在網上流傳一段訪問中，美國神學家侯活士（Stanley Hauerwas）談到雨傘運動期間香港有關他的詮釋論爭，有人以為他所關心是教會事務，不是社會改革，因此反對信徒參與傘運。侯活士強調這理解過於二元，他從沒要求信徒抽離社會。他一向主張信徒以信仰身份介入，視眾生為上主美好創造，同時啟迪他們發揮想像力，省悟到暴力以外另有出路。
“I understand that there’s interpretive arguments going on in Hong Kong about how to read what I’m about. And the umbrella movement has some people saying Hauerwas wouldn’t approve of the umbrella movement because it’s all about church and it’s not about social Reformation. I think that’s an unfortunate dualism. I’ve always said I’m not asking Christians to withdraw from social engagement. I just want them to be there as Christians. And that means that you always have to remember that those that you’re opposing are God’s good creatures. And so you have to work in a way that helps them reframe their position in a way that offers an imaginative alternatives to what they regard as the necessity of violence.”
侯活士認為，他們北美信徒從未體會過香港信徒所受威脅，實在不宜指點港人如何應對。他只重申，非暴力不是一味被動，而是在暴力世界探求新出路的基本條件，挑戰人們以另類視野看待習以為常的生活方式。
“There is no answer that I could give to the question however about those Christians that are threatened by violence in a way that those of us that live in North America simply never experienced. And I feel it would almost be an arrogant position for me to give people like that advice. But I want to say that non-violence is not passivity. It is as a matter of fact the requirement to be as articulate as one can to find alternatives that will make it possible to work for justice in a world of deep violence. And so I think that part of the challenge is to find alternative frameworks that simply haven’t been considered for some of the assumed places that it seems it’s either violence or injustice.”
某程度，侯活士這番話澄清了所謂非暴力實踐其實比普遍理解的「和理非」有更高要求，既要有深刻處境判斷和承擔，也要求批判自省胸襟。
對於著重倫理反省的當代信徒來說，侯活士德性倫理無疑以目的論「另起爐灶」回應決疑論困境，為耶教信仰敘事和社群培育重新定位。然而，要發揮當中巧妙創造力殊不容易，方法上既要詮釋傳統，亦要詮釋自身和處境，從來沒有既定答案可依從。
說到底，在混雜的實踐世界裡，任何行動都要冒險，無論德性倫理或其他學說，都不保證幸福或正義，唯一可努力是方法上保持開放，行動上保持忠誠，在具體處境裡盡量知行合一活出所信，人們自會透過信眾行動看到信仰傳統以至門派學說的影響。
（原載處境信仰資源庫，蒙作者允准轉載。）
