The relationship between politics and religion in the United States is a hotly debated subject. I will examine the way in which Reinhold Niebuhr and Stanley Hauerwas negotiate the relationship between politics and religion by examining their views on pacifism in the Christian religion and how these views are influenced by their more general interpretations of the state. Hauerwas is a Christian pacifist while Niebuhr abandoned his pacifism early on in his life, and this difference is notable in their beliefs. Niebuhr and Hauerwas agree on a few minor points but nothing major. Ultimately, they disagree over significant views concerning the role of pacifism in Christianity and the morality of individuals in relation to societies. Overall, I consider Niebuhr's interpretation of Christian pacifism more convincing than Hauerwas simply because Niebuhr is realistic and in our current times, realism is necessary.
[...] which there will be enough justice, and in which coercion will be sufficiently non-violent to prevent his common enterprise from issuing into complete disaster,” (Niebuhr, 1932; 22) to deal with this state of war. He offers two approaches in dealing with society's situation—reason and religion. Niebuhr describes how humans have both selfish and unselfish motivations and it is reason that gives man the ability to move beyond his own self-interest. The role of religion in Niebuhr's view is a way to cut the influence of self-interestedness through apology and love. [...]
[...] To Niebuhr, cross of Jesus exemplifies the impossibility of love and forgiveness being politically embodied,” (Hauerwas, 1997; 54) and according to Hauerwas, Niebuhr, the ethic of Jesus is the norm, but also fundamentally irrelevant as a social policy” (Hauerwas, 1997; 54). Hauerwas and Niebuhr both agree that the cross of Jesus, the absolute ethic of Jesus is the model in which society should follow, but Hauerwas sees the cross as a solution while Niebuhr dismisses this idea because it is unrealistic—sin exists and therefore, when considering that sinful actions occur and will continue to occur, sometimes the only answer is responding with coercion and violence. [...]
[...] Hauerwas was educated in the work of Niebuhr, where he learned that you desire justice you had better be ready to kill someone along the (Hauerwas, 2004; 203). It wasn't until Yoder convinced Hauerwas that there is anything to this Christian ‘stuff,' it must surely involve the conviction that the Son would rather die on the cross than for the world to be redeemed by violence” (Hauerwas, 2004; 203). By adopting Yoder's insights, Hauerwas became a Christian pacifist who believed that Christians are nonviolent because they are loyal followers of Christ, not because they believe that Christian pacifism is able to offer a solution to rid the world of evil. [...]
[...] There is no other place for the church to be than here the church's only concern is how to be in the world, in what form, for what purpose.” (Hauerwas, 1989; 43). For Hauerwas, the church has the ability to transform society. Hauerwas holds that the church has the capability to stand against the capitalist driven, self-interested, and secular culture of today's world by offering itself as another option to follow. For Hauerwas, we are embedded in social politics that deny the existence of God and he attempts to bring Jesus back. [...]
[...] Hauerwas views pacifism as a means of providing witness to a higher power and this pacifism is a result of how Hauerwas understands the history of Christianity. Hauerwas is concerned that those who become involved in war do so because they wish to decide how history turns out. By dictating history, they are denying that God controls everything, including history. Hauerwas and Niebuhr disagree on whether or not pacifism is a requirement of Christianity. For Hauerwas, “being a Christian and being a pacifist are not two things for me. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
