[1] "[T]he ethical cannot be detached from reality…,"
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics.
[2] It is questionable whether Stanley Huaerwas's book,
Performing The Faith: Bonhoeffer and the Practice of
Nonviolence, a collection of essays, is primarily concerned
with Bonhoeffer. Also, the link between Bonhoeffer and the practice
on nonviolence is never made clear. There are two chapters
specifically dealing with Bonhoeffer, "Dietrich Bonhoeffer's
Political Theology" and "Dietrich Bonhoeffer on Truth and
Politics." These two chapters comprise the first section,
titled "Bonhoeffer on Politics and Truth." The two other
sections of the book, "Truthful Performances" and "Performing
Nonviolence" do not mention Bonhoeffer's actions or writings. So,
the subtitle of this book is not really descriptive of its
contents; certainly the contents do not justify having a photograph
of Bonhoeffer on the cover. Readers expecting a detailed
examination of Bonhoeffer's positions on pacifism and how that
might be reconciled with his life will be disappointed. The
essays on Bonhoeffer, while welcome to anyone interested in
Bonhoeffer are cursory and do not add anything to existing
scholarship. By his own admission, Hauerwas is not a
Bonhoeffer scholar.
[3] Why is Bonhoeffer claimed as a point of unity for these
disjointed essays? Perhaps Hauerwas desires to enlist a universally
admired thinker (and actor) in his cause of Christian
nonviolence. Bonhoeffer is certainly an attractive
figure. But as Hauerwas himself states, when referring to a
different matter, "that dog won't hunt" (gratefully, such attempts
to be folksy are rare as hen's teeth in this book).
[4] The Bonhoeffer essays are not bad, and Hauerwas resists the
temptation to significantly distort Bonhoeffer to suit his purpose.
Hauerwas admits that Bonhoeffer was involved in the plot to
assassinate Hitler, though it does not seem to occur to Hauerwas
that this involvement constitutes a violent act. Even if Bonhoeffer
did not place the satchel of explosives next to Hitler, he
certainly would have consented to Hitler's death, and he
participated in the conspiracy that found fruition in the
unsuccessful attempt. Of greater interest, given that
Hauerwas focuses on Bonhoeffer's thoughts on truth, is that
Bonhoeffer was a spy, in fact a double agent. The Nazis
thought he was spying on their behalf, but in fact he was spying to
further the anti-Nazi conspiracy. This involvement with what
on the surface must be deemed as untruths or lies should present a
tempting target of discussion regarding how it was possible, if at
all, for Bonhoeffer to square his ideas on truth with his actions.
Unfortunately, Hauerwas does not explore this subject in any
detail.
[5] Hauerwas spends some time in the second chapter reviewing
Bonhoeffer's essay on truth, "What is Meant by 'Telling the
Truth'?" found in Bonhoeffer's Ethics. He summarizes
Bonhoeffer's point that a child's response to a teacher's
embarrassing question about his father may be untrue in a
conventional sense, but should not be considered a lie due to the
improper nature of the question. The child's statement contains
more truth because he did not betray the loyalty of the family. As
Bonhoeffer stated, it "was more in accordance with reality" than
was a response that would have betrayed his father. Bonhoeffer's
original essay went on to give other examples of the necessity of
weighing words when deciding what to say, examples that are very
illustrative of the problems Bonhoeffer faced in Nazi
Germany. Bonhoeffer recognized that concealment or a lie may
be necessary during war, but that need not be an ethical
failing
[6] "If it is now asserted that a lie is a deliberate deception
of another man to his detriment then this would also include, for
example, the necessary deception of the enemy in war or in similar
situations." Ethics, page 363. This section echoes Aquinas's
allowance of ambushes in his treatment of just war. Hauerwas
of course refuses the entire concept of just war, and far from
understanding the reality that deception during war may be
necessary and allowable from a Christian perspective, insists that
all wars and violence are not Christian. The hallmark of
Bonhoeffer's ethics is realism. Yes, a realism firmly rooted in the
resurrected Lord and the forgiveness of sins, but not a realism
that would be foreign to everyday reason. Indeed, there is
something comforting and familiar about the examples Bonhoeffer
employed. Much like Our Lord's parables, everyone can
understand them at some level. Bonhoeffer's test for speaking the
truth corresponds with the activities he undertook against the
Nazis.
[7] The book's next section is titled "Truthful
Performances." Some interesting ideas are discussed, albeit
in excruciating academic detail. The relevance of many of these
ideas to Christianity is not clear to me. I am left wondering
just what Christian performance is and why this density of detail
is necessary. Too much incomprehensible jargon such as
"outnarrate" and "overacceptance" runs throughout. Hauerwas hints
that Christian performance is worship; it could be said much more
simply and directly. Instead, far too much time is spent reciting
fashionable theories of performance art and music. I have the
impression of an aging hipster desperately trying to prove he is
still with it.
[8] The chapter, "Connections Created and Contingent" does not
seem relevant to Bonhoeffer, performances or nonviolence. Instead
the philosophy of word construction and usage, primarily through
the philosophy of Wittgenstein, is examined.
[9] Some sound points are made in the chapter "The Narrative
Turn." Hauerwas is rightly skeptical of the use of any
narrative for Christian purposes that is not firmly rooted in
biblical concepts, and he is also correct that placing a qualifier
such as "narrative" before theology for purposes that cannot be
described as Christian, compromises theology. This chapter
contains the startling conclusion that "Christianity is in
decline." Such a conclusion may be true of Western Europe,
but gives no account of the growth Christianity is experiencing in
the Global South.
[10] The last chapter in this section, "Suffering Beauty,"
returns to the principle that Christian performance consists of
worship and especially prayer, a concept that Bonhoeffer would
endorse, though Hauerwas never makes that connection. Hauerwas
suggests that he accepts the proposition of Keats that beauty
equals truth. A scriptural argument may be made that
Christians should worship in the beauty of holiness, but this is
not to say that beauty is holy in and of itself. In
Hauerwas's hands, however, Godly worship seems overly concerned
with avoiding tackiness. This is a dangerous
proposition--Christian worship should not be reduced to mere
snobbery.
[11] Worldly fashions change rapidly, while we believe Jesus
Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. His comments seem
to flatter the Roman Catholic audience that originally received
this essay. One wonders if Hauerwas has entered a Roman Catholic
church built in the 1960s or seen the bodies of the saints
displayed in glass cases under bright fluorescent lights in St.
Peter's Basilica in Rome.
[12] In the last section of the book, "Performing Nonviolence,"
Hauerwas unsurprisingly reiterates his support for nonviolence and
criticism of just war theory. Indeed, he goes so far as to state
that "as faithful followers of Christ we cannot be anything other
than nonviolent" (page 181). Such a statement reduces the number of
faithful Christians to near nonexistence. It is questionable
whether Hauerwas's commitment to nonviolence is as absolute as he
states. In the chapter, "Punishing Christians," he recognizes that
punishment is a type of violence and it is necessary. Hauerwas,
however, would allow punishment only for the purpose of forgiveness
and reconciliation, not necessarily for the safety of the
community. A justification of the death penalty that Hauerwas
does not consider is that its very finality ensures that the
perpetrator will never kill again. His emphasis on using methods of
church discipline as excommunication and banning may have some
application for minor offenses. For example, some judges have
imposed creative sentences involving the convict wearing
signs. It is extremely unlikely that any sense of shame or
loss of participation in the community will have any effect on
hardcore felons. Again, I find Hauerwas lacks a sense of
reality.
[13] His position is clearest in two chapters concerning the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Hauerwas starts by
admitting his confusion about what his reaction should be.
This is understandable, particularly for a pacifist. The attacks,
however, do not lead him to question his pacifism. Rather,
they lead to anger and hatred, not against the perpetrators of this
act of war, but rather against the leaders of the United States.
Prayer might be a response, but Hauerwas considers that to pray for
peace would be mere sentimentality and it does not occur to him to
pray for enemies or the victims. Violent self-defense is
clearly not an option for him. In three separate places he invokes
"shopping" as all American leaders had to offer in response to the
attacks, by which he means the fact that some American leaders
urged that Americans should show they were not afraid by getting
out and shopping in the wake of the attacks. One would think
he would applaud this nonviolent activity (although on occasion
Christmas sales can be a bit bruising), but Hauerwas's point is
really quite telling. First, "shopping" enables him to
trivialize the War on Terror and remove it from the realm of a real
war. Second, it elevates him above sordid commercial types.
"Shopping" as a suggested response to terror may have been clumsy
and easy to parody, but at least it was an attempt to mitigate the
economic damage the terror attacks inflicted. It is too easy
for someone in his position to sneer at admonitions to shop, but
many small shopkeepers with families and employees dependent on
them and facing a precarious economic future were doubtless
grateful. Hauerwas might not be so quick to condemn America as a
nation of shopkeepers if he kept a shop himself.
[14] Hauerwas does not present any real alternative to the use
of military force. I doubt Al-Qaeda will be deterred from further
violence by those "raising lemurs" (page 182) instead of defending
themselves. Death or surrender, perhaps involving conversion
to Islam, are the only alternatives to self-defense in this
case.
[15] When Hauerwas discusses history, his interpretations of
historical events is certainly unusual. He condemns World War
I, with some justification, but fails to relate that the way the
war ended necessitated that the Second World War be fought on the
basis of unconditional surrender. The complete discrediting
of German (and Japanese) militarism was the happy result. He
condemns American resistance to the Soviet Union, but incredibly
concludes that the US victory in the cold war left Americans in a
"dangerous funk" during the 1990s. The 1990s may have had
many things wrong with it, but this is the first time I have heard
it was a period of funk. Nevertheless, these arguments set up
Hauerwas's point that the War on Terrorism was basically concocted
to distract Americans and give them a purpose.
[16] War is necessary as self-defense, and it should be
inarguable that good can result from war, the removal of the Nazi
regime being the most obvious example. US independence and
the abolition of slavery are two other examples. Hauerwas maintains
that the War on Terrorism will leave the US unable to address
problems such as genocide, but I fail to grasp how genocide can be
stopped without force. We are confronted again by Hauerwas's
lack of realism.
[17] This was made clearest to me in Hauerwas' statement that
"on just war grounds the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
clearly murder" (page 206). Hauerwas may claim that he was
only making a point against those who advocate just war. He
has, however, leveled this murder charge on more than one
occasion. It deserves some examination. Presumably, Hauerwas
is considering the jus in bello portion of just war
theory, and more specifically, the discrimination requirement, that
non-combatants should not be deliberately targeted. The nature of
warfare in World War II was such that whole cities had become
targets. Industrial cities, as means of production of weapons
and support, perhaps should not have had the status of
non-combatants. Hauerwas, however, ignores another
requirement of jus in bello, that of proportionality. It
is unquestionable that many lives were saved because of the use of
the atomic bomb. The lives were not only those of US
soldiers, but also lives of Japanese soldiers and civilians.
[18] I will here insert a personal narrative to illustrate a
greater truth. My father, after surviving a campaign in
Europe during the winter of 1944/45, was slated to participate in
the invasion of Japan. Given what had occurred in the battles
of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, massive casualties were expected in the
invasion. If atomic bombs had not been used, my father
probably would have died in the invasion. I have spoken to
others whose fathers would have been part of the invasion. We
owe our very existence to the use of the atomic bombs. We
Americans and many Japanese are in the opposite position of World
War I's lost generation. We are the found generation because
the war ended quickly and cheaply. This is reality. The
alternative is death. Hauerwas has no problem condemning to
death in support of his principles. He is welcome to die as he
chooses, but I find it chilling that he is willing for so many
others to die, even calling on parents to sacrifice the lives of
their children to be true to what he conceives is required by
Christianity.
[19] Hauerwas contrasts the heroism of the terrorists with
America's preoccupation with safety. He is right that one can
never be truly safe, though I question whether murderers of
thousands of civilians during peacetime are heroic. Death
will ultimately claim all. There is an obligation, however, for us
to preserve the ability to pray, worship, and yes, perform as
Christians. When Nehemiah rebuilt the Temple, he first had to
rebuild the walls and keep Jerusalem safe. God's people
require both a trowel and a spear.
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