My main critique of Hauerwas is that he negates too much...maybe even for himself.
For example:
"Like Wolterstorff, I too want those who suffer from Alzheimers to have the care that befits their status as human beings. Such care I believe, moreover, is a matter of justice. But I do not think such care is more likely to be forthcoming or sustained by a natural right theory of justice. Instead, what is required is the recovery of communion made possible through the works of mercy.
In particular, a text such as Matthew 25:31-45 makes clear that the works of mercy are not principles or values that then must be translated into a more universal or secular vision of justice. Rather they summon us to participate in God's redemption by feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, harbouring the stranger, visiting the sick, ministering to prisoners and burying the dead. This is how we learn what it means for Jesus to be the justice of God.
I know of no book that exemplifies better this understanding of Jesus as God's justice than Hans Reinders's Receiving the Gift of Friendship: Profound Disability, Theological Anthropology, and Ethics. Reinders observes that much good has been done in the name of disability-rights for creating new opportunities as well as institutional space for the disabled. But such an understanding of justice is not sufficient if we listen to the disabled. They do not seek to be tolerated or even respected because they have rights. Rather they seek to share their lives with us and they want us to want to share our lives with them. In short they want us to be claimed and to claim one another in friendship."
It is one thing to say, (1) "We don't need rights. We just need friendship." It is another thing entirely to say, (2) "Rights are a good step, but they aren't sufficient, and they aren't the end we ultimately aim for, which can't be delivered by rights alone." Sometimes, Hauerwas says the first. (It is what he said to me, at SVS). But then, he goes on to articulate the second. I have big problems with (1), but I'm totally in agreement with (2).
I'd also say that good friendships integrate a respect for the rights of other people, and so setting friendship against rights isn't really helpful. Friendship includes and extends beyond respect for the rights of others. However, an acknowledgment of rights is in no way a threat to real friendship. When rights are violated, friendship is also violated...and respect for the rights of another person is an essential aspect of restoring friendship in these cases. Friendship is altogether bigger than rights, but it contains and depends on them. Friendship without rights is an abusive boss sidling up to you and acting like your friend.
I'd articulate my problems with (1) by insisting on reading Matthew 25:31-45 in the context of Matthew 24-25, as part of God's judgment on a legal and political system (Herod's Second Temple "Israel"). Because reading Matthew 25 in the context of Matthew's Gospel more broadly is really all that I ever do