Gustafson’s God: Who? What? Where?” The Journal of Religious Ethics 13, no. 1, (1985), 56. 33 Ibid., 55. 34 Stanley Hauerwas, “The Church in a Divided World: The Interpretative Power of the Christian Story,” 57. 35 Ibid., 400. 36 Ibid., 405. 37 Stanley Hauerwas, Resident Aliens, 38. 38 Ibid., 39. 39 Stanley Hauerwas, Resident Aliens, 40. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid., 14. 43 Stanley Hauerwas, Resident Aliens, 43. 44 Ibid., 46. 45 Matt. 5:13 (NIV) *Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Theology “Ernst Troeltsch”. avaiable from http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/ troeltsch.htm; Internet; 26 November 2010.

29 Religio Fall 2010

The Next

Stanza

By Sam: Zimmerman

he air was thick in my math class. Like a cloud hanging over our heads, the impending midterm was suffocating us all. One lone student finally voiced the communal groan of the class and boldly announced mid-proof, “Heinrich, We are all going to fail Friday. There is too much covered in this class.” The professor turned from the dusty chalk board for an instant and in a whimsical tone replied, “That’s one of the criticisms they had of Mozart—that he used too many notes.” Alternatively, I recently saw a hilarious video by the Australian Comedy Band Axis of Awesome. In “The Four Chord Song,” the band laments how they have not been able to climb the pop charts, to which one of the duo posits that it’s because they don’t have a ‘Four Chord Song.’ They then proceed to catalogue thirtyeight famous songs from the past thirty years that have been composed entirely of the exact same four chords. The discrepancy between these two forms of musical experience made me think about Worship Music. The

30 Religio Fall 2010

By: Sam Zimmerman

music I listened to on K-Love* as I went about my daily activities seemed fundamentally different from the classics. With each stanza packed with interchange yet independence and power yet simplicity, Mozart’s emotional pieces demand the listener’s full attention. Contemporary Christian music seemed more like something I could offhandedly mix into my daily activities. The axiomatic difference in experience between these two types of music has profound implications for music’s place in Christian culture. It is my opinion that understanding this dichotomy will enhance and embolden the discussion and movement of sacred music throughout our era. By examining their cultural origins, aesthetic appeal, and focus, I hope to show that the way in which the Church treats her music demonstrates how she treats others, herself, and God. Music is an extension of culture. Can one separate the creation of Afro-American Spiritual from the cotton fields of the South? Or the formation of Gregorian chants 1.

Contemporary Christian Radio Station

from the monks’ lives of solitude and community? Or the compositions of jazz from the oppression of segregation? Or even the penning of the Psalms from ancient Israel? Indeed, music is an expression of experience. Worship music, as it is focused upon God, is therefore an expression of the way God reveals Himself to culture. Albert (Hendrick) van den Heuvel aptly notes, “There is ample literature about the great formative influence of the hymns of a tradition on its members. Tell me what you sing, and I’ll tell you who you are!”** While one can observe music through the lens of culture, one can learn just as much about a culture from the music it produces. Musical aesthetics vary significantly from culture to culture. C.S. Lewis, in his book An Experiment in Criticism, provides a rubric through which one determines the defining characteristics of a ‘good book.’ He writes that poor literature prompts one to use the work often for personal advancement or status. In a great work, one must constantly think and have prominently favorite passages: one must receive the work. Additionally great works push 2.

Sydnor, James Rawlings. Hymns and Their Uses: a Guide to Improved Congregational Singing. (Carol Stream, IL: Agape, 1982). 180.

31 the reader’s thoughts into places he would have never treaded alone. These ponderings are so large that they must be constantly reflected upon, often accompanied by conversation with others to grasp their meaning. Lewis elaborates on a theme apparent through St. Augustine and Kant saying that when an individual uses a book, one “treats it as assistance for their own activities,”*** but when one receives a work, they “exert their senses and imagination and various other powers according to a pattern invented by the artist.” **** This concept naturally extends to music. Christian music can, like modern music in general, exacerbate the tendency to use music. Constant evangelization, psychological principles, or required novelty in our music reduce a musical work to something for individual use. On the other hand, the awe-inspiring hymns of the Church’s tradition still lead and compel Christian’s mind to the infinite simplicity of the triune God she worships. In All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes, Kenneth Meyers furthers Lewis’ analysis positing, “Are 3.

Lewis, Clive Stapleton An Experiment in Criticism. (London, England), 88. 4. Lewis, Clive Stapleton An Experiment in Criticism. (London, England), 88.

31 Religio Fall 2010

there natural virtues of sympathy, of love, of justice, of mercy and of wisdom that can be encouraged by the aesthetic experience? According to Lewis, learning to ‘receive’ a work does encourage the habits of the heart that have effects on other areas of our lives.”***** Can music that we use encourage those same habits? Lewis does not mean that music for ‘use’ is worthless or prohibited, but that it must be taken in moderation. There is certainly a place for music an individual uses. For example, while fast food has its place, if that is all one eats, one will miss the experience of the gourmet meal. Musical isolation without comparison to other kinds of works may limit and frustrate the experiences of the listener. By being constantly surrounded with a “have it your way” mentality, one may very well miss the objective quality of an exquisite experience, simply because one’s vision is bound by the gaze of one’s individual knowledge. A culture that fosters this mentality can be stuck upon its limited present experience without even knowing it. Most disastrously, Worship Music, a reflection on God, may be chained to what a culture can only immediately grasp. The music sung in church is a spiritual act of understanding our faith throughout the tradition. From the verses in Paul’s Epistles to hymns composed by Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, faith has been realized one stanza at a time. The Church’s conception of faith has also been influenced by music. The most prolific theologian of the last century, Karl Barth, listened to Mozart while penning his theology, even allowing his seminal method of dialectical theology to flow in the form of Mozart’s concertos.****** Dietrich Bonheoffer’s immensely creative theology of community was strongly influenced by his love of classical music, as catalogued in his notes and musings throughout his life. I am also reminded of Wittgenstein whose complex philosophical soil for theological reflection is filled and informed by the music that surrounded him. These similarities invite a more detailed analysis of the link between the

creativity and genius of faith and musical appreciation. It is, however, immediately apparent that there exists a deep, two-way relation between faith and music.

“

. Myers, Ken. All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes: Christians & Popular Culture. (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1989), 180. 6.

Stoltzfus, Philip Edward. Theology as Performance: Music, Aesthetics, and God in Western Thought. (New York: T & T Clark International, 2006), 13. 32 Religio Fall 2010

She can only be a prophetic Church if she is first the body of Christ in history.

”

The tradition behind the Church is informed, compelled, and driven by a complex musical tradition thousands of years old. Utilizing that tradition in the here and now requires the Church to enter into the creative tension of who Christ has revealed himself to be in history, and her eager hope for his future provision. To do this, the Church must sing through the previous stanzas of the tradition, respecting what the Church has proclaimed before, and at the same time eagerly awaiting its future home if she is to add her own verse. She can only be a prophetic Church if she is first the body of Christ in history, all in the great hope that one day the Church of Christ, having sung through the ages, may join the angels singing day and night “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come” (Revelation 4:8 NSRV).

EndNotes Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Geffrey B. Kelly, and F. Burton. Nelson. A Testament to Freedom: the Essential Writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. [San Francisco, Calif.]: Harper San Francisco, 1995. Print. Dawn, Marva J. Reaching out without Dumbing Down: a Theology of Worship for the Turn-of-the-century Culture. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995. Print. Lewis, Clive Stapleton An Experiment in Criticism. London, England. Myers, Ken. All Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Children and Blue Suede Shoes: Christians & Popular Culture. Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1989. Print. Stoltzfus, Philip Edward. Theology as Performance: Music, Aesthetics, and God in Western Thought. New York: T & T Clark International, 2006. Print. Sydnor, James Rawlings. Hymns and Their Uses: a Guide to Improved Congregational Singing. Carol Stream, IL: Agape, 1982. Print. Wittgenstein, Ludwig, G. H. Von Wright, and Heikki Nyman. Culture and Value. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980. Print.

Duke Chapel, More than Just a Building!

Worship with us Sunday Morning at 11:00am

Chorale Vespers Every Thursday at 5:15pm in the Chapel

Holy Communion Every Tuesday at 5:15pm in the Memorial Chapel

Morning Prayer Monday mornings at 9:00am in the Chapel

33 Religio Fall 2010

Meet Our Authors: Jonathan Amgott is a senior Public Policy major at Troy Shelton is a senior History major from LexDuke University where he is the ington, North Carolina, who is inaugural liaison to faith-based currently applying to law school. student groups for the Duke PartMuch of the inspiration for this nership for Service. He previously article and the general framework coordinated interfaith dialogue of its thought derive from Dean for the Duke Catholic Center. In Samuel Wells’ class on Ethics in 2010 Amgott served a summer an Unjust World. He wishes to internship in Washington, DC, focused on issues of extend his gratitude to Dean Wells for helping put religion and foreign affairs. the pieces together. Troy is a Chapel Scholar Adam Hollowell is the assistant director of Duke Chapel PathWays and the staff sponsor for RELIGIO. He teaches courses on politics, religion and ethics at Duke, including Politics, Religion and Radical Democracy (PubPol 196S, Spring), and Faith and Political Violence (Religion 185S, Fall). Hannah Peckham is a junior from Phoenix, Arizona, double majoring in History and Religion. She began reading Kierkegaard during her time as a PathWays Summer Intern, and developed an interest in integrating Kierkegaard’s view of the individual with an understanding of what it means to live in and be a part of a Christian community. Hannah enjoys spending time with friends, eating Trader Joe’s salsa, and going on adventures in Durham. Hannah is a Chapel Scholar

34 Religio Fall 2010

Janet Xiao (Trinity ‘12) hails from Beijing, China, and is majoring in public policy and religion. In the process of trying to figure out whether or not she is a pacifist, she stumbled upon Stanley Hauerwas’ writings and has been in love ever since. In her spare time, she enjoys eating with people, playing video games and wandering around Durham. Janet is a Chapel Scholar. Sam Zimmerman (Trinity ‘12) a Mathematics and Philosophy major from Stoystown Pennsylvania. He loves reading, making excellcent smoothies, playing soccer, eating said smoothies, wrestling, listening to music, waterskiing, and beating his brothers at beach volleyball. Sam is a Chapel Scholar.

&&Contributions

Credits

managing Editors Matthew Gay Gregory Morrison

Editorial Board Jenny Denton Peter Farmer Michael Gay Harrison Hines

Publication Board Michael Gay Sam Zimmerman

Staff Advisor

Dr. Adam Hollowell

Contributing Writers Jonathan Amgott Adam Hollowell hannah Peckham Troy Shelton Janet Xiao Sam Zimmerman

35 Religio Fall 2010

For questions or to get involved in the life of the Chapel, contact Meghan Feldmeyer, Director of Worship at Duke Chapel, Meghan.feldmeyer@duke.edu