A War of Words About War
Adam C. English, Assistant Professor of Religion
Campbell University, NC
Alasdair MacIntyre`s opening parable in After Virtue has enjoyed amazing staying power among moral philosophers. I wish I had a dollar for every time it has been retold. Repeated in numerous contexts, the parable tells of a civilization that destroys the discipline of science and rids itself of scientists, but continues to circulate the vocabulary of science. In so doing, the people of this civilization mistake the use of certain terms and phrases for the actual practice of science. The long-standing assumption is that this parable in some way describes the American state of affairs with regards to the discipline of morality. MacIntyre`s point is that the language of right and wrong is still with us, but the practice of virtues has long been forgotten. His assessment of the moral scene has, notwithstanding a few detractors,[1] been the dominant account for the past twenty years.
However, something unexpected happened in the wake of September 11, 2001. The White House, many political pundits, ministers, and grass roots leaders instantly responded to the atrocity with strong moral rhetoric.[2] President George W. Bush, in his historic address to Congress on September 20, proclaimed a "war on terror" in Afghanistan and around the world, calling the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks "enemies of freedom" who "hate our freedoms."[3] After a military scouring of Afghanistan, attention was turned to Iraq, where again national leaders invoked the moral language of accountability (to weapons inspectors), freedom to the oppressed Iraqi people, and the need to remove a wicked and cruel dictator from power. The rhetoric about war on terrorism has proved to be much more than speech-making-it has become serious moral commitment. American Armed Forces took direct action in Iraq, as they did in Afghanistan, and young men and women stepped forward to serve their country with remarkable courage and patriotism.
So, in response to this burst of moral language and action, the time has come to ask if MacIntyre`s vision still represents reality. Is there real moral fiber in America today? Is there a "common good" toward which most citizens are working, or is there no agreed upon goods worth pursuing, except the personal advance of the individual? Is there a viable, public moral tradition that is shaping virtues and values of the "average American" (if there exists such a species to begin with) or have relativism and individualism reduced all virtues and values to personal preferences?
The initial premise of this essay is that, contrary to the inference of MacIntyre`s tale with regards to the fate of moral philosophy, serious thinking about right and wrong at the popular and academic level has not collapsed or disappeared or gone defunct. Popular ethics is alive and well, if at times rather diffuse and accommodating. As the September 11 crisis has made clear, there is a broadly identifiable American ethos grounded in a strong sense of justice, freedom, pragmatism, and utility. The aim of this paper is not to detail this American ethos, but to consider its relationship to the Christian voice. My contention is that the reassertion of the American tradition has put Christian ethicists, pastors, and moral theologians in a quandary as to how to respond. There is a peculiar awkwardness in recent Christian thinking about war, violence, and the virtues. Indeed, the one common thread that ties together the majority of responses to the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq from the Christian community is their awkwardness, which stands in contrast to the popular American sentiment of freedom and justice.
The Triumph of Pragmatism
The church is often looked to for wisdom and advice in times of crisis. When this happens, Christian leaders often feel obliged to respond in a non-sectarian, and sometimes even non-religious fashion, so as to reach the broadest audience possible. Two examples of this approach are Jean Bethke Elshtain, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics at University of Chicago, and George Hunsinger, the Hazel Thompson McCord Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. Both are public intellectuals of enormous prestige. Both have written numerous articles and essays on the current U. S. policies in Iraq and Afghanistan; in fact, from February to April of 2004, they carried on an exchange over these issues in the Christian Century.[4] While each takes a radically different view on the U. S. war on terror to make their different cases, each appeals to the American values of justice and freedom and the American virtues of pragmatism and utility.
In her book-length defense of President Bush`s aggressive response to terrorist threats and attacks on America, Just War Against Terror, Jean Bethke Elshtain wants to make clear that, in the words of Hannah Arendt, "politics is not the nursery."[5] She contends that many Christian moralists and pastors have responded to the politics of terror and security in a way that is infantile and naive, as if they were in the nursery not in the cold, hard world of reality. For instance, she cites the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, Reverend Canon John L. Peterson, for his condemnation of U. S. bombings and invasion of Afghanistan, what he calls America`s "new colonialism", as outrageously simplistic and irresponsible.[6] Elshtain also chides Tony Campolo, representing the more evangelical Christians, for his unjustified and historically inappropriate comparison of the Bush foreign policy with the Crusades of the medieval era.[7] She urges Christian intellectuals and pastors to leave their nursery-like ideals and enter the real world of complex international politics. Christians must abandon wistful longings for a nonviolent utopia where turning the other cheek and praying for one`s enemies is the extent of one`s duty. To this end, she calls for a revival of the great Christian Realism tradition of Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich.[8] John Richard Neuhaus echoes Elshtain`s pleas for a more realistic, gritty Christian discipleship that, "in obedience to the command to love the neighbor…defend[s] the innocent by engaging in a just war against a murderous aggressor."[9] The action follows directly from the principle; defending thy neighbor is a necessary, practical requirement of loving thy neighbor. It is a simple matter of pragmatics.
Elshtain clearly states that she does not "desire a fusion of religious and political power, for such is an invitation to idolatry."[10] Instead, she insists upon a rigid division between church issues and state issues. The American state is "secular" in nature, although this does not necessary imply that the society itself is "secular" in the sense of "godless."[11] At any rate, in order to preserve and respect the secular nature of the state, one must approach state issues from a religiously neutral and unbiased perspective. The question about war on terror is not, according to Elshtain`s definition, a religious one. The question is: "What is America`s special burden in light of its extraordinary power?" If this is the guiding question, then surely the answer must be that America`s moral burden weighs heavy. By virtue of being the world`s superpower, America has a responsibility to intervene on behalf of other people groups oppressed and without power; this is in addition to the assumed burden of protecting U. S. interests abroad. The issue has nothing to do with one`s religious affiliation or even one`s moral preferences, the issue is one of practical necessity.
On the other side of the debate, George Hunsinger, a professional theologian and Karl Barth scholar by trade, opposes the U. S. policies of intervention, preemption, and policing. Hunsinger`s reasons for opposition are not explicitly religious or confessional-at least in his published pieces-rather, like Elshtain, they are forthrightly pragmatic. Early on in the debates, Hunsinger made a clearly articulated case against an invasion of Iraq. In a notable 2002 piece that has been reproduced in a number of venues, "Iraq: Don`t Go There,"[12] Hunsinger laid out an impassioned plea for restraint.
In that article, he addresses the burden of America power by asking if the U. S. is justified to invade: "Does Hussein actually possess weapons of mass destruction? And if so, do they pose a clear and imminent danger to the U. S. or its allies?"[13] He answers both questions in the negative. But, what if one were to look at the same body of evidence and conclude just the opposite? Would Hunsinger have to concede that intervention in Iraq is warranted? He offers no moral virtue or theological principle to guide the reader in his or her judgment of the data. One can infer that Hunsinger`s ultimate desire is peace by peaceable means. But, he never suggests what might prevent a nation from intervening in the politics of another nation if they indeed had solid evidence that that nation posed a threat.
Addressing those who nonetheless believe Hussein does pose an immediate threat, Hunsinger poses a third question: Does America have a "reasonable chance of success?"[14] He believes that any invasion of Iraq would be costly, both in terms of money and soldiers, and that it would entail a prolonged occupation with no clear exit-strategy. In this line of reasoning, Hunsinger is representative of many of the anti-war arguments bantered about for the past couple of years by Christians and non-Christians alike. Hunsinger does not offer a Christian or even a religious perspective. His argument could be made by anyone, anywhere. The guiding philosophical principle of his argument is the same as Elshtain`s: pragmatism.
Arguably, both make legitimate claims to just war criteria when they pose their cases for and against military action. Elshtain goes to great lengths to justify the military operations in Afghanistan on just war principles. Likewise, just war criteria guide Hunsinger`s evaluation of U. S. war policy. But since when has the Christian position on war and violence been decided by the pragmatics of just war theory, reasonable chances of success, practical necessity, and homeland security? Anyone who reads the ongoing debates in Christian circles over peace-making and violence might easily get the impression that the centerpiece of Jesus` ethics was his theory of just war!
Seriously, there is a sense that any Christian consideration of violence and politics that does not address the just war tradition is somehow defective. Indeed, Darrell Cole intentionally describes the just war position as a "doctrine," because of its longevity within the Christian tradition.[15] But, as William T. Cavanaugh reminds us, just war criteria first appeared not as an independent standard for judging any hypothetical nation`s military activity. Rather, the tradition "developed as a form of moral reasoning within the Church, most often in the context of the confessional. Whether or not a war was just had an effect on the length of penance that was imposed on those who had killed as an act of war (with penances of up to one year imposed on soldiers who killed, even in a just war)."[16] A petition to the just war tradition, either for or against the American foreign policy, is not the final or perhaps even the most important court of appeals for the Christian. Further, in my opinion, it is used by Elshtain, Hunsinger and others as a Christian gloss on an issue that has already been decided by the pragmatic criteria of necessity, security, and feasibility.
So, the real issue is not the just war tradition, but pragmatism. The theoretical debate over the value and viability of moral pragmatism is longstanding and undecided. But, at the level of application in the public square, pragmatism surely fails. One example will suffice. In the Raleigh News and Observer, an editorial was submitted by Kimberly Yaman entitled "Questionable Anti-Terror Tactic: If we`re going to hold children hostage, how about some standards?"[17] Yaman investigated a Wall Street Journal report by Jess Bravin and Gary Fields claiming that "Americans have access to two of [Khalid Shaikh Mohammed`s] elementary-school-age children." According to the report, "The children were captured in a September raid."[18] Yaman`s research, which included contacting various senators offices, and the U. S. Department of Defense, elicited no denials of the reports, "saying only that commanders have the discretion to do what they believe is necessary."[19]
My concern is not with the alleged practice of abducting children of terrorists to use as leverage, which is certainly deplorable if true, but with Yaman`s own criticism of the practice. She rightly condemns the practice as "barbaric," but then she reflects:
I recognize that the United States is unlikely to stop using the tactics of detaining children to get to their parents. If that is so, sheer pragmatism calls for rules ensuring oversight and some degree of transparency to the process.[20]
For the remainder of the editorial, she enumerates ways to make the practice of kidnapping children "transparent." Yaman`s editorial reveals the hollowness of "sheer pragmatism" in the face of complex moral issues. She is morally offended by the practice, but admits to having no justification for her offense beyond her own squeamishness. She confesses that her sensibilities do not serve the practical necessity of the situation. Pragmatism demands that we do what is necessary, that we follow the most efficient and effective course-the course that generates results. We must swallow our fears and "do what it takes." All standards and principles and moral values are secondary to practical necessity, so "If we`re going to hold children hostage," we can apply "standards" only as a bureaucratic afterthought.
Certainly, neither Elshtain nor Hunsinger are as simplistically pragmatic as Yaman. Yet, insofar as their arguments are indebted to and founded upon an appeal to transparency of procedures, reasonable chances of success, and the empirical necessities of homeland security, they suffer from a similar malaise.
The Courage of Achilles
The anxiety that Christian ethicists feel is that, if they abandon the logic of practicality and efficiency in order to adopt a more Gospel-centered discipleship-ethic of faith, hope and love, then they will be labeled sectarian, or worse, fundamentalist. When one enters the public square, one must speak in the common dialect of the square. One cannot lean on peculiarly Christian arguments, rather one must reach for more universal standards of freedom, justice, and feasibility. This kind of thinking has been shredded by Stanley Hauerwas and others on dozens of occasions.[21] But there is another anxiety: the anxiety that if we finally declare allegiance to Jesus and the nonviolent way, then we must simultaneously condemn the American military and American soldiers-many of whom are also Christians-for their engagement in violence. This puts American Christians in an odd position of appearing ungrateful for the sacrifices of the men and women of the armed services and for the freedoms we enjoy because of those sacrifices. So, must Christian non-violence be unpatriotic? If we follow the peaceable way of Christ, must we condemn the American ways of justice and freedom, which unapologetically involve violence, as wicked and cowardly?
A line from the late James McClendon`s Ethics seems fitting at this point. In his discussion of virtues, McClendon comments: "The courage of Jesus is not the courage of Achilles."[22] Both Jesus and Achilles demonstrate courage, and at some level, both should be praised for their courage. We should not say that Jesus had courage and Achilles had something less than courage, but rather we must affirm that they both exhibited true courage, though certainly not the same kinds of courage. Jesus` was the courage of sacrifice, Achilles` was the courage of combat. Courage is not a universal category; the Gospel writers define it differently than Homer. Similarly, it seems unproductive for Christians to censure the violence of American soldiers in the name of a higher way of peace. We should recognize that young men and women like Pat Tillman, the soldier who voluntarily gave up his NFL contract to join the fight for freedom in Afghanistan, are exhibiting true courage, not ignorance or heathen aggressiveness. What they do for their country is very courageous, noble, and just, and it should be applauded as such. Karl Barth might have said the American military, fighting for justice, freedom, and democracy, represents a profound secular parable of the Kingdom of God.
While acknowledging the courage of freedom and justice attached to armed service for one`s country, Christians must admit that the way of military service conflicts at a number of points with Christ`s way of peace. Christians are committed to the peaceable reconciliation of the world in Christ. Christian Relief Services, World Vision, and other Christian peace and relief organizations offer alternative ways to serve. But, lest it be missed, the theological issue at stake behind the Christian refusal of violence, which includes military violence, is key. As Jacques Ellul has pointed out, violence is part of the "natural" and "necessary" operations of nations. So, Nicholas Rengger may be correct when he says that, "We can agree that the United States was right to strike back at those that had attacked it, agree also that such a response, inasmuch as it was limited and proportional, was just."[23] But if the "we" in Rengger`s statement is a Christian "we," then the statement, as such, is incomplete.
Christians should recognize that nations will defend themselves-when America does this she is following the natural, necessary, and practical order of things. But the nation of God, Christ`s body, the kingdom of the saints here on earth does not live by such a strategy. Christians have been freed by Christ from the pragmatic trap of what is natural and necessary. Christians, according to Ellul, "must struggle against violence precisely because, apart from Christ, violence is the form that human relations normally and necessarily take. In other words, the more completely violence seems to be of the order of necessity, the greater the obligation of believers in Christ`s Lordship."[24]
The Christian stance cannot be reduced to a question of pacifism or just war. The first question must be: Has Christ really freed us from the law of sin and death (Rom 8:2)? Has Christ freed us from the necessity of nature and violence? The Christian engagement with the powers that are in the world must flow unapologetically from the new law of the Spirit, the product of which is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and so on. The Christian polis is sustained by the weakness of the one who was crucified but raised from death.
Christians are summoned to the peaceable reconciliation of the world in Christ. Commitment to Christ must be our starting point for considering questions of war and peacemaking. The outcome of this commitment is that our highest priority shifts from justice, which is central to American civic life, to redeeming love (2 Cor 5:19-20). The highest affirmation of the follower of Christ does not involve the phrase that "all men are created equal," as laudable as that truth is, but the declaration that "God so loved the world." This is the announcement that inaugurates peace on earth and good will toward all.
——————————————————————————–
[1] Most notably, Jeffrey Stout, Ethics After Babel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 204 and most recently, Democracy and Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), esp. 122, 125.
[2] John Richard Neuhaus captures the spirit of the response from many involved in politics and religion when he wrote in December, 2001, "This is war. Call it a sustained battle or campaign, if you will, but the relevant moral term is war." John Richard Neuhaus, "In a Time of War," First Things (December 2001), 11. Of course, not all responses were as patriotic or clear-cut. The immediate reaction from the art community was mixed. Terry Teachout reports on the various post 9-11 responses from musicians, artists, playwrights, and actors in "Prime-Time Patriotism," Commentary 112.4 (Nov 2001), 51-4.
[3] President George W. Bush, Our Mission and Our Moment: Speeches Since the Attacks of September (Washington, D. C.: White House Printing Office, 2002), 10, 11.
[4] George Hunsinger, "Fog of War," Christian Century 121.3 (February 10, 2004), 11; "Iraq: An Exchange," Christian Century 121.7 (April 6, 2004) Jean Bethke Elshtain responded to "Fog of War," 57-60 and George Hunsinger replied 61-65.
[5] Jean Bethke Elshtain, Just War Against Terror (New York: Basic Books, 2003), 2.
[6] Ibid., 116.
[7] Ibid., 117.
[8] Ibid., 99-111.
[9] John Richard Neuhaus, "In a Time of War," 14.
[10] Jean Bethke Elshtain, Reply to Stanley Hauerwas and Paul Griffiths, First Things 136 (October 2003), 47.
[11] Elshtain, Just War, 37.
[12] The article was first published in Christian Century 119.17 (August 25, 2002), 10-11, was reprinted in Christian Ethics Today 41 (October 2002), 4, and can also be found at Common Dreams Newscenter, www.commondreams.org. He also read a version of this at a Bonhoeffer section meeting during the AmericanAcademy of Religion annual meeting in November, 2003. Hunsinger follows a similar line of argument against any pre-emptive war in Iraq, asking such questions as, "Did Saddam Hussein gas the Kurds?" in "Before the Shooting Starts" in Christian Century 119.21 (October 9, 2002), 8-9.
[13] Hunsinger, "Iraq," 10.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Darrell Cole, "Good Wars," First Things 116 (October 2001), 27. When confronted with this assertion in a letter to the editor by Stanley Hauerwas and Alexander Sider, Cole replied, "I see no reason to dispense with the term `just war doctrine.` If a high degree of coherency among many theologians is necessary for a body of reflection to be called a `doctrine,` then there would be few if any Christian doctrines."
[16] William T. Cavanaugh, "Terrorist Enemies and Just War," Christian Reflection 12 (2004),
[17] Kimberly Yaman, "Questionable Anti-Terror Tactic," News and Observer (March 29, 2004).
[18] Jess Bravin and Gary Fields, "How Do U. S. Interrogators Make a Captured Terrorist Talk?" The Wall Street Journal (March 4, 2003), B.1.
[19] Yaman.
[20] Ibid., emphasis mine.
[21] Hauerwas and Paul Griffiths` co-authored response to Elshtain in First Things was in many ways unusual and inadequate because it did not put forward the critique of translating Christian values into universal values that has become so characteristic of the Hauerwas project. The vast majority of the correspondence published in the following issue of First Things was critical of the Hauerwas-Griffiths review (see First Things 139 (January 2004), 2-18). The reason (though not explicitly stated in the letters to the editor) seemed to stem from the fact that Hauerwas and Griffiths engage Elshtain on Elshtain`s own terms of public discourse and national good. For the greater part of the review, they attack her understanding of America, its power and its responsibilities, not, as one might hope, her understanding of the Christian church`s responsibility and power in the face of terror. Only in the second to last paragraph do Hauerwas and Griffith make a vague reference to "her elision of the boundary between the category `Christian` and the category `American.`" Stanley Hauerwas and Paul Griffiths, "War, Peace & Jean Bethke Elshtain," First Things 136 (October 2003), 43.
[22] James McClendon, Jr., Ethics: Systematic Theology, Volume 1, revised edition (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 115.
[23] Nicholas Rengger, "Just a War Against Terror? Jean Bethke Elshtain`s Burden and American Power," International Affairs 80.1 (2004), 115.
[24] Jacques Ellul, Violence, translated by Cecelia Kings (New York: Seabury Press, 1969), 127-8.
