What do you think?
Rate this book
A Better Hope
By his own admission never one to duck a good fight, Stanley Hauerwas has in the past three decades established himself as one of our most important and most disputatious theologians. With A Better Hope , he concentrates on the constructive case for the truth and power of the church and its faith, "since Christians cannot afford to let ourselves be defined by what we are against. Whatever or whomever we are against, we are so only because God has given us so much to be for."
Hauerwas here crystallizes and extends profound criticisms of America, liberalism, capitalism, and postmodernism, but also identifies unlikely allies (such as Chicago Archbishop Francis Cardinal George) and locates surprising resources for Christian survival (such as mystery novels). Interlocutors along the way include Reinhold Niebuhr, John Courtney Murray, and, in a significant and previously unpublished essay, social gospeller Walter Rauschenbusch.
Never boring and often telling, A Better Hope demonstrates how a thinker so often accused of being "tribal" and "sectarian" is at the same time one of few contemporary theologians read not just by other theologians, but by political scientists, philosophers, medical ethicists, law professors, and literary theorists.
Hauerwas here crystallizes and extends profound criticisms of America, liberalism, capitalism, and postmodernism, but also identifies unlikely allies (such as Chicago Archbishop Francis Cardinal George) and locates surprising resources for Christian survival (such as mystery novels). Interlocutors along the way include Reinhold Niebuhr, John Courtney Murray, and, in a significant and previously unpublished essay, social gospeller Walter Rauschenbusch.
Never boring and often telling, A Better Hope demonstrates how a thinker so often accused of being "tribal" and "sectarian" is at the same time one of few contemporary theologians read not just by other theologians, but by political scientists, philosophers, medical ethicists, law professors, and literary theorists.
288 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2000
9 people are currently reading
111 people want to read
About the author
Stanley Hauerwas
170 books288 followersStanley Hauerwas (PhD, Yale University) is the Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. He is the author of numerous books, including Cross-Shattered Christ, A Cross-Shattered Church, War and the American Difference, and Matthew in the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible.
America's Best Theologian according to Time Magazine (2001), though he rejected the title saying, "Best is not a theological category."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
June 26, 2024
A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS ON VARIOUS TOPICS
Stanley Hauerwas (born 1940) is an American theologian who was a longtime professor at Duke University. He has written many books, such as Resident Aliens; After Christendom; Unleashing the Scripture; Wilderness Wanderings; Hannah's Child: A Theologian's Memoir, etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2000 book, “I had told myself that 'Sanctify Them in the Truth' would be the last book I would publish until I had finished the Gifford Lectures [see his 'With the Grain of the Universe: The Church's Witness and Natural Theology']. But then I began to think that some of the essays I had written over the past few years were interconnected.”
He adds in the Introduction, “Christians cannot afford to let ourselves be defined by what we are against. Whatever or whomever we are against, we are so only because God has given us so much to be for. [This book] is my attempt to make the ‘for’ more determinative than the ‘against.’ Of course I should like to think that books like ‘After Christendom’ and 'Against The Nations', polemical through they may be, are so only because of what I have been for. I have, of course, mounted what I hope are crushing criticisms of political and theological liberalism. I have done so, however, not because I think political liberalism is peculiarly perverse in comparison to other political options. My problem has … [been] with the widespread assumption shared by many Christians that political liberalism ought to shape the agenda, if not the very life, of the church.” (Pg. 9)
He continues, “I am not suggesting that the reader will find in [this book] a kinder, gentler Hauerwas. I am getting older, but I do not think my increasing age is making me more ‘mellow.’ … I am still mad as h_ll at Christians… for making the practice of the Christian faith so uninteresting. Yet I do hope that the reader will find in this book… resources for resisting the powers that threaten our lives as Christians… [this book] may appear less polemical and more ‘positive’ than some of my past work. In truth… I have simply grown tired of arguments about the alleged virtues or vices of liberalism… That the argument for or against liberalism is interminable does not mean that we cannot learn much from its various mutations. Arguments about liberalism, however, can become a distraction for Christians just to the extent that our agenda is first and foremost set by the church.” (Pg. 10)
He acknowledges, “I confess I have been tempted, and no doubt at times have succumbed to the temptation, to continue to criticize American liberalism in a manner that only confirms such characterizations of my position. Yet I have grown weary of that game. I simply cannot muster energy for yet one more attempt to show the incoherence of liberal political philosophy or practice. Liberalism, both politically and economically, is doing such a good job of self-destructing it needs no help from me. More important, such a tactic theologically manifests a lack of faith. I believe that the American experiment… is in deep trouble. Yet Christians are obligated to be a people of hope, not wishing for the lives of our non-Christian brothers and sisters to be worse than they need to be.” (Pg. 24)
He explains, “That some may have mistaken me as a sympathetic supporter of postmodernism is understandable. After all, I have playfully used postmodern playfulness to try to remind Christians that we are in a life-and-death struggle with the world. I have though the playful use of postmodernism was justified because I have found it difficult to take postmodernism seriously as an intellectual position… That I have not taken postmodernism seriously does not mean I have not taken seriously the work of people like Michel Foucault…” (Pg. 36) He continues, “Postmodernism, in short, is the outworking of mistakes in Christian theology correlative to the attempt to make Christianity ‘true’ apart from faithful witness.” (Pg. 38) He concludes, “I am not suggesting that postmodernism is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Rather, I believe that Frederic Jameson rightly identified postmodernism with the cultural logic of advanced capitalism in which the production of culture has been integrated into commodity production, thus creating the urgency of producing ever fresh waves of novelty.” (Pg. 40)
He points out, “I need to be clear---I am not part of the loyal opposition that would protest the Methodist stated position on homosexuality. I do not think the Methodist position can be opposed, because I think the church is simply too confused on the issue to be able to mount a clear counterposition. I have agreed to write this piece only because I am a Methodist and I feel duty bound to say why we Methodists cannot even get up a good argument about homosexuality.” (Pg. 47)
He continues, “I was a member of the commission [for the Study of Homosexuality established by the Methodist General Conference], but I resigned about halfway through our deliberations… Under the influence of both Wittgenstein and Foucault… I suggested rather than begin talking about homosexuality, we should begin by considering a description Christians use that at least suggests we know what we are talking about, that is, promiscuity. I focused on promiscuity because I though [it] … required a display of the church’s commitment to singleness and marriage as practices that shape how we are called to live as Christians… Needless to say, my strategy got no support from my fellow commission members… As a result the commission’s attention remained fixed on the question whether homosexuality is a good or bad thing.” (Pg. 47-48)
He goes on, “marriage names that practice among Christians wherein the ‘telos’ of sex finds material embodiment. One of the purposes of marriage the church has named is the having of children. That marriage has a procreative end does not entail that every marriage must in fact produce biological heirs, but it does mean that marriage as an institution … of the church is procreative… I would think it quite possible to deny marriage to people who refuse to have their marriages open to children… I am aware that such suggestions appear ‘conservative’ for many who are supporters of the rights of gays. But that is not necessarily the case. For example, if the church had some understanding of when exceptions might be made for marriages that … cannot be biologically procreative, we might have basis for an analogous understanding of some gay relations… In the absence of such practices we are simply left with claims and counterclaims about what is and is not loving and/or scriptural.” (Pg. 49)
He observes, “The obituaries common at retirement homes are poignant indications of the loneliness that seems unavoidable in such circumstances… Anonymous deaths testifying to the sad fact that if you live too long in this society you will, by necessity, die alone. Such anonymity is not just the fate of the elderly but the intensification of our society’s emphasis on autonomy. We believe that our first task is to create our own stories, to make our lives ours, without the help of others… our very attempt to be autonomous prevents the acknowledgement that we are dependent.” (Pg. 176)
This is far from one of Hauerwas’s “best” works, but some of the individual essays contain interesting material---particularly for those studying his theology.
Stanley Hauerwas (born 1940) is an American theologian who was a longtime professor at Duke University. He has written many books, such as Resident Aliens; After Christendom; Unleashing the Scripture; Wilderness Wanderings; Hannah's Child: A Theologian's Memoir, etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2000 book, “I had told myself that 'Sanctify Them in the Truth' would be the last book I would publish until I had finished the Gifford Lectures [see his 'With the Grain of the Universe: The Church's Witness and Natural Theology']. But then I began to think that some of the essays I had written over the past few years were interconnected.”
He adds in the Introduction, “Christians cannot afford to let ourselves be defined by what we are against. Whatever or whomever we are against, we are so only because God has given us so much to be for. [This book] is my attempt to make the ‘for’ more determinative than the ‘against.’ Of course I should like to think that books like ‘After Christendom’ and 'Against The Nations', polemical through they may be, are so only because of what I have been for. I have, of course, mounted what I hope are crushing criticisms of political and theological liberalism. I have done so, however, not because I think political liberalism is peculiarly perverse in comparison to other political options. My problem has … [been] with the widespread assumption shared by many Christians that political liberalism ought to shape the agenda, if not the very life, of the church.” (Pg. 9)
He continues, “I am not suggesting that the reader will find in [this book] a kinder, gentler Hauerwas. I am getting older, but I do not think my increasing age is making me more ‘mellow.’ … I am still mad as h_ll at Christians… for making the practice of the Christian faith so uninteresting. Yet I do hope that the reader will find in this book… resources for resisting the powers that threaten our lives as Christians… [this book] may appear less polemical and more ‘positive’ than some of my past work. In truth… I have simply grown tired of arguments about the alleged virtues or vices of liberalism… That the argument for or against liberalism is interminable does not mean that we cannot learn much from its various mutations. Arguments about liberalism, however, can become a distraction for Christians just to the extent that our agenda is first and foremost set by the church.” (Pg. 10)
He acknowledges, “I confess I have been tempted, and no doubt at times have succumbed to the temptation, to continue to criticize American liberalism in a manner that only confirms such characterizations of my position. Yet I have grown weary of that game. I simply cannot muster energy for yet one more attempt to show the incoherence of liberal political philosophy or practice. Liberalism, both politically and economically, is doing such a good job of self-destructing it needs no help from me. More important, such a tactic theologically manifests a lack of faith. I believe that the American experiment… is in deep trouble. Yet Christians are obligated to be a people of hope, not wishing for the lives of our non-Christian brothers and sisters to be worse than they need to be.” (Pg. 24)
He explains, “That some may have mistaken me as a sympathetic supporter of postmodernism is understandable. After all, I have playfully used postmodern playfulness to try to remind Christians that we are in a life-and-death struggle with the world. I have though the playful use of postmodernism was justified because I have found it difficult to take postmodernism seriously as an intellectual position… That I have not taken postmodernism seriously does not mean I have not taken seriously the work of people like Michel Foucault…” (Pg. 36) He continues, “Postmodernism, in short, is the outworking of mistakes in Christian theology correlative to the attempt to make Christianity ‘true’ apart from faithful witness.” (Pg. 38) He concludes, “I am not suggesting that postmodernism is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Rather, I believe that Frederic Jameson rightly identified postmodernism with the cultural logic of advanced capitalism in which the production of culture has been integrated into commodity production, thus creating the urgency of producing ever fresh waves of novelty.” (Pg. 40)
He points out, “I need to be clear---I am not part of the loyal opposition that would protest the Methodist stated position on homosexuality. I do not think the Methodist position can be opposed, because I think the church is simply too confused on the issue to be able to mount a clear counterposition. I have agreed to write this piece only because I am a Methodist and I feel duty bound to say why we Methodists cannot even get up a good argument about homosexuality.” (Pg. 47)
He continues, “I was a member of the commission [for the Study of Homosexuality established by the Methodist General Conference], but I resigned about halfway through our deliberations… Under the influence of both Wittgenstein and Foucault… I suggested rather than begin talking about homosexuality, we should begin by considering a description Christians use that at least suggests we know what we are talking about, that is, promiscuity. I focused on promiscuity because I though [it] … required a display of the church’s commitment to singleness and marriage as practices that shape how we are called to live as Christians… Needless to say, my strategy got no support from my fellow commission members… As a result the commission’s attention remained fixed on the question whether homosexuality is a good or bad thing.” (Pg. 47-48)
He goes on, “marriage names that practice among Christians wherein the ‘telos’ of sex finds material embodiment. One of the purposes of marriage the church has named is the having of children. That marriage has a procreative end does not entail that every marriage must in fact produce biological heirs, but it does mean that marriage as an institution … of the church is procreative… I would think it quite possible to deny marriage to people who refuse to have their marriages open to children… I am aware that such suggestions appear ‘conservative’ for many who are supporters of the rights of gays. But that is not necessarily the case. For example, if the church had some understanding of when exceptions might be made for marriages that … cannot be biologically procreative, we might have basis for an analogous understanding of some gay relations… In the absence of such practices we are simply left with claims and counterclaims about what is and is not loving and/or scriptural.” (Pg. 49)
He observes, “The obituaries common at retirement homes are poignant indications of the loneliness that seems unavoidable in such circumstances… Anonymous deaths testifying to the sad fact that if you live too long in this society you will, by necessity, die alone. Such anonymity is not just the fate of the elderly but the intensification of our society’s emphasis on autonomy. We believe that our first task is to create our own stories, to make our lives ours, without the help of others… our very attempt to be autonomous prevents the acknowledgement that we are dependent.” (Pg. 176)
This is far from one of Hauerwas’s “best” works, but some of the individual essays contain interesting material---particularly for those studying his theology.
March 18, 2025
You get exactly what you pay for – Stanley Hauerwas saying Stanley Hauerwas things.
In this collection of essays, Hauerwas attempts to soften his usual grumpy "get off my lawn" attitude and paint a more hopeful picture of the Christian life. He's somewhat successful. The first half is classic Hauerwas: a extended diatribe against modernity, liberalism, and Reinhold Niebuhr. As usual, good quotes and quips but lacking in clarity and intelligible arguments. Hauerwas devotes an entire chapter to his infatuation with Yoder; unfortunately, many of his comments there have aged like moldy cheese.
Whenever I read Hauerwas, I get the feeling that I've walked into the very end of a long conversation – the speaker assumes that I've been listening the entire time, and I just have to nod my head and pretend to understand. The problem here is that Hauerwas is a "postliberal" – meaning that he's in critiquing the theological left from the vantage point of someone (more or less) on the left. But as someone who comes from a background of (more or less) the theological right, I'm not privy to the whole Niebuhr/Rauschenbusch/Jenson conversation. My ignorance, of course, is no fault of Hauerwas, but his situatedness does limit the broader usefulness of his work.
I've discovered that Hauerwas is best when you don't take him too seriously. In the second half of the book, he lightens up and discusses more practical church-life questions: friendship, worship, aging, etc, etc. In this vein, his best essay was "McInerny Did It: Or, Should a Pacifist Read Murder Mysteries?" And yes, of course they should.
In this collection of essays, Hauerwas attempts to soften his usual grumpy "get off my lawn" attitude and paint a more hopeful picture of the Christian life. He's somewhat successful. The first half is classic Hauerwas: a extended diatribe against modernity, liberalism, and Reinhold Niebuhr. As usual, good quotes and quips but lacking in clarity and intelligible arguments. Hauerwas devotes an entire chapter to his infatuation with Yoder; unfortunately, many of his comments there have aged like moldy cheese.
Whenever I read Hauerwas, I get the feeling that I've walked into the very end of a long conversation – the speaker assumes that I've been listening the entire time, and I just have to nod my head and pretend to understand. The problem here is that Hauerwas is a "postliberal" – meaning that he's in critiquing the theological left from the vantage point of someone (more or less) on the left. But as someone who comes from a background of (more or less) the theological right, I'm not privy to the whole Niebuhr/Rauschenbusch/Jenson conversation. My ignorance, of course, is no fault of Hauerwas, but his situatedness does limit the broader usefulness of his work.
I've discovered that Hauerwas is best when you don't take him too seriously. In the second half of the book, he lightens up and discusses more practical church-life questions: friendship, worship, aging, etc, etc. In this vein, his best essay was "McInerny Did It: Or, Should a Pacifist Read Murder Mysteries?" And yes, of course they should.
March 23, 2019
Good work from Hauerwas. He tries to leave polemics behind and often fails, but helps the church to understand that the gospel way of life is at odds with the American way of life. This book teaches things that the church badly needs to learn.
February 16, 2016
This is a messy grab bag of a book, composed of various unpublished articles, papers delivered at conferences, a long chapter of an abandoned book, and so on. Despite the confusion of the presentation, however, and despite the sort of chronic difficulty of Hauerwas's style (does anybody else feel like he's writing to a very minute section of humanity and letting the rest of us kind of look through a window while the big kids talk?) there are a lot of isolated triumphs here, and in general a testing, bettering read. Examples of strong points: "the very character of democracy (at least the kind of democracy that characterizes the American political system) is an attempt to substitute freedom -- which turns out primarily the freedom to make money -- for memory."
"What is wrong with torture is not that it violates another person's dignity but that Christians are called to live lives of nonviolence.... Christian nonviolence gains its intelligibility from the cross, where we see our God suffering so that we might be freed from the violence that grips our lives."
You might not agree with Hauerwas's prescriptions for how to go about fixing culture. In fact, I kind of think that he doesn't like it when people do agree with him. But you'll probably agree with his diagnoses that things are drastically wrong, and you might appreciate his attempts to pinpoint some of the sources of the problems.
"What is wrong with torture is not that it violates another person's dignity but that Christians are called to live lives of nonviolence.... Christian nonviolence gains its intelligibility from the cross, where we see our God suffering so that we might be freed from the violence that grips our lives."
You might not agree with Hauerwas's prescriptions for how to go about fixing culture. In fact, I kind of think that he doesn't like it when people do agree with him. But you'll probably agree with his diagnoses that things are drastically wrong, and you might appreciate his attempts to pinpoint some of the sources of the problems.
January 29, 2011
I remain a devotee of Hauerwas, but I was quite disappointed in this book. Maybe I should chalk it up to having binged on religious books lately. I in fact had decided to go back to secular books for a while before reading this, but the pastor of my new church mentioned to me that he had read this recently and liked it. I guess he found something in it that I didn't. Unlike other books of Hauerwas's that I've enjoyed ("Truthfulness and Tragedy," "A Community of Character," "The Peaceable Kingdom," "Resident Aliens") this book seemed completely devoid of a unifying theme, and really came across as "a book of essays I haven't published anywhere else yet." Being Hauerwas, of course, there were still some great moments--"Why Time Cannot and Should Not Heal The Wounds of History" in particular struck me as quite insightful.
Time to read some secular books for a while.
Time to read some secular books for a while.
September 15, 2013
I appreciated the book. I don't agree with many of his points especially on economics. I like much of his challenges to the church. I always enjoy Hauerwas although I don't agree with certain fundamental points of his theology.
August 18, 2014
Hauerwas is a thinker that has refused systematization in his own thought, yet this book seems to be the most clear expression of this thought in short, readable essays.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews