Open Access  Subscription or Fee Access

Font Size:     

Stanley Hauerwas is often criticized on the grounds that his work contributes to the erosion of participation in the democratic process. This paper aims to take a closer look at that criticism and Hauerwas. The paper begins by exploring Jeffrey Stout’s criticism of Hauerwas. Stout’s critique is found to be both helpful and admirable. I next consider Hauerwas’s response, which upon a close reading demonstrates that Hauerwas is something of an ally of Stout’s in the struggle for a modest democratic nation state. The paper next offers and analyzes two plausible interpretations of Hauerwas. The first is that Hauerwas is, at heart, a radical democrat who employs Christian theology because of its moral and political payoff. A second and more generous interpretation aligns Hauerwas more closely with his mentor, John Howard Yoder. This latter theological interpretation suggests a more profound difference than that discussed by Stout. For Hauerwas, violence is a fundamental obstacle to constructive participation in government, even democratic government. This is not to say that Hauerwas is simply opposed to participation in the democratic process. Instead, he calls on Christians to participate critically as “witnesses.” He does so by pointing to his vision of the church as an alternative politics. The paper suggests that this critical capacity may at points be able to join with Stout, but that finally Hauerwas operates with a fundamentally different vision of the political arena. My interpretation claims, then, that Hauerwas offers more than Stout recognizes but less than Stout hopes. Finally, I turn to the possibility of a Niebuhrian embracing Hauerwas as an ally.