Citation

Woodard‐Lehman DA. J. Relig. Ethics 2008; 36(2): 295-320.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1467-9795.2008.00347.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Today dominative power operates apart from, and exterior to, those state governmentalities that the “body politics” of Stanley Hauerwas disavows as “constantinian” entanglements such as military service, governmental office, and conspicuous expressions of civil religion. This is especially true with respect to those biopolitical modalities David Theo Goldberg names as “racelessness,” by which material inequalities are racially correlated, thereby allowing whiteness to mediate life and ration death. If, as Hauerwas contends, radical ecclesiology is indeed a theopolitical alternative to the nation–state's politics of violence, then it must prove itself resistant to such racialized violence. However, inasmuch as the (largely) uncontested fact of ecclesial segregation recapitulates these broader stratifications and exclusions, the church functions as a passive civil religion and itself participates in the politics of “nonviolent violence.” Thus, Hauerwas must do something that he has been reluctant to do. He must talk about race and racism more directly, specifying how his ecclesiological theopolitics resists such forms of violence; more importantly, he must demonstrate how actual ecclesial congregations instantiate such resistance. In short, to be truly nonviolent, Hauerwas's body politics must become a politics of bodies.