(Part 1)

JBTM Book Reviews
187
author in determining the meaning of a text. One should not, however, be too quick to reject
the entire project. Though there might be some disagreements with those who propose a
type of reader-response hermeneutic, there is still much that conservatives can learn from
them.
Hauerwas provides a brilliant exposition of one of these points. Drawing from Fish,
Hauerwas reminds the reader that the language she speaks is not her own language, but
the language she inherited from her community. In other words, the words a speaker uses
when she speaks do not belong to her. As Hauerwas explains, “That the words we use are
not our words means we in fact often lose control over what we mean when we use them.
. . . That we do not have control of the words we use I think is surely the case if you are
determined, as I have been determined, to think in and with that tradition of speech called
Christianity” (2). One would have to provide an impressive argument here to show that
Hauerwas is wrong. The fact is that persons do no possess the language they use, but rather
they inherit it, along with its meanings, from their respective communities. Neither does this
lead necessarily to one denying objective meaning, nor does it lead necessarily to denying
a correspondence theory of truth. Rather, what Hauerwas says here is a simple reminder to
the reader that she does not get to choose the words she uses; they are determined for her.
Hauerwas states, moreover, “Theologians do not get to choose what they are to think about.
Better put, theologians do not get to choose the words they use. Because they do not get to
choose the words they use, they are forced to think hard about why the words they use are
the ones that must be used. They must also do the equally hard work of thinking about the
order that the words they use must have if the words are to do the work they are meant to do”
(2). Hauerwas makes a good point here in reminding his reader that theologians do not get
to choose their words, and that they should reflect on why they must use these words. The
essay, “How to Write a Theological Sentence,” nicely supplements this point.
Another strength of Hauerwas’s work is his essay, “The ‘How’ of Theology and Ministry.”
Hauerwas begins this essay with the following statement: “What has happened that we
now need to ask what role theology may have for those in ministry?” (103). He discusses
the unfortunate decline for respect for serious theological work in many churches as well
as seminaries. He even goes so far as to say that if what ministers know does not matter
anymore, then the church has become nothing more than another help-organization (106).
Hauerwas is correct here. One cannot separate theology from the work of the church and still
say that it is the work of the church. What ministers know cannot be separated from what
ministers do. Hauerwas’s call for ministers to be actively engaged in the work of theology is a
call that should be answered positively by those ministers, regardless of their denominational
background.
There are some weaknesses to The Work of Theology, however. As noted above, Hauerwas
does not seem to provide a specific order to the essays that comprise this work. Many who
pick up this work might expect each essay to function as chapters do in a book, naturally