[1] A Word about the Book's Author Dr. Hauerwas
is a widely respected theologian-ethicist in ecumenical circles
today. He occupies the chair of Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of
Theological Ethics at Duke University, and is well known as a most
influential teacher, with "disciples" (if that is not an overly
dramatic term) in nearly all the main line denominations and in
many of the sectarian bodies of the Christian community in this
country. His impact upon future generations of Christian
ministers alone makes him a formidable force to be taken seriously
within the broad Christian scene.
[2] A Word about the Scope of the Book I will
leave it to other reviewers to assess the various chapters in this
interesting and challenging collection of essays. Suffice it
to say that it is difficult to grasp any over-arching theme, unless
one considers as thematic the notion of marshalling a host of
disparate and sometimes arcane arguments, all of which could be
interpreted as tending to defend pacifism as a morally persuasive
Christian stance. The over-all impression of the book is of
an on-going intramural debate between Hauerwas and several of his
critics.
[3] One thing this book is not is a thorough presentation or
analysis of the thought of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Indeed,
anyone who purchases this monograph because of its subtitle is
going to be greatly disappointed. There is no extended
treatment of the seminal Lutheran thinker of the World War II
period. Sadly, for those of us who would appreciate an honest
and fair treatment of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in relation to pacifist
thought, there is nothing here that will satisfy in the
least. Bonhoeffer's ideas about the Christian, the Church and
the political realm are given a cursory glance at best, and that
brief treatment is presented through the distorting lens of the
radical pacifism of John Howard Yoder. Those of us hoping to
understand how the great hero of Lutheran resistance to Nazism
integrated his active participation in a plot to kill Adolph Hitler
with his profound grasp of Nicene Christianity are left profoundly
disappointed. Here was an incredible opportunity passed
by. (Unless, that is, Dr. Hauerwas has been victimized by his
own publisher in the development of the title of the book. In
which case Dr. Hauerwas should have insisted upon a title more in
line with his purpose.)
[4] Locating the Political Context of This Book
The two polar opposites in foreign policy debate within this
country are occupied by the far Left and the political Right.
(I use these designations not as terms of disparagement, but as
locators on an ideological spectrum.)
[5] The far Left position is represented by Noam Chomskey (his
latest book, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global
Dominance,) who sees America as the world's leading terrorist
state - a hungry hegemon that acts against the interests of world
peace and internationalism, and on the side of the global
capitalist system. To the disciples of Chomskey the goal of
foreign policy is to neutralize the selfish aims of nation-states
by subjugating national interests to an international or universal
state. Only then can permanent progress in human affairs be
achieved. George Soros is the most vocal and committed
spokesman for this point of view, to the extent of putting millions
of dollars behind the Kerry candidacy, in the conviction that the
"Wolfowitz-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" ought to have been defeated in
this year's election.
[6] The posture of the Right is represented by the classicist
Leo Strauss and such neo-conservatives as William Kristol, Robert
Kagan, and Max Boot. They are advocates of an American
"benevolent hegemony" that serves the national interest of American
security while also extending the uniquely American "program of
liberty" abroad. The key to their position is in the
Straussian conviction that "no bloody or unbloody change of society
can eradicate the evil in man: as long as there will be men, there
will be malice, envy and hatred, and hence there cannot be a
society which does not have to employ coercive
restraint.1" Although
Strauss and the neo-cons differ on many points, they are united in
the conviction that force is sometimes necessary to defend the
national interest and that the universal human passion to dominate
others must be opposed - by force, if need be.
[7] While there are numerous shades of liberal and conservative
in American society, indeed, to some extent within both
political parties in the U.S., this schema will serve as a frame of
reference for identifying the political locus of the pacifism of
Stanley Hauerwas and his followers.
[8] Locating Hauerwas along any ideological spectrum is a bit of
a problem. One of this ethicist's main preoccupations seems
to be that of maintaining a reputation as a maverick in public
theology. He does not shy from, but exults in the posture of
a philosophical-political "one-of-a-kind," a sort of
anti-traditional eclectic and eccentric thinker who uses
traditional sources of political theory in his own unique way, and
also to affirm that he is happily non-traditional in his
understanding of the Christian faith. In his world-view,
being a 'non-conformist' or 'radically reformed' Christian thinker
is truly a matter of faith. The practical result is that his
thought is more elusive than most. He seems to delight in
having others critique his ideas as absurd and out of the
mainstream, only to squirm out of their criticisms by employing
language and concepts in a most "unorthodox" way.
[9] An example of this emphasis upon 'the virtue of nonconformity'
in Hauerwas's thought can be seen in the position he takes with
regard to the above-mentioned dichotomy in American foreign policy
debate. He steadfastly refuses to admit that he can be
located on a spot along the broad band of liberal and conservative
world-views. Instead, he would like to present himself as
inhabiting a theological-philosophical point which transcends the
ideologically cramped and religiously unworthy positions of either
camp.
[10] He sees himself as an "anti-liberal" who has scorn for
liberals because they are both too mild in their critique of
American society and American foreign policy, and because they -
like most people of all political stripes - fail to grasp the
radical nature of the call to be Christian. Liberals, he
says, are guilty of reductionism in their accommodation of the
faith to the culture, and they are far too conventional in their
"prophetic stance" against the underlying values of the American
regime. In the process of trying to prove the relevance of
the faith in the face of the presuppositions of the culture, they
lose Christianity's essential content. They end by failing to
see the radical call of the gospel to non-violence, regardless of
the pragmatic consequences.
[11] His criticism of the Right, however, carries much more
conviction and scathing judgment. Not only are
traditionalists blind to Christianity's most salient doctrine,
nonviolent living and thinking, neo-orthodox Christians are far too
ready to buy into a politics of revenge in response to 9/11. For
them - and they represent all Americans who accepted the idea of
defending American soil from further attack by taking the
battlefield to where the enemy lives - war is the "normal" recourse
to having been attacked. They miss completely the real wisdom
of a politics of truth and nonviolence, which alone is worthy of
truly spiritual Christians.
[12] The root of the human recourse to violence rests in the
base fact that it "makes us feel safe." Such a feeling has
become the besetting sin of Americans who do not take time to
reflect, because they are far too preoccupied with a consumerist
way of life: "The way to go on in the face of September 11, 2001,
is to find someone to kill.2" He seems
convinced that, if his ideological opponents only had moral courage
the size of a mustard seed, they would be compelled by conscience
to admit that the gospel does not permit killing others - even
"others" who are identified as "the enemy" in response to the
murder of our citizens and the violation of our national
security.
[13] Here is Hauerwas's chief point of contention with the
neo-orthodox representatives of Christianity. From his
perspective (which I identify as 'perfectionistic'), they lack the
depth of commitment required by his rendering of the Christian
faith. A person of belief must have "profound moral
commitments," running deeply enough that she would be able to stare
death in the face (even the deaths of innocents who are our
neighbors), and not react by willing violence in return. To
do any less is to be held captive by a bourgeois ethos, where the
love of shopping replaces the worship of Christ, and where death is
central to the culture.
[14] Hauerwas does not conceal his disdain for temporizers in
the realm of faith. In a revealing argument with Jean Bethke
Elshtain, he accuses his neo-orthodox opponents of "ideology
masquerading as dispassionate analysis.3" In other words,
not only are conservative public theologians either willingly or
blindly complicit with the reigning political ideology of the
Right, but what is far worse, they fail to comprehend the truly
extreme scope of the Christian calling itself.
[15] My conclusion is that one finds in Hauerwas the same
far-left critique of democratic capitalist society that has
dominated the American academy at least since the Vietnam
War. It expresses an alienation from American culture based
upon the assumption that any self-governed society that thrives
under a "free" market economy, and that has achieved unparalleled
power and international dominance, ineluctably will be dominated by
greed, competitiveness, fear of death, reliance upon coercion and
force, and the love of war. That is why America poses the
greatest threat to international peace. And she must be
opposed - especially by those who truly "love" her and what she
stands for.
[16] Therefore, it is impossible to be an American patriot, in
the traditional sense. Hauerwas refuses to sing "The Star
Spangled Banner" either in private or public gatherings as a way of
maintaining some "distance" from the temptation to idolatry of
nation.
[17] Does this mean that Hauerwas and his followers are less
loyal to the U.S.A.? Absolutely not, in his view. They
are convinced that they adhere to the very "highest American
ideals." But, wait. Even here Hauerwas is ever the
renegade. "Most critics of Vietnam (just as many that now
criticize the war in Afghanistan) based their dissent on their
adherence to American ideals, which they felt the war was
betraying. That but indicates why I feel so isolated even
among the critics of the war in Afghanistan. I do
not even share their allegiance to American ideals, particularly
when such 'ideals' are nothing more than ideological
abstractions."4
[18] Thus, we see clearly the political locus of Hauerwas's
"anarchical anabaptist" public theology. Whatever he might
say in theory, his version of the Christian's role in society
rejects the judgment of Leo Strauss and the neo-conservatives, (and
of Paul, Luther, and Augustine!), that "no change in society can
eradicate the evil in man." Or, at the very least, his
prescription of nonviolence has no responsible answer to
confronting evil.
[19] This Christian ethicist's response to those who ask his
alternative to the American attack upon Al Qaeda terrorist
encampments in Afghanistan is, "…I do not have a foreign
policy. I have something better - a church constituted by
people who would rather die than kill." He admits
that means sometimes having to witness your friends and neighbors
dying because you stood by and did nothing. Oh well, c'est la
vie!
[20] Where is there anything of civic responsibility in
this? Where is plain old public virtue? Where is common
decency? Not to mention love of neighbor, the love of a Good
Samaritan?
[21] A responsible Christian ethic must have a credible answer
to the questions: "Who is my neighbor?" and "What do I owe
her?" And that is the rub. Hauerwas's form of pacifism
reveals fundamental differences from traditional Christianity in
the interpretation and application of moral norms, and in the
understanding of human nature, and the relation of Church to
society.
An Issue of Orthodoxy.
Fere libenter homines quod volunt credunt. (People
willingly believe what they wish.) Julius Caesar5
[22] The revisionist history of the unorthodox notwithstanding,
Christian orthodoxy has always been a hard-won achievement.
The popular misconception is that 'apostolic faith' is no more than
'the belief of those with the big battalions.' Heresy, in
this view, is simply that opinion of the minority which the
majority despises. That attitude is often held by those who
profess themselves to be 'anti-Constantinian' in their view of the
Church's relation to society.
[23] What this rather offhand view of heresy forgets is that
orthodoxy has nearly always been in the minority, has suffered
greatly for its beliefs, and has emerged victorious only after
enduring persecution and bitter struggle (usually perpetrated by
those who consider themselves "the misunderstood
dissenters.")
[24] Also neglected by those who dismiss the normative role of
orthodoxy is that truth can be a matter of life and death.
False ideas about God's relationship to the world, or the nature
and destiny of man, have lethal consequences. A corollary to
the truth that the human heart is a "veritable factory of idols" is
that error in belief fosters poisonous behavior: "Each heresy in
its own way encourages some flaw in our human
nature."6
[25] Which brings us to the key problem I have with the work of
Stanley Hauerwas, at least as I understand it. There is no
question of his quickness of mind, or of the breadth of his
scholarly vision, or of his prodigious achievements as a teacher
and author. The problem I have lies in the theological
presuppositions which form the basis for his thought.
[26] Hauerwas's foundational outlook is at odds with classical
Christian thought about the dilemma of human sin. Classical
Christianity asserts that man remains problematic for himself, even
after Baptism and coming to faith in Christ. The doctrine of
original sin (at least seen through the magisterial Reformation)
declares that humankind is simul justus et peccator. That is
to say, man's propensity to evil is not socially induced, nor an
issue of educational deficiency, but native to the species, and it
is not "fixable" by finding the right formula for improving human
nature.
[27] Hauerwas's "enthusiasm" for the church's lordly superiority
to culture denies all of this. He envisions a church where
Jesus' counsels to perfection in the Sermon on the Mount are
actually lived in the rough and tumble social existence - or at
least the Christian gives them the 'old college try' - regardless
of the consequences!
[28] This should not surprise us. Hauerwas has proudly
adopted the theological position of the extreme left-wing of the
Protestant reformation. If "sectarian" designates not one
removed from the public square, but those whose views brook no
compromise with "the world", demand a perfectionist ethic of
members, and seek to be centers of prophetic revolution, then
Hauerwas is a sectarian. His is a radically pure perspective
which denies classical Christianity's "paradoxical
vision."7
[29] Paradox teaches that this life is not perfect, nor
perfectible, at least not on this side of the parousia. For
anyone who shares Hauerwas's embrace of utopianism this is bad news
indeed: "The paradoxical vision allows no total victories within
the confines of public existence."8 That means the
Christian must put up with imperfection not only within himself,
but within his church and his world. Not only is the believer
at the same moment justified and sinful, therefore never in a
position to rule with unequivocal justice over others; but neither
is the church ever to be equated with the gospel in its behavior
(outside of the altar rail); nor is the world ever the stage where
one acts with 100% clean hands.
[30] Thus, to take an absolutist's stance on nonviolence is
heresy. And it is destructive of society. It ignores
God's double-rule of the world through Law and Gospel: that is,
through the magistrate the evil of man's libido dominandi can be
restrained, allowing the social peace required for the preaching of
the gospel. Making pacifism the article by which the church
stands or falls ignores the reality that sinful man lives in
tension between two aeons: he has one foot in the "already" of
faith, and the other in the "not yet" of the promised future
kingdom. There is the source of the insight of Christian
humility that the church should not try to be the state, and vice
versa.
[31] Traditional Christianity teaches that the gospel impels
believers to work for a greater approximation of justice for our
neighbor, while preventing her from going overboard in trying to
attain utopian fantasies of a perfect world. Orthodox belief
should temper the enthusiast view of pacifism as an unmitigated
good. It might be one response to war in some
circumstances. It cannot claim legitimacy as an inviolable
principle. Here the church might learn from the world that
"the best is the enemy of the good."
[32] This volume on "Bonhoeffer and the Practice of Nonviolence"
should be of great concern for those Lutherans and others who value
the "Magisterial Tradition" of the Reformation. Stanley
Hauerwas and his arguments are not going to go away any time
soon. It would be wise to become acquainted with them.
Performing the Faith by Stanley Hauerwas is available
online from Brazos Press (www.brazospress.com).
© December
2004
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 4, Issue 12
1 From The City of Man, quoted in Claremont Review of
Books, p.13.
2 Performing the Faith, p.202.
3 See "War, Peace & Jean Bethke Elshtain: An Exchange"
in First Things, October, 2003, No. 136, p.42.
4 Performing the Faith, p.204f. (The bold italics are
mine.)
5 Quoted by C. FitzSimons Allison, in The Cruelty of
Heresy, p.49.
6 Ibid., p. 23.
7 See: The Paradoxical Vision: A Public Theology for the
Twenty-first Century, by Robert Benne. (Fortress Press, 1995.)
8 Ibid., p.68