A Textbook of Christian Ethics, 3rd Edition

A TEXTBOOK O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S Third editio n

This page intentionally left blank

A Textbook o f Christia n Ethics Third edition ROBIN GILL

t&t dark

Published b y T&T Clark A Continuum imprint The Towe r Building , 1 1 York Road, Londo n SE 1 7NX 80 Maiden Lane , Suite 704, New York , NY 1003 8 www. tandtclark. com All rights reserved. No part o f this publication ma y be reproduced o r transmitted i n any form or by any means , electroni c o r mechanical , includin g photocopying , recordin g o r an y informatio n storage o r retrieva l system, withou t prio r permissio n i n writin g from th e publishers . Robin Gil l has asserte d hi s righ t unde r th e Copyright , Design s an d Patent s Act , 1988, to b e identified a s the Autho r o f this work . Copyright © Robi n Gill , 2006 First editio n 198 5 Second editio n 199 5 Reprinted 200 2 This editio n publishe d 200 6 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogu e recor d fo r thi s book i s available fro m th e Britis h Library. ISBN 0-567-03111- X (hardback ) ISBN 0-567-03112- 8 (paperback ) Typeset b y Dat a Standard s Ltd , Frome, Somerse t U K Printed o n acid-fre e paper i n Grea t Britai n by MPG Book s Ltd , Bodmin, Cornwal l

Contents

Preface x

i

INTRODUCTION Structure 1 System o f Analysi s 2 The Texts : Augustine , Aquina s an d Luthe r 1

8

The Extract s 2

9

Method o f Stud y 3

0

Section 1 METHODOLOG

Y

Introduction t o Methodolog y 3 Text I Augustin

5

e 'God' s Foreknowledg e an d Huma n Free-will '

from Th e City o f Go d 4

1

s 'Natura l Law ' fro m Summa Theologica 4

Text I I Aquina

r fro m Treatise o n Good Works 5

Text II I Luthe

Analysis o f Extract s 1- 7 6 Extract 1 Bonhoeffe r 'Ethic s an d Christia n Ethics ' fro m Ethics 7 r fro m Situation Ethics 7

Extract 2 Fletche Extract 3 Coplesto Extract 4 Joh Extract 6 Cupit Extract 7 Porte

7 5 1 6

n 'Objection s t o Natura l Law ' fro m Aquinas 8

n Pau l I I 'Th e Crisi s of Mora l Truth ' fro m Veritatis Splendor 8

Extract 5 Fiorenz

9

a 'Ethic s an d Feminis t Theology ' 9 t 'Post-Realis t Ethics ' fro m Solar Ethics 9 r 'Virtu e Ethics ' fro m Moral Action and Christian Ethics 10

Critique o f Extract s 10

1 7 1 6 0 4

Section 2 POLITICS , ECONOMIC S AN D JUSTIC E Introduction t o Politics , Economic s an d Justic e 10 Text I V Augustin Text V Aquina Text V I Luthe

e Th e Earthl y and Heavenl y Cities' fro m Th e City o f Go d 11

9 4

s fro m On Princely Government 122 r fro m Trade an d Usury 13

0 V

CONTENTS

Analysis o f Extract s 14 Extract 8 Bart h 'God's Judgment o n Politica l Revolutions ' from Th e Epistle t o th e Romans 15 Extract 9 Berdyae v 'Politic s and th e Spirit ' fro m Freedom an d the Spirit 15 Extract 1 0 Niebuh r 'The Conflict Between Individua l and Socia l Morality ' fro m Moral Ma n an d Immoral Society 15 Extract 1 1 Templ e fro m Christianity an d th e Social Order 16 Extract 1 2 Joh n XXII I 'Toward s a Worl d Government ' fro m Pacem i n Tern' s 17 Extract 1 3 Mirand a 'Justic e an d Almsgiving ' fro m Marx an d th e Bible 17 Extract 1 4 Hollenbac h 'Th e Common Goo d an d Globalisation ' fro m Th e Common Good an d Christian Ethics 18 Critique o f Extract s 18

3 0 6 9 4 0 8 4 7

Section 3 WA R AN D PEAC E Introduction t o Wa r an d Peac e 19 Text VI I Augustin e 'The Just War ' from Reply t o Faustus th e Manichaean 19 Text VII I Aquina s 'War, Christians an d th e Clergy ' fro m Summa Theologica 20 Text I X Luthe r fro m Whether Soldiers, too, Ca n b e Saved 21

3 9 6

Analysis o f Extract s 22 Extract 1 5 Welt y 'Wars o f Aggressio n an d Defence '

5

from A Handbook o f Christian Social Ethics 23

Extract 1 6 Ramse y fro m Wh o Speaks fo r th e Church? 23 Extract 1 7 U S Catholi c Bishop s fro m Th e Challenge o f Peace 24 Extract 1 8 Hauerwa s 'Pacifism : Som e Philosophica l Considerations ' 25 Extract 1 9 Bonin o 'Liberatio n Theolog y an d Peace ' fro m Revolutionary Theology Comes o f Age 25 Extract 2 0 O'Donova n 'Discriminatio n an d Double-Effect ' fro m Th e Just Wa r Revisited 26 Critique o f Extract s 26

4

0

6 2 0 6 1 5

Section 4 TH E ENVIRONMEN T Introduction t o th e Environmen t 27 Text X Augustin

Text X I Aquina Text XI I Luthe

1

e fro m Th e Literal Meaning o f Genesis 27

s 'Creatio n an d Divin e Providence ' fro m Summa Contra Gentiles 28 r fro m Commentary on Genesis (1.26-31) 29

Analysis o f Extract s 29 Extract 2 1 Whit e 'The Theological Root s of our Ecologica l Crisis ' 30 Extract 2 2 Gregorio s 'Ecolog y an d th e Worl d Counci l o f Churches' 31 vi

6

5 3 9 3 0

CONTENTS

Extract 2 3 Abraha m 'Liberatio n an d Eco-Justice ' 31 Extract 2 4 Clar k 'Christia n Responsibilit y for th e Environment ' 32 Extract 2 5 McFagu e 'A n Earthl y Theological Agenda ' 33 Critique of Extract s 33

8 5 1 6

Section 5 HUMA N LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S Introduction t o Huma n Lif e an d Interpersona l Relationship s 34 Text XII I Augustin e 'Suicide' fro m Th e City o f Go d 34 Text XI V Aquina s 'Fornication an d Marriage ' fro m Summa Contra Gentiles 35 Text XV Luthe r fro m O n th e Jews an d Their Lies 36

1 8 6 7

Analysis o f Extract s 37 Extract 2 6 Kün g 'Euthanasia' fro m A Dignified Dying? 38 Extract 2 7 Quake r Grou p fro m Towards a Quaker View o f Se x 38 Extract 2 8 War e 'Marriag e and Divorce - a n Orthodox Perspective ' 39 Extract 2 9 Pau l V I 'Birt h Control ' fro m Humanae Vitae 40 Extract 3 0 Cahil l 'Bioethic s an d AIDS ' 40 Extract 31 WCC 'Churche s Agains t Racism ' 414 Extract 3 2 Ruethe r 'Wester n Christianit y and Zionism ' 41 Critique o f Extract s 42

5 1 8 3 2 9

Select Bibliography i n Christian Ethics 43

3

Indices 44

3

vii

9 8

Alan Morton Gill 1909-85 paternus adjutor et doctus lector

Acknowledgements

I a m mos t gratefu l t o th e followin g for permissio n t o us e copyright passages: Penguin Book s Lt d (City o f Go d and Copleston : Aquinas) Prior Provincial , OP , S t Dominic's Priory , London (Summa Theologica) Fortress Pres s (Luther's Works an d Bonino : Doing Theology i n a Revolutionary Situation) Basil Blackwell (Aquinas: Selected Politica l Writings) William B . Eerdmans (Nicene an d Post Nicene Fathers) Doubleday (Summa Contra Gentiles) Macmillan an d SC M Press (Bonhoeffer : Ethics) SCM Press (Cupitt : Solar Ethics) Continuum an d SC M Press (Kiing : A Dignified Dying?) Oxford Universit y Press (Barth : Th e Epistle t o th e Romans) Geoffrey Ble s Lt d (Berdyaev : Freedom an d th e Spirit) Charles Scribner' s Son s (Niebuhr : Moral Ma n an d Immoral Society) Shepheard-Walwyn and SPC K (Temple: Christianity and Social Order) Catholic Trut h Societ y ( Veritatis Splendor, Pacem i n Terris an d Humanae Vitae) Orbis Book s and SC M Press (Miranda : Marx an d th e Bible) Orbis Book s (Ruether : Faith and th e Intifada) Verlag Herder (Welty : A Handbook o f Christian Social Ethics) The Westminster and SC M Press (Fletcher : Situation Ethics) Abingdon Pres s and Marci a Wood (Ramsey : Wh o Speaks fo r th e Church?) US National Conferenc e of Catholi c Bishop s (The Challenge o f Peace). Faith and Philosophy (Hauerwas : 'Pacifism' ) Paulist Pres s (Augustine : Th e Literal Meaning of Genesis). Science/AAAS (White : 'Theological Root s o f our Ecologica l Crisis ' World Counci l o f Churches (Gregorios : 'Racism i n Theology'). United Theologica l College , Bangalor e (Abraham : 'Liberation an d Eco-Justice') Modern Churchpeople' s Unio n (Clark : 'Christian Responsibilit y fo r the Environment' ) The Christian Centur y Foundatio n (McFague : 'An Eathl y Theological Agenda' ) The Downside Review (Ware: 'Marriag e and Divorce' ) Concj/mm/T&T Clar k (Fiorenza : 'Ethics and Feminis t Theology') Concordia (Luther : Lectures on Genesis) Cambridge Universit y Press (Porter : Moral Action and Christian Ethics Hollenbach: Th e Common Good an d Christian Ethics; and O'Donovan : Th e Just Wa r Revisited) Journal o f Religious Ethics (Cahill: 'Bioethic s and AIDS' ) Quaker Hom e Servic e ( Towards a Quaker View o f Sex) IX

This page intentionally left blank

Preface t o th e Third Editio n

It is now two decades since this Textbook was first published an d a decade since it was last revised. In th e meantime Christia n ethic s has continued t o chang e and t o flourish. The emphasis upo n ecolog y an d th e natura l environment , note d especiall y i n th e previous edition, ha s continue d strongly . Feminis t Christia n ethic s ha s als o continue d t o gro w with a significant number of feminist theologians now firmly established in the front rank of modern theology. Biblical interpretation and postmodern approaches t o theology hav e also continued t o challenge more traditional forms of theology and Christia n ethics. And issues i n science , bioscience , genetic s an d healt h hav e raise d seriou s an d fascinatin g ethical issues . Thes e remai n excitin g time s fo r student s o f Christian ethics . This new edition ha s sought to respond t o these changes with six entirely new Extracts and on e old one (Towards a Quaker View o f Sex) reinstated . I was gently scolded by quite a number o f colleagues for dropping the latter i n the previou s revision. They convinced me that i t does stil l make an important contributio n i n helping students t o understan d the scop e an d diversit y o f Christia n ethics . However , a s before, th e syste m o f analysis remains - bu t this had already been well tested over generations of students at Edinburgh University, at Newcastle University and no w at Canterbury (an d by colleagues in several other academic centres) . In my very first Preface I mentioned that writing bega n o n th e Textbook whil e I wa s o n sabbatica l i n Zambi a i n 1980 , continue d whil e teachin g a t Dartmouth College , Ne w Hampshire , an d effectivel y finishe d whil e teachin g a t th e United Theologica l College , Bangalore , i n 1984 . Sinc e the n i t ha s bee n increasingl y difficult t o keep track of all the students and faculty members around the world who have helped t o shap e th e contents . Howeve r I woul d particularl y lik e t o than k m y ow n students who have acted a s guinea-pigs on the various Texts and Extracts. Without the m I would never have known which to discard an d which to include . My former colleagues at Edinburg h - Dunca n Forrester , Ia n McDonal d an d Michae l Northcott , a s well as Simon Robinso n - al l gave mos t generousl y of their tim e i n helping to mak e the 199 5 revisions. And my current colleagues - Jerem y Carrette and Chris Deacy - hav e given me invaluable hel p with th e present revision. I am immensely gratefu l t o all of them and t o the ongoing generations of students who still point out my errors and mistakes with great glee! Befor e the y mentio n i t again , th e spelling s i n th e Text s an d Extract s follo w th e conventions o f the books fro m whic h the y hav e bee n draw n - sometime s Britis h and sometimes American . But then th e Textbook i s intended fo r both audiences . Readers wil l soo n b e awar e o f th e fac t tha t Christia n ethic s i s a highly pluralistic discipline. Fundamenta l difference s ar e apparen t i n th e presuppositions , methods , an d conclusions o f th e variou s writer s represente d here . I t migh t hav e bee n possibl e t o produce a book on moral issue s tha t ignore d thi s pluralis m an d diversity - bu t not a serious Textboo k o f Christian Ethics . A mature understandin g o f the disciplin e cannot XI

PREFACE T O TH E THIR D EDITIO N

bypass diversity . Phili p Wogama n argue s helpfull y tha t thi s diversit y 'woul d b e scandalous i f one though t of th e traditio n a s a deposi t o f trut h "onc e fo r al l delivered to th e saints". But if one thinks rathe r o f the tradition as a witness t o th e transcendent reality of the living God, then i s there not roo m fo r growth an d ne w insight?' (Christian Ethics: A Historical Introduction, p . 270) . If diversity is admitted, where is the unity in Christian ethics to be found? A superficial reading might conclude that it is wholly absent - th e diversity appears overwhelming. But that would , I believe, be a superficial reading . At certain ke y points a unity is suggested, mainly in certain biblically consonant value s held i n tension. Whil e remainin g critical of simplistic attempts to derive individual values from th e Bible, it is a feature of most o f the exponents o f Christia n ethic s represente d i n thi s Textbook tha t the y see k t o hol d i n creative tensio n value s that ar e consonan t wit h distinctivel y Christian , an d particularl y biblical, resource s (recognizin g tha t thes e resource s themselve s represen t a variet y o f tensions). So 'love' (agape) as an isolated value is not usuall y seen as a sufficient Christia n resource, bu t 'love ' i n tensio n wit h 'justice ' is . Differin g exponent s o f Christia n ethic s emphasize thi s particula r tensio n i n varyin g ways , bu t fo r mos t i t i s a n essential , irreducible and creative tension - and , indeed , a crucial poin t o f unity i n an otherwis e diverse discipline . At variou s point s a numbe r o f thes e tension s wil l b e note d betwee n 'peace ' an d 'justice', betwee n 'compassion ' an d 'mora l indignation' , an d finall y betwee n wha t i s termed i n th e fina l page s th e adeodati c axio m an d th e agapisti c axiom . Tha t thes e tensions ar e essentia l an d irreducible derive s fro m th e natur e o f Christianit y itself . As theologians suc h a s Augustine (wit h his notion o f the tw o cities ) an d Luthe r (wit h hi s notion o f th e tw o kingdoms ) wer e wel l aware , Christianit y i s always a mixtur e o f th e 'now' an d the 'not yet' . Indeed , th e Synoptic concep t o f the Kingdo m o f God seem s t o contain bot h presen t and futur e elements . To reflect this , a degree of creative tension wil l always b e a crucia l featur e o f a n adequat e understandin g o f Christia n ethics . Precisel y because it is structured aroun d essential , but elusive , tensions Christia n ethics will always be subjec t t o popula r misrepresentatio n an d reduction . I t i s only to o eas y t o presen t 'Christian values ' simplisticall y an d wit h scan t regar d t o thei r role-in-tensio n withi n Christianity. I will be content if this Textbook i s able to contribute even a little to a mor e mature understandin g o f Christian ethics . Finally I would like to thank my family and especiall y my wife and best friend , Jenny. I remain relieve d tha t mos t o f my famil y neve r rea d m y books. Howeve r m y father , wh o died in May 1985 just months before the Textbook was originally published, no t only read my book s bu t meticulousl y correcte d thei r spellin g (befor e th e day s o f spell-checks) , grammar an d sometime s logic . To him I continue t o ow e a special debt .

xn

Introduction

STRUCTURE

The structur e o f thi s Textbook i s built aroun d a systemati c compariso n o f text s wit h extracts. These two terms are used simply for convenience to distinguish between classical excerpts fro m Augustine , Aquinas and Luthe r an d present-da y (i.e . withi n th e las t 80 years) excerpt s - th e first being terme d Text s an d the secon d Extracts . Thi s structure differs significantl y fro m th e historica l approac h o f Wald o Beac h an d H . Richar d Niebuhr's Christian Ethics (1973 ) an d o f Arthu r F . Holmes'Wa r an d Christian Ethics (1975) i n a number o f ways: (a) i t doe s no t attemp t t o presen t a selection of historical writings in Christian ethics - a n important undertaking successfully achieved in these and other books , bu t on e tha t doe s lea d t o th e reproductio n o f repetitiv e material ; (b ) i t stresses the value of the comparativ e approach as an importan t mean s of learning; (c) it provides a systematic means of analysis for each Text an d Extract , which in turn makes comparative stud y mor e possible ; (d ) i t place s an emphasi s upo n th e relevanc e of th e discipline today. This last point is certainly a feature o f a number of readers in Christian social ethics , includin g m y ow n Readings i n Modern Theology (1995) , bu t fro m th e perspective of the theological teacher they often lac k historical and analytical dimensions and ar e in any case readers and no t textbooks . This book is designed to be a textbook and , at the end of this introduction, a method of using it as such is suggested. The fac t tha t i t is a textbook an d no t simpl y a reader has determined th e choic e o f Texts and Extracts . After man y experiments i t was decided t o limit the Texts to three key theologians in the belief that this gives more coherence to the five Sections and brings out better the main options and variables within Christian ethics. Naturally, a t times , reference s ar e mad e t o Churc h Father s earlie r tha n Augustin e (particularly Tertullian, Origen an d Ambrose), to Scholastic s other tha n Aquinas and t o Reformers othe r tha n Luthe r (notably Calvin) and i t was tempting to includ e texts fro m them all. But that would seriously have distorted the aims of this as a textbook and might have turned i t instead int o a historical reader. B y confining th e Texts to thes e three key theologians, i t i s hoped tha t th e studen t wil l be encourage d t o focu s clearl y upo n th e differences betwee n the m an d t o distinguis h thei r differin g effect s upo n present-da y Christian ethics . No t onl y d o the y represen t thre e o f th e mos t powerfu l post-Ne w Testament influence s o n Christia n theology , bu t the y als o represen t th e thre e distinc t phases of Western Christianit y - th e Undivided Catholi c Church , th e Medieval Roma n Church an d th e Protestant/Reforme d Church . The Extracts, too, hav e been chose n with the need s of a textbook an d no t simpl y of a reader in mind. They are not necessaril y 'the best' from recen t Christian ethics . Some are intended simpl y to represen t position s tha t have influenced th e contemporary churches . It ha s been ou r experienc e i n teachin g the subjec t tha t student s ca n learn fro m weake r 1

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

Extracts a s well a s fro m thos e tha t ar e mor e intellectuall y sophisticated , althoug h th e balance i s intende d t o b e i n favou r o f th e latter . A s wil l b e explaine d presently , th e Extracts hav e bee n chose n t o represen t a wid e rang e withi n an d betwee n differin g Christian traditions . The book i s divided into five Sections with the three Texts and a t least five Extracts in each. Th e firs t Sectio n i s concerne d wit h methodologica l issue s an d th e subsequen t Sections wit h substantiv e issue s i n Christia n ethics . Section s 2-4 ar e mainl y concerne d with issue s in social ethics and Sectio n 5 with personal o r 'statu s of life' ethics , althoug h these division s sometime s becom e somewha t arbitrar y (e.g . marita l issue s ar e clearl y personal issues , but , a t leas t withi n th e Judaeo-Christia n tradition , the y als o hav e a relationship wit h societ y a t large) . Th e Section s ar e self-containe d an d contai n man y cross-references to other Section s and therefore can be studied i n any order. Each Section is preface d b y a n introductio n t o th e mai n issue s raise d withi n i t a s the y relat e t o Christian ethics . Eac h Tex t an d grou p o f Extract s i s preface d b y a six-fol d syste m o f analysis an d a t th e en d o f each a critique is given. SYSTEM O F ANALYSI S The six-fol d system o f analysis introducing eac h Text an d grou p o f Extracts consists o f (1) Backgroun d (2 ) Ke y Issues (3 ) Ethica l Arguments (4 ) Base s o f Christia n Ethic s (5 ) Social Determinant s an d (6 ) Socia l Significance . The critiqu e a t the en d o f each forms a seventh part . I n mor e detai l the y are as follows: 1. BACKGROUND This part of the analysis suggests relevant biographical details and identifies the documen t from whic h the Text o r Extrac t has been taken. Sinc e part o f the presen t introductio n i s concerned wit h comparin g Augustine , Aquinas an d Luther , it wil l no t b e necessar y t o repeat thes e biographica l detail s ever y tim e a Tex t i s introduced . Unti l th e centra l differences between the three theologians become clearer , a student would be well advised to kee p referrin g bac k t o thi s par t o f th e introduction . I n thi s Textbook a stron g assumption i s that biographical detail s are , at times, directl y relevan t t o an understanding of th e though t o f a particula r theologian . Thu s som e knowledg e o f Berdyaev' s lif e i s considered t o be essential fo r an adequat e understandin g of Extract 9 . 2. KE Y ISSUES The overall introductio n t o eac h Section seek s to provid e a summary of the mai n issue s arising from th e Texts and Extracts within it. But here secondary issues will also be raised and i t will be indicate d ho w th e specifi c Tex t o r Extrac t in question relate s to th e mai n issues. The aim of this part of the analysis is to help students t o isolate specific issues fro m the Text or Extract so that they can relate them to the other Texts or Extracts. One of the surprising features of examining, i n detail, even quite a short excerpt fro m a given author, is t o discove r ho w man y o f hi s o r he r characteristi c idea s occu r withi n it . Thus , i f examined thoroughly , eve n a shor t Tex t fro m a theologia n a s comple x a s Aquina s contains quite a number o f his assumptions and ideas . Again from experienc e of teaching Christian ethics, Texts or Extracts need not be lengthy to be instructive; they must merel y be studied wit h care and attention . 2

INTRODUCTION

3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS A vital feature of analysis i n Christian ethics involve s th e identificatio n o f differing type s of ethica l argument . A n important distinctio n mus t b e mad e betwee n mora l decision making an d ethica l analysis . Insofa r a s i t i s a n academi c discipline , ethics , an d wit h i t Christian ethics , i s usually considere d t o be concerned mor e wit h th e secon d tha n wit h the first. It is concerned wit h examining the nature of prescriptive language, the grounds on whic h moral belief s ar e held, th e virtue s they embody, th e type s of argument which those who hold them us e to promote them, th e types of moral characte r tha t foste r them and th e consequence s tha t the y involve . I f decision-making i s involved , thi s i s usually achieved o n th e basis of a systematic or develope d theory . Ethics , or mora l philosophy , understood in this way is clearly related t o intelligent mora l decision-making , bu t i s not identical wit h it . Similarly , Christia n theolog y i s not usuall y considered t o b e identical with Christia n belief : i t i s a n intellectual , theoretica l an d second-orde r discipline . So, whereas all Christians ma y make moral decision s an d hold certain religiou s beliefs , only some are exponents o f Christian ethic s and o f Christian theology . I t i s in this sense that the terms will be used here , even though elsewher e the term s 'theology' and 'ethics ' are often use d i n a broader and les s academic sense . It would be inappropriate to attempt an outline of general ethics or moral philosophy. Instead good introduction s ca n be found i n the following : Phillippa Foot (ed.) , Theories of Ethics (1967) ; A . Maclntyre , A Short History o f Ethics (1966) ; P . H . Nowell-Smith , Ethics (1957) ; G . J . Warnock, Contemporary Moral Philosophy (1966) ; Mar y Warnock, Ethics Since 1900 (1978). I n addition , A . V . Campbell' s Moral Dilemmas i n Medicine (1972) provides a clear an d readabl e accoun t o f the classica l approache s t o ethic s usin g medical issues as case-studies. Ia n C . M. Fairweather and J . I. H. McDonald's Th e Quest for Christian Ethics (1984) gives a more detaile d accoun t o f the approaches . An d Alba n McCoy's A n Intelligent Person's Guide t o Christian Ethics (2004 ) give s a n accessible , briefer account . For the purpose of this Textbook three basic types of ethical argument should be clearly identified - deontological , consequential, and personalist: (a) Deontological ethical arguments

It i s a featur e o f deontological argument s - derive d fro m th e Gree k for 'necessary' o r 'imperative' - tha t by nature they are absolutist. On e cannot argu e beyond them . So , if one maintain s tha t murde r i s wron g an d i s aske d t o giv e a reason , a deontologica l response would be: 'Because it is against the law of nature', or 'Becaus e it is against God's will', o r 'Becaus e i t break s th e Sixt h Commandment' , o r eve n 'Becaus e i t i s simpl y wrong'. Such responses merel y refer th e other perso n t o some nor m o r absolute beyond which there can be no furthe r argument . There i s no attempt her e to argu e that i t is the consequences of murder tha t mak e it wrong; indeed, murder i s seen as wrong regardless of it s consequences . O f course , ther e ma y b e situation s i n whic h tw o o r mor e norm s conflict (a s in euthanasia - se e Extract 26) and further argumen t is then required in order to determine moral prioritie s (sometimes termed 'casuistry') , but values, as such, cannot be justified othe r than b y reference to the norm fro m whic h they are derived. Immanuel Kant's (1724-1803 ) concep t o f th e categorica l imperativ e i s a classi c exampl e o f deontological ethics , whereb y moralit y i s regarde d a s autonomous , categorica l (i n th e sense that it is a 'given' of the human mind - i t is not a human invention and requires no 3

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

proof), imperativ e (i t i s t o b e obeyed , no t argue d with ) an d universal . Fo r Kan t th e categorical imperativ e o f moralit y command s tha t w e ac t onl y o n th e maxi m tha t w e would wish our behaviou r to become a universal law: morality is an end in itself and no t a means to somethin g else. As will be seen, it is quite different fro m utilitarianis m which is essentiall y conditiona l an d a mean s t o a furthe r en d (e.g . pleasur e o r happiness) . A more recen t exampl e o f deontologica l ethic s i s th e wa y th e concep t o f 'rights ' i s sometimes use d - a s in the 'right to life' o r 'the right of the woman t o choose' position s often use d o n opposit e sides o f the abortio n debate. Again, one can argue about whethe r or not a given situation reall y constitutes a clearcut moral case. So, although murder might be considered alway s to be wrong, one migh t still argu e about whethe r a particular situatio n doe s o r doe s no t involv e murder. Thus , many of those who believe that murder i s wrong, but tha t killing in war can be justified, argue that the latter does not involv e the former (e.g . since war does not involv e privately motivated killin g - se e Aquinas' Tex t VIII). Others, usin g a conflict theory , migh t argue that althoug h killin g i n wa r i s wrong , i t i s overridde n b y th e greate r wron g o f no t defending one's country when called on to do so. In both instance s a deontological stanc e is still taken o n th e issu e o f murder. It wil l b e see n i n th e variou s Section s tha t bot h Augustine' s an d Luther' s biblica l arguments ar e predominantl y deontological . Indee d deontolog y i s als o a featur e o f Aquinas' mora l arguments , eve n thoug h hi s commitmen t t o Aristotle' s maxi m tha t 'happiness is the chie f good' tend s t o pus h hi m toward s consequentialism . Man y would argue that , i n som e form , deontolog y i s a n essentia l featur e o f al l Christia n ethics . However, this is an issu e which will be debated a t lengt h throughou t thi s Textbook. (b) Consequential ethical arguments It i s a featur e o f consequential argument s - sometime s terme d teleologica l argument s although the two can be distinct - tha t the y treat morality , no t as autonomous o r as an end in itself, but a s a means to something else. At its simplest, one is enjoined to be good so that one may receive some reward - eithe r in the form o f some present o r near futur e state, such as 'pleasure' or 'happiness', or in the more distant form of an earthly Utopia or of a transcendent eterna l life . T o retur n t o reason s fo r believing tha t murde r i s wrong , consequential response s typicall y might be : 'Becaus e murder , i f allowed, woul d destro y society', or 'Becaus e murder doe s not contribut e to general happiness' . In each respons e murder i s thought to b e wrong, not becaus e i t is wrong i n itself , bu t becaus e it leads t o something els e whic h i s though t t o b e wron g o r perhap s jus t undesirabl e - e.g . th e breakdown o f society , th e absenc e o f genera l happiness , o r th e receptio n o f eterna l punishment. I f thi s 'somethin g else ' i s itsel f though t t o b e wrong , the n clearl y consequential arguments eventuall y d o have a deontological basis. On the other hand, if this 'something else' is thought to be no more than undesirable, it may have no such basis (and fo r this reason som e maintai n tha t therefor e i t i s not a mora l argumen t a t all) . In addition t o th e objec t varying, in consequentia l arguments , th e recipien t envisaged als o varies. In some forms of the argument, it is the agent whose ends are considered, wherea s in other s i t i s those o f societ y as a whole. However , i n all , mora l conduc t i s judged i n terms o f it s goal s o r consequence s (teleologica l argument s stres s mor e th e first , an d consequential arguments mor e the second). Various type s o f ethica l utilitarianis m an d pragmatis m constitut e form s o f conse quential argument . Fo r lerem y Bentha m (1748-1832 ) moralit y wa s concerne d wit h 4

INTRODUCTION

attempting t o increase the total pleasure of humankind an d the avoidance o f pain - a n explicit for m o f hedonism , albei t no t calculate d o n a n individualisti c basi s (i.e . i t concerns, no t th e specifi c pleasur e of the agent , but th e greates t amount o f pleasure for the greates t numbe r o f people) . Fo r Joh n Stuar t Mil l (1806-73 ) moralit y shoul d b e empirically based, ascertaining first what people really find 'desirable' and then arranging society so that as much as possible (quantitativel y as well as qualitatively) of what people desire ca n be obtained, by as many as possible, i n a n orderl y an d cooperativ e way. In som e form s o f th e Christia n traditio n consequentia l argument s hav e assume d a strongly eschatologica l character . Fo r example , i n th e sixth-centur y Rul e o f Benedict , monks were told: 'If we wish to escape the pains of hell and attain to eternal life we must hasten t o d o suc h things onl y as may profit u s for eternity, now , while there i s time for this and we are in this body and ther e is time to fulfi l al l these precepts by means of this light' (The Rule o f Benedict, Prologue, trans . W . K . Lowther Clarke , 1931) . A more immediat e for m o f consequentialism, roote d clearl y in deontology, i s evident in th e followin g paragraph fro m th e Didache: My son, flee from al l wickedness and from everythin g like it. Do not become angry, for anger leads to murder. Do not become jealous, or quarrelsome, o r irritable, for it leads to fornication . And do not us e obscene language , or le t your eye wander, for from al l these come adulteries ... My child, do not be a liar, because a lie leads to theft; be not greedy of money or empt y glory, for fro m al l this com e thefts. M y child, d o no t b e a grumbler, becaus e i t lead s t o blasphemy , d o no t b e prou d o r malicious , fo r from all these arise blasphemies. (Didache, v , from Ludwi g Schopp (ed.) , Th e Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1 , Th e Fathers o f th e Church) Whatever i s thought o f th e logi c o f th e link s i n thi s ver y earl y (possibl y early secondcentury) documen t - ange r lead s t o murder , jealous y lead s t o fornication , grumblin g leads to blasphemies, and so forth - thei r consequentia l natur e i s evident. On e thing is considered wron g because it leads to (or it might even derive from) something else which is already known t o be wrong - i n this instanc e because murder, adultery , stealin g and blasphemy ar e known t o b e wrong fro m th e Decalogu e (i.e . the Te n Commandments) . Consequential argument s will be seen alongside deontological arguments in a number of the Texts and Extracts . Utilitarianism i n the mor e formal , philosophica l sens e will be seen t o b e present i n Fletcher' s Extract 2. (c) Personalist ethical arguments It i s a featur e o f personalis t argument s tha t the y vie w morality , no t a s obedienc e t o autonomous, absolut e principles or as a means to something else, but a s an expression of individual feeling , conscience or love. It is frequently argued b y exponents of personalis t ethics that moral dilemmas cannot b e resolved in advance of particular situations. Thus, it make s n o sens e t o argue , a s an abstrac t principle , abou t whethe r o r no t murde r i s wrong. Onl y i n particula r situation s whe n th e individua l i s confronte d wit h th e possibility o f murder , ca n tha t individua l determin e whethe r o r no t i t i s wrong . Confronted wit h th e prospec t o f murdering one' s siste r now , th e personalis t ca n repl y that this murder is wrong: 'Because I feel that it is wrong', or 'Because my conscience tell s me that it is wrong', or 'Because it would contradict my love for her or my respect for her as a person'. In these response s i t can be seen that ther e are elements of both deontolog y 5

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

and consequentialism . Feelings, conscience, love and respec t for persons are all treated as normative an d onl y i n relatio n t o the m ar e action s considere d t o b e righ t o r wrong . Nonetheless, the emphasis is individualistic and situational . It is conceivable that, given a change i n the situation o r in the persons involved , a n individual migh t reac h th e verdic t that t o murde r one' s siste r would be right. It might be war-time and th e sister might be discovered t o be working for the enemy. The deontologist coul d fee l impelle d t o murde r the siste r i n thes e circumstances, but woul d ten d t o argue , eithe r tha t i t was not reall y murder in this instance, or, that it was murder and was therefore wrong, but tha t it would be a greater wron g t o allo w one' s country t o b e betrayed. The consequentialist, on th e other hand , migh t argu e that th e happiness o r well-being of society determines tha t th e murder o f all traitors is right. I n contrast to th e deontologist, the personalist may argue that thi s actual murder i s right, even if it is still thought t o be murder. In contrast t o th e consequentialist, th e personalist argue s that general pronouncements abou t traitor s bein g murdered shoul d no t b e made i n advanc e o f particular situations. Thi s doe s no t mea n that societ y should no t mak e laws on issue s like this (i n orde r t o discourag e traitor s i n war-time i t may feel obliged t o do so), but suc h laws should not be confused wit h moral laws. B y definition, the latte r canno t b e codified. The position s o f the deontologis t an d the consequentialis t ca n be an d frequentl y hav e bee n codifie d (bot h Bentha m an d Mil l sought t o influenc e law-makin g a s wel l a s mora l philosophy) . Bu t th e mos t tha t th e personalist ca n offe r ar e general moral guidelines , whic h can be overridden i n particula r situations. Personalism, i n one for m o r another , ha s proved t o b e very attractive to a number o f recent mora l philosopher s an d theologians . Ther e ha s bee n a widesprea d los s o f confidence i n natura l la w theorie s an d th e mor e sophisticate d form s o f utilitarianism seem t o many to involv e tortuous , unrealisti c o r eve n unjus t mora l calculations . Withi n moral philosoph y emotiv e theorie s o f ethic s (criticize d in Copleston' s Extrac t 3) hav e been popular. It is interesting that even a critic of these theories like R. M. Hare based his own theor y o n th e Golde n Rul e (do-as-you-would-be-done-b y or , i n mor e explicitl y Christian terms, 'Love your neighbour as yourself). Theologian s hav e additional reason s for findin g personalis t theorie s attractive : (i ) th e anti-legalis m o f Pau l (an d possibl y Jesus) seems to conflic t wit h some form s o f deontology; (ii ) personalism fit s i n well with the Dominica l Command s t o Love ; (iii ) the aim s o f some forms of utilitarianism see m distinctly un-Christian (e.g . the sol e pursuit of 'pleasure', as distinct fro m 'happiness ' in Aquinas' sense) . In th e Extracts , Fletcher's theory o f Situations Ethics i n Extrac t 2 seeks t o combin e a general personalis t ethica l theor y wit h a specificall y Christia n positio n aroun d th e concept of agape. Although Bonhoeffer's Extrac t 1 explicitly rejects secular ethics, his own approach base d solely on th e 'Cal l of Christ' does have similarities to Fletche r (see below, p. 38) . Fletcher's positio n ha s bee n th e subjec t o f considerabl e debat e i n Christia n ethics . Arguments abou t it s strength s an d weaknesse s wil l occu r a t severa l point s i n thi s Textbook. However , i t i s importan t t o not e her e that , althoug h Augustine' s overal l position wa s undoubtedly deontological , ther e wa s also a strong emphasi s upo n lov e i n his writings. To claim that he was actually a situationist would be to claim far too much . Nonetheless, hi s celebrated sayin g 'Love God, an d d o what you want' sums up a t least a part o f what be believed. Hi s sermon s als o revea l a repeated emphasi s upo n love : 6

INTRODUCTION

If deed s den y him , withou t doub t deed s als o declar e him . N o man , therefore , says, 'Jesus is Lord', whether with mind, word, deed, heart , mouth , o r work, no ma n says, 'Jesus i s Lord', but i n the Hol y Spirit ; and n o ma n say s so but h e who loves him .. . What therefor e we have now to learn is that h e who loves already has the Hol y Spirit, and tha t hi s presen t possessio n entitle s hi m t o a large r possessio n an d th e large r possession to a larger love . (Joh.Ev.Tractatus 74.1-2 ) It will be evident that these three approaches to ethics - deontological , consequential, and personalist - ar e not entirel y separable . I t migh t b e more accurat e to describ e them as emphases rathe r tha n a s discret e theories . But , howeve r interrelated , a n abilit y t o distinguish thei r differin g characteristic s i s importan t fo r th e analysi s necessar y i n Christian ethics . 4. BASES O F CHRISTIAN ETHICS The question 'I n what way is Christian ethics different fro m genera l ethics?' is one that is central to Christian ethic s and, as a result, recurs frequently in this Textbook. Apart from the Extract s cited, a number o f books wil l be foun d usefu l i n thi s context: Peter Baelz , Ethics an d Belief (1977) ; Kieran Cronin, Rights an d Christian Ethics (1992) ; George W . Forell, History o f Christian Ethics (1979) ; Jame s M. Gustafson , Can Ethics b e Christian? (1975) an d Theology an d Ethics (1981) ; Michae l Keeling , Th e Foundations of Christian Ethics (1990); Enda McDonagh, Invitation and Response (1972) and Gift an d Call (1975); John Mahoney, Th e Making of Moral Theology: A Study o f th e Roman Catholic Tradition (1987); Jea n Porter, Moral Action an d Christian Ethics (1995) ; Keith Ward , Ethics an d Christianity (1970 ) and Th e Divine Image (1976) ; J. Philip Wogaman, Christian Ethics: A Historical Introduction (1994). I n addition , a n extremel y useful resourc e fo r student s is provided b y James Childress an d Joh n Macquarri e (eds), A Ne w Dictionary o f Christian Ethics (198 6 and 2007) , my ow n Th e Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics (2001), and Willia m Schweike r (ed.) , Th e Blackwell Companion to Religious Ethics (2005) . If the questio n o f Christian distinctiveness is asked at an empirical level, the answe r to the abov e questio n ma y be tha t i n th e Wes t Christia n an d non-Christia n ethic s diffe r hardly a t all . I n al l fiv e Section s a considerabl e amoun t o f disagreemen t betwee n Christians i s eviden t - seemingl y almos t a s muc h a s disagreement s betwee n non Christians. Thi s poin t ca n be exaggerated (Section s 2- 5 wil l each conclud e wit h point s that unit e Christians) , but , grante d a transpositio n theory , i t ma y hav e som e basis . According to this theory, Western values are still largely the product of a Christian past . Even though they may no longer be formally nourished by the churches, values in society at larg e hav e bee n mainl y transpose d fro m Christianity . No t surprisingl y then , i t i s argued, th e result s o f Christia n ethic s an d mora l philosoph y i n th e Wes t ofte n stil l coincide. Certainly , Miranda's Extract 13 and Bonino' s Extrac t 19 see an affinit y betwee n Christian an d explicitly Marxist values, an affinity tha t som e see as related to the indirect influence o f Christian value s on Mar x himself. However, i f the question 'In what way is Christian ethic s different fro m general ethics?' is asked at a more theoretica l leve l a number o f answers are possible. Thes e range fro m the nea r identificatio n of the tw o i n Fletcher' s Extrac t 2 to th e denia l o f any similarity between the m i n Bonhoeffer' s Extrac t 1 . However, Bonhoeffer' s positio n i s difficul t t o maintain an d i t will be seen that ther e are reasons for doubting whether , in fact , h e di d 7

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

maintain i t consistently. At the ver y least, it i s evident tha t th e thre e ethical approaches outlined abov e occur i n both disciplines . One way of approaching the question is to isolate the specifically Christian appeals that are characteristicall y made withi n Christia n ethics . O f these , fou r i n particula r ca n b e isolated (although , i n practice , the y are ofte n mad e together) : appeal s t o th e Bible , t o Christian tradition , to Christia n experience , an d to Christia n belief . (a) Appeals t o th e Bible

Of all the specifically Christian appeals, within Christian ethics, this has become the mos t complex. While all Christians affor d th e Bible an important role, the combined disputes generated, first in the sixteent h centur y by the Reformatio n and the n i n th e nineteent h century by the adven t o f biblical criticism , hav e ensured tha t th e relationshi p betwee n Christianity an d th e Bibl e i s no w considerabl y mor e varie d than , fo r example , th e relationship between Islam and the Qur'an. Biblical hermeneutics - examinin g differen t and sometime s contradictor y way s i n whic h th e Bibl e ha s bee n interprete d fro m on e culture to another an d from on e age to another - ha s also increased this complexity. At several point s i n thi s Textbook thi s hermeneutical complexit y wil l be noted. Appeals to the Bible, within Christian ethics now face a number of serious problems, of which th e followin g have been suggeste d i n th e literatur e referred t o a t th e en d o f this sub-section: (i) I t ha s alway s been eviden t tha t man y passage s i n th e Bibl e can b e interprete d i n more than one way. It will be seen presently that Augustine varied in his interpretation of Genesis 3 , his earlier allegorica l interpretation s giving way to literalisti c ones . Section 3 will sho w that Tertullia n gav e a thoroughgoin g pacifis t interpretatio n o f Matthe w 5.39 ('turn the other cheek'), whereas Augustine repudiated thi s interpretation wit h the claim that 'wha t i s here require d i s not a bodily action , bu t a n inwar d disposition ' (se e Text VII.8). Biblica l criticis m increase d thi s proble m enormously . Redactio n criticism , fo r example, requires one to recognize that the gospel is a multi-layered phenomenon an d is considerably more pluralistic than was generally realized in the pas t (e.g . see James D. G. Dunn's Unity an d Diversity i n th e New Testament (1977)). (ii) Debate s abou t th e authorit y of the Bibl e are among th e mos t vexe d i n Christia n theology. Th e problem s raise d b y th e Reformatio n have prove d particularl y serious . While befor e Luthe r most Christian s would hav e assumed th e infallibilit y o f th e Bible, particular tension was caused by his stress on the Bible as the sole source of authority for Christian ethic s and belief . This tension i s still evident i n th e Extract s that follow , a s is also the issue of whether or not Christia n traditio n and/or experienc e shoul d b e allowed in Christia n ethic s a s separat e source s o f authorit y i n additio n t o th e Bible . For mos t Roman Catholi c theologians , an d fo r man y Anglica n theologian s (followin g i n th e tradition o f Hooker, who insiste d that God's la w is operative, not onl y in the Bible , but also in human reason and conscience), Luther' s sola Scriptura [Scriptur e alone] emphasis, however understandabl e i n the contex t o f sixteenth-century Europe , i s too theologicall y restrictive. Again , biblical criticis m ha s further aggravated thi s situation. Once th e litera l infallibility o f ever y verse i n th e Bibl e i s rejected , an d contradiction s an d factua l an d moral errors , anachronism s an d inconsistencie s are claimed, th e exponen t o f Christia n ethics ca n n o longe r adequatel y bas e mora l claim s o n particula r proof-text s i n th e manner of Augustine, Luther and, eve n at times, Aquinas. As a result, differin g concept s of the authority of the Bible will be evident in the various Extracts. It would, of course, be 8

INTRODUCTION

ridiculous to criticize Augustine, Aquinas or Luther for themselves treating the Bible in a pre-critical manner. But, once the changed social context brought about by the advent of biblical criticis m i s taken int o account , th e exponen t o f Christia n ethic s i s confronte d with formidabl e problems . I t i s no t th e ai m o f thi s introductio n t o resolv e thes e problems, bu t rathe r t o poin t t o th e variou s way s they hav e change d th e present-da y discipline. (iii) It is difficult fo r even the most literalistic biblicist no t t o be operating in practice a 'canon within the Canon' . That is , it is difficult t o trea t al l parts o f the Bibl e with equal seriousness and attention an d not to be biblically selective. It will be seen later that, in this sense, Luthe r wa s selective . A n overvie w o f th e histor y o f Christia n theolog y migh t suggest tha t eac h ag e 'rediscovers' som e aspec t o f th e gospe l an d forget s others . I n th e twentieth century , throug h th e stimulu s o f Weis s an d Schweitzer , theologian s 'rediscovered' th e concep t o f th e Kingdo m o f Go d an d th e eschatologica l notion s associated wit h it , an d rejecte d th e 'live s o f Jesus ' o f th e previou s century . Doubtles s future centurie s wil l judge the twenty-firs t t o b e a s guilty of neglecting othe r aspect s of the gospel. Again, when the diversity of the Bible generally and of the gospels in particular is accepted , som e degre e o f selectivity seem s inevitabl e - i f only th e sor t o f selectivity involved in isolating 'the central message of Jesus' or 'the gospel'. Yet this clearly creates problems, sinc e many forms of selectivity, themselves based on extra-biblical criteria, are possible. Th e inde x a t th e en d o f this Textbook clearl y show s a stres s o n Matthe w and Romans i n man y of the Text s an d Extracts . (iv) A major difficult y for Christian ethics has always been determinin g the degre e to which the Jewish Bible - o r 'the Old Testament' as Christians term it - shoul d be taken as seriously a s the Ne w Testament. Tension s betwee n Ol d Testamen t mora l precept s an d Christian teachin g are already present in the New Testament (e.g . on the issues of fasting or retribution) an d continue today. I n Section 3 it will be seen that attitude s to the issue of war ar e affecte d b y the relativ e weigh t give n t o th e Ol d an d Ne w Testaments, sinc e pacifism i s clearl y no t envisage d i n th e forme r whereas , i n th e latter , arguabl y i t is . Nowhere i s thi s issu e mor e crucia l tha n i n th e rol e give n i n Christia n ethic s t o th e Decalogue. Differences o f attitude to the Ten Commandments wil l be noted i n the Texts between Aquina s an d Luther . An d today, despite thei r continued us e in man y liturgie s and their plac e in Western fol k religion , some theologians woul d maintai n that the y are largely irrelevant to present-day Christian ethics. For them the discipline cannot be based upon a series of largely negative moral injunctions , which do no t envisag e many of the most importan t modem mora l dilemmas (suc h as war in a nuclear age or th e problem s created by technology, genetics and biotechnology) an d which are too closely related to a traditional Jewish culture (e.g. not pronouncin g the name of God and keeping the Jewish Sabbath). Thi s issu e will recur later i n thi s Textbook. (v) Related to this is the problem of how much weight should be afforded t o the words and action s of Jesus himself. Mos t Christian s might agree , i n principle, that the words , actions and idea s of Jesus, once established , shoul d b e given a central plac e in Christia n ethics. So there has been considerable discussion over the centuries o n whether Matthe w 5.32 permit s divorc e - wit h th e Roma n Catholic , Orthodo x an d Anglica n Churche s reaching a wide variety of conclusions (see Ware's Extract 28). However, biblical criticis m again greatly complicates the issue . The so-called quest for the historical Jesus, even afte r more tha n on e hundre d years , show s fe w signs o f ending , an d th e constructio n o f a n account o f Jesus', as distinct from th e early church's, though t an d lif e has become one of 9

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

the mos t difficul t an d risk y undertakings i n Ne w Testament studies . So , while ther e i s now a good dea l of agreement abou t Jesus ' use of the concep t o f the Kingdo m o f God, there is little agreement abou t hi s use of the equall y crucial concept o f the So n of Man. The depth o f research necessary and th e tentativeness of the eventua l conclusions i s well illustrated by a study of attitudes to wealth and povert y in the Gospels, David Mealand' s Poverty an d Expectation i n the Gospels (1980) . Mealand outlines fou r layer s - redaction , sources, oral tradition and Jesus' own teaching and action - i n the Synoptic Gospels, each with a different attitud e toward s wealt h and poverty and each related t o a different sociopolitical context. Alongside such research, the biblical claims of the Texts and some of the Extracts ma y appear highl y simplistic. I n addition, the christological assumption s of the exponent o f Christian ethic s will affect th e relativ e weight that i s afforded t o Jesus ' own words, action s an d ideas . Th e more importanc e tha t som e o f the Extracts attac h t o th e humanity of Christ, th e mor e incline d the y may be t o se e him a s an exampl e for othe r human beings: on the other hand , a relatively 'high' Christology may be more inclined t o see Christ as the law-give r (the position mor e o f the Texts) . (vi) Th e nineteenth an d twentieth centurie s initiated considerabl e debat e amon g New Testament theologian s abou t ho w fa r the teachin g of Paul ca n be reconcile d wit h what can b e know n abou t th e teachin g of Jesus. Since Paul, a s will be seen , playe d suc h a n important rol e i n th e writing s of both Augustin e and Luther , thi s questio n canno t b e ignored. This issue was particularly important fo r Schweitzer. His detailed studies , first of the eschatologica l teaching of Jesus an d the n o f the mystica l world o f Paul's concep t o f being 'in Christ', led him to conclude that they were difficult t o reconcile, both with each other and with the modern world . Some of the present differences between Reforme d and Catholic theologian s ma y be due to th e relativ e importance th e forme r give to Paul . (vii) Finally , a number o f the most crucia l present-da y mora l dilemma s - particularl y in th e area s o f technology , biotechnology , genetic s an d medicine , a s wil l b e see n i n Sections 4 an d 5 - wer e neve r envisage d i n biblica l times . O f course , w e can mak e inferences from injunctions that do exist in the Bible, but suc h inferences are notoriousl y hazardous. Further, if, as is widely accepted by New Testament scholars , it is believed tha t Jesus and hi s most immediat e follower s confidently expected th e parousia to arriv e very soon, i t is hardly surprising that they apparently showed little interest i n social ethics. As a result , Augustine , face d wit h a radica l chang e i n th e socio-politica l statu s o f Christianity, was confronted wit h a ne w moral situatio n fo r whic h the Ne w Testamen t provided fe w clear answers . Th e proble m her e i s a doubl e one : i n th e Ne w Testament some issue s are treated , bu t onl y ambiguousl y and fleetingly, as befits thos e livin g i n a soon-to-be-destroyed world , wherea s other s ar e ignore d o r simpl y no t envisaged . Together they present seriou s difficulties fo r a form o f ethics based upon th e Bibl e alone. Stated so baldly this may appear excessively negative. There have in fact been a number of importan t attempt s t o fac e thes e variou s problem s i n Christia n ethics . J . I . H . McDonald's Biblical Interpretation an d Christian Ethics (1993 ) give s a ver y usefu l overview of the differin g way s the Bibl e has been use d i n the histor y of Christian ethics. These seve n sets of problems shoul d b e studied carefull y in relation t o eac h of the Text s and Extracts. While an overview of the latter demonstrates tha t the Bibl e still plays a vital role in most traditions of Christian ethics , this role is now extremely complex an d varied . A study of the ethic s of the Ne w Testament itsel f reveals some o f this complexity, a s the following suggest : J. L. Houlden, Ethics and th e New Testament (1973); Joh n Knox, Th e Ethics o f Jesus i n th e Teaching o f th e Church (1961) ; Barnaba s Lindars, 'Th e Bibl e an d 10

INTRODUCTION

Christian Ethics', Theology, 76 , 1973; T. W. Manson, Ethics and th e Gospel (1960) ; Jack T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament (1975). I t is compounded furthe r b y a study of th e way i n whic h th e Bibl e is use d b y Christians ; fo r thi s see : James Barr, Th e Bible i n th e Modern World (1973) ; C. H. Dodd, The Authority of th e Bible (1960); D. E. Nineham, Th e Use and Abuse of the Bible (1976). (b) Appeals t o Christian Tradition The way s i n whic h churche s appea l t o Christia n traditio n revea l som e o f th e mos t important historica l difference s betwee n them . I n ver y broad terms , Orthodo x appea l only t o th e decision s o f th e historica l Ecumenica l Councils; Roma n Catholic s includ e appeals even to th e most recen t Papal Encyclicals; Anglicans make only a general appeal to Christian tradition; and Lutherans subordinate all such appeals to the principle of sola Scriptura. However , today these generalizations can be made with less accuracy. Interna l opposition t o a stric t interpretatio n o f papa l infallibilit y i n present-da y Roma n Catholicism, Anglica n division s betwee n Liberals , Anglo-Catholic s an d Evangelicals , and an increased catholicity amongs t man y Reformed theologians, have made traditiona l divisions les s clear-cut tha n the y migh t onc e hav e appeared. A study of th e Text s an d Extracts reveal s many o f these difference s an d area s of overlap . In the Texts, Aquinas' Tex t VIII shows his use of Augustine as an authority. The latter also ha d a profoun d influenc e o n Luther . Bu t Tex t II I show s th e exten t o f Luther' s acceptance of the notio n o f justification by faith alon e and hi s radical rejection of papal authority, papa l councils an d long-accepte d tradition s o f Catholic piety . In the Extracts, Welty's Extract 15 shows a traditional approach o f Roman Catholics to papal authority. In contrast, Miranda's Extract 13, Fiorenza's Extract 5, Kiing's Extract 26 and Ruether's Extract 32 show far more radical Roman Catholic approaches. The issue of papal authority ha s been most seriousl y tested fo r many Roman Catholics toda y by Paul VI's Extrac t 2 9 an d wa s a n abidin g issu e fo r Joh n Pau l I I (see his Extrac t 4) . Th e traditional Orthodox appeal to Christian tradition i s seen in Ware's Extract 28, whereas a more independen t voic e i s raise d i n Berdyaev' s Extrac t 9 . A compariso n o f Fletcher' s Extract 2 and Cupitt' s Extrac t 6 with Temple' s Extrac t 11 , O'Donovan's Extract 20 and Clark's Extrac t 2 4 reveal s ver y differen t Anglica n assumption s abou t th e authorit y o f tradition. Finally , a comparison o f Bonhoeffer's Extrac t 1 with Niebuhr's Extrac t 1 0 and then McFague' s Extract 25 also reveal s very different assumption s within th e Reformed tradition. A number of questions ca n be isolated unde r this heading: What constitutes Christian tradition? Is Christian tradition self-authenticating? What happens if Christian tradition conflicts wit h itsel f o r wit h biblica l evidence ? I s Christia n traditio n stil l i n formatio n today? Th e Extract s show that, o n al l of these questions, ther e i s disagreement amongs t Christians. I n addition , th e followin g book s sho w somethin g o f th e rang e o f thi s disagreement: G. R. Dunstan, Th e Artifice o f Ethics (1974) an d Duty and Discernment (1975); James M. Gustafson , Protestant and Roman Catholic Ethics (1978) ; V. T. Istavridis , Orthodoxy and Anglicanism (1968) ; Han s Kiing , Infallible? (1971) ; Pau l Lehmann , Ethics i n a Christian Context (1963); Edwar d LeRo y Long , Jr , A Survey o f Christian Ethics (1967); James P . Mackey , Power an d Christian Ethics (1994) ; Ia n S . Markham , Plurality an d Christian Ethics (1994). 11

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

(c) Appeals t o Christian Experience An appeal to conscience, in some form, constitutes an element in many types of Christian ethics, includin g thos e o f Luthe r (see Texts V I an d IX ) an d Aquina s (see Copleston's Extract 3) . At least fou r attitude s toward s conscienc e ar e evident i n th e discipline : (i) A n appeal to th e conscienc e of all people, whether Christia n o r not . A t times, thi s seems to be the position of the Quakers as seen in Extract 27 - i.e . if only they will listen carefully t o th e voice of conscience, al l people hav e the trut h alread y in their hearts . (ii) A n appea l t o specificall y Christia n conscience . Thi s appear s t o hav e bee n th e position o f Georg e Fo x himself . Hi s Journal suggest s tha t h e believe d i n a litera l understanding o f Genesi s 3 an d therefore , apar t fro m Christ , i n inescapabl e huma n sinfulness. T o th e jur y a t Lancaste r Assizes i n 166 4 h e said : ' I wa s a ma n o f tende r conscience, and i f they had an y sense of a tender conscience , they would consider tha t it was in obedienc e t o Christ' s command s tha t I could no t swear ' (p . 231) . Yet there was also a universal element in his Christology and, with it, in a radical appeal to conscience . In 165 3 h e wrote : 'T o tha t Go d i n you r conscience s I speak ; declar e o r writ e you r dissatisfactions t o an y one o f them who m yo u cal l Quakers, that Trut h ma y be exalted , and al l may come to th e light, with which Christ ha s enlightened ever y one that comet h into th e world' (p . 90). This seem s neare r t o positio n (i) . (iii) A belief tha t conscienc e i s but on e importan t elemen t o f th e mora l lif e o f th e individual, provided that this conscience is instructed by other elements, such as the Bible or Christia n tradition . Thi s i s th e positio n o f Copleston' s Extrac t 3 , o f Roma n Catholicism generally, and o f those section s o f Anglicanism which follow i n th e Hooke r tradition (see , for example , Kennet h E. Kirk's Some Principles o f Moral Theology, 1920) . Exponents o f thi s positio n ofte n insis t that , fo r a numbe r o f reasons , individua l conscience canno t b e treate d a s th e sol e sourc e o f authorit y fo r Christia n ethics : (a ) conscience i s affecte d b y si n an d thu s i t i s ofte n distorted ; (b ) i t i s influence d b y psychological an d sociologica l factor s an d therefor e canno t b e regarde d a s full y independent; (c ) i t ca n to o easil y b e confuse d wit h prejudic e o r convention , s o tha t individuals can have consciences about trivial matters, such as the length of their hair; (d ) consciences are often ambivalen t and, on that account, unable adequately to judge what is right i n particula r situations . O n th e othe r hand , thes e exponent s usuall y insis t tha t without individual free will and conscienc e the moral lif e would not b e moral. In short, it is an essentia l componen t o f morality i n Christianity , bu t i t i s not it s sole base . (iv) A radical rejection of conscience. Thi s i s apparently the positio n o f Bonhoeffer' s Extract 1 . Conscience is seen as an element o f secular ethics that is rejected by the radica l 'Call o f Christ' t o th e individual . Th e Christia n moral lif e i s seen, not a s an attemp t t o distinguish right from wron g and then to follow right, but rathe r as a life obedient to th e 'Call o f Christ' . Again , it wil l be argue d late r tha t Bonhoeffer' s positio n wa s no t full y consistent. I t i s eve n possibl e tha t hi s understandin g o f lif e i n Chris t wa s simila r t o position (ii). Appeals to Christia n experienc e may also appea r in othe r forms . Fo r example , som e forms o f agapeism may be generated by an initia l experience i n Christ of agape; mystical experience may be linked with morality in Christianity (see Berdyaev's Extract 9); and, in religious ethic s generally , numinou s experience , involvin g a s i t doe s a mixtur e o f attraction, aw e an d fear , ha s obviou s relevanc e (see Rudolf Otto's Th e Idea o f th e Holy, 1917). I n addition , mos t understanding s o f Christia n ethic s toda y woul d regar d

12

INTRODUCTION

existential commitment , o n th e par t o f th e individual , a s a n essentia l elemen t o f th e moral life : tha t is , a n individua l i s regarde d a s moral , no t simpl y becaus e o f actin g morally, bu t als o because of intending t o ac t morally . One concept tha t i s particularly relevan t i n this context i s that o f Vision'. Under th e influence o f writers such a s Iris Murdoch (see he r Th e Sovereignty o f th e Good, 197 0 an d also article s b y he r an d Ronal d Hepbur n i n I . T . Ramse y (ed.) , Christian Ethics an d Contemporary Philosophy, 1966 ) moralit y i s see n primaril y i n term s o f vision : th e individual is invited to 'see' or 'perceive' the world and social relationships in a particular way. Thi s idea has been imaginatively employed i n Christian ethics by Stanley Hauerwas (see hi s Extrac t 18) . Th e followin g books ar e useful : Jame s Gustafson and J . T. Lame y (ed.), On Being Responsible (1969) ; David B. Harned, Grace and Common Life (1971 ) and Faith an d Virtue (1973) ; Stanley Hauerwas , Vision an d Virtue (1974 ) an d Character and the Christian Life (1975) ; C . A . Pierce , Conscience i n th e Ne w Testament (1955) . I n addition, th e difficultie s face d b y classical theories o f conscience are usefully discusse d in H. D . Lewis ' article in Christian Ethics and Contemporary Philosophy. (d) Appeals t o Christian Belief There is a real danger in a textbook o f Christian ethics of giving the impression that it is a thoroughly pluralistic discipline, with disagreements eviden t i n all its aspects. Indeed, an important feature of analysis in any academic discipline should involve an appreciation of the rang e o f disagreements withi n it . Appeal s to Christia n traditio n an d t o individua l conscience ten d t o divide , rathe r tha n unite , Christians . However , appeal s t o th e Bibl e and t o Christia n belief s i n principl e shoul d unit e them , eve n i f i n practic e differen t understandings o f th e Bibl e an d o f Christia n belie f aboun d withi n Christianity . Nonetheless, a numbe r o f exponent s o f Christia n ethic s hav e argue d that , howeve r internally varied , thes e latte r appeal s d o differentiat e Christian s fro m non-Christians . Keith War d ha s argued , i n hi s Th e Divine Image, tha t th e doctrin e o f creatio n give s Christians ground s fo r takin g ethic s mor e seriousl y tha n non-believers , sinc e the y ar e given grounds for believing that the moral lif e an d the lif e o f the world generall y are no t fortuitous bu t th e product s o f a loving God . Fo r the theist , moralit y and cosmolog y are necessarily related t o eac h other . Sometimes thi s contention has been use d as the basis for Christian apologetics, as it is in th e followin g passag e fro m A . E . Taylor' s 192 6 Giffor d Lectures , Th e Faith o f a Moralist: I shoul d infe r tha t .. . th e mora l lif e itself , a t it s best , point s t o somethin g which , because i t transcend s th e separatio n o f 'ought ' fro m 'is' , mus t b e calle d definitel y religion an d no t morality , a s the sourc e an d inspiratio n o f what i s best i n moralit y itself, and that the connection betwee n practical good living and belief in God is much more direc t tha n Kan t was willing to allow . I canno t doub t tha t moralit y ma y exist without religion . An atheist who has been taught no t t o steal or lie or fornicat e o r th e like is , probably , n o mor e no r les s likely , i n averag e situations , t o ear n hi s livin g honestly, to speak the truth and to live cleanly, than a believer in God. But if the atheist is logical and i n earnest in his professed view of the world, and th e believer equally so with his , I thin k I kno w whic h o f th e tw o i s mor e likel y t o mak e irreparabl e an d 'unmerited' grievou s calamit y a mean s t o th e purificatio n an d enrichmen t o f personality. (Vol . 1 , pp. 155-6 ) 13

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

In different ways , John Paul II's Extract 4, Temple's Extrac t 11, Gregorios' Extrac t 22, and Clark's Extrac t 24 , illustrat e thi s approach . Th e metho d o f derivin g Christia n ethic s systematically from th e Christian doctrin e o f creation, whic h to some exten t i s a feature of all these Extracts, raises important possibilities that go well beyond their own premises. After all , a doctrin e o f creatio n unite s Christians , Jew s an d Muslims , an d a syste m o f ethics derived from i t can be highly relevant to inter-religiou s dialogue and cooperation . However, a central difficult y i s raised by Temple: th e particularization of general ethica l principles, themselves derived fro m genera l Christian beliefs, notoriousl y divide s rather than unite s Christians. I n order t o overcome thi s problem, Templ e develope d th e notion of 'middl e axioms ' use d i n th e Lif e an d Wor k Movement . The difficultie s confrontin g this notio n will be discussed i n relatio n t o Temple' s Extrac t 11 . Clearly, Christia n beliefs canno t b e regarde d a s th e onl y sourc e o f Christia n ethics , since the y themselve s ar e dependent o n othe r source s - suc h a s the Bible , Christia n tradition an d eve n Christian experience. Yet, it is possible that they form th e parameters of the discipline, parameter s tha t giv e it a degree o f unity - a unity o f general attitud e rather tha n specifi c conten t (although , occasionally , eve n a specifi c conten t ca n b e isolated). Th e term 'moral theology', frequently used in the past by Roman Catholic an d Anglican theologians, served to emphasiz e this but i s little used here since its scope was often regarde d a s including , i n additio n t o ethics , pastora l theolog y an d ecclesiastica l practice. However, this approach t o Christian ethic s must face an important criticism . I f ethical prescriptions ar e derived, even in part , fro m Christia n doctrines, i t migh t seem tha t a n 'ought' i s being derive d fro m a n 'is'. This criticis m ca n be raise d i n relatio n t o specific Extracts, even if it is initially conceded that the 'ought' and th e 'is' are not alway s wholly separable (see Hele n Oppenheimer , 'Ough t and Is' , Theology, 76 , 1973) . 5. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS It ha s already been claimed that biographical details are relevant to a n understandin g of the thought o f a particular theologian . However , an analysis of the social determinants o f theological positions (and a subsequent analysis of their social significance), goes beyond this claim. It assumes that ideas can be related to social structures - a n assumption whic h is central to th e sociolog y of knowledge. That is , the belie f that theologica l an d ethical ideas may be influenced by society (i.e . socially determined) an d may, in their turn, have an influence upon society (i.e. socially significant). Within highly cognitive approaches to theology an d philosophy , i t i s ofte n assume d tha t idea s fro m on e socia l o r historica l context ca n straightforwardly b e compared wit h those from another . So , ideas from th e Texts ca n b e compare d directl y wit h idea s fro m th e Extracts . But , fo r a mor e sociologically minde d approach , suc h direc t comparison s ignor e th e degre e t o whic h specific idea s ar e relate d t o specifi c socia l contexts . Accordin g t o thi s approach , comparisons shoul d b e mad e onl y afte r socia l analysis . It i s thi s approach whic h this Textbook aim s to encourage by including in the system of analysis an examination first of social determinant s and the n o f social significance . A number o f theologians hav e attempted t o appl y social analysi s to idea s i n theolog y and Christia n ethics . Erns t Troeltsch' s The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches (1919) and H . R. Niebuhr's Th e Social Sources of Denominationalism (1929) have prove d to b e o f abidin g interest , no t onl y t o theologian s but als o t o sociologist s o f religion . Dietrich Bonhoeffer' s ver y early work, Sanctorum Communio (1930), als o demonstrate d 14

INTRODUCTION

an interest in sociology. Among sociologists, Max Weber, particularly in his seminal The Protestant Ethic an d th e 'Spirit' o f Capitalism (1901) , showe d a considerabl e interes t i n and knowledge of theology, as do present-day sociologists such as Peter Berger and David Martin. Recen t examinations o f the methodological problem s facin g attempt s to analys e theology sociologicall y ca n b e foun d i n th e following : Gregor y Baum , Religion an d Alienation: A Theological Reading o f Sociology (1975) ; Robin Gill , Th e Social Context o f Theology (1975) , Theology an d Social Structure (1978 ) an d (ed. ) Theology an d Sociology (1996); D . Martin , J . Orme-Mill s an d W . S . F. Pickerin g (ed.) Sociology an d Theology: Alliance and Conflict (198 0 and 2004) . A number o f points mus t b e made: (i) A n analysis of social determinants to o easil y gives ris e to a suspicion of an overal l social determinism. I t would be false to assume that all those who attempt to uncover the social determinant s o f somethin g ar e committe d t o a positio n o f thoroughgoin g an d mechanistic determinism . However , i t will be argue d i n Sectio n 1 that th e latte r would probably be disastrous to all but th e most strictl y 'Lutheran' understandings of Christian ethics. I f free will in some form i s essential to Christia n ethics (see especially Augustine's Text I) , a thoroughgoin g sociological , psychologica l o r biologica l determinis m woul d appear particularl y destructive . Indeed , i t wil l b e see n tha t theologica l determinism , based, fo r example , o n a rigi d predestinarianism , face s th e sam e problem. Som e o f th e serious logical difficulties involve d i n thoroughgoin g theorie s o f social determinis m ar e amusingly isolated i n Pete r Berger' s A Rumor o f Angels (1969) . Most obviously , there is the statu s o f th e theorie s themselve s - presumabl y the y ar e themselve s sociall y determined - an d on this account Berge r suggests the task of 'relativizing the relativizers'. It shoul d emphaticall y b e stresse d tha t i n thi s Textbook socia l determinis m i s no t consciously assumed . (ii) Socia l scientists ar e nonetheles s committe d t o providin g a s total explanation s o f social phenomen a a s possible. Just as 'god of the gaps' argument s ar e discouraged i n the physical sciences, so social scientists, in so far as they are acting as social scientists, should not be expected to account fo r religious phenomena i n anything other tha n social terms. After all , it is their task to do so, even if they happen to be religious people in their private life. Berger , i n hi s Th e Social Reality o f Religion (The Sacred Canopy, 1969) , ha s terme d this attitud e methodologica l atheism . Thi s shoul d no t b e confuse d wit h actua l o r ontological atheism or with sociological imperialism. Rather, it assumes that separate and seemingly self-contained accounts of human behaviour ca n be built u p fro m a variety of perspectives - sociological , psychological , physiological, biochemical, theological , and so on. Wherea s i t migh t b e difficul t t o for m an y overall pictur e o f particular moment s o f interpersonal behaviour usin g al l the perspective s simultaneously , i t would b e wrong t o assume that onl y one o f the perspective s may provide a 'legitimate' explanation . I n th e past it was the theologian who tended to be imperialistic in this way, but today it is more likely t o b e th e physica l o r socia l scientist . Again , i t shoul d b e underline d tha t thi s Textbook doe s no t intentionall y subscrib e t o an y such imperialism. (iii) Relate d t o thi s point , a confusio n i s sometime s mad e betwee n 'explainin g something' an d 'explainin g somethin g away' . Th e fac t tha t Marx , Durkhei m o r Freu d explained religiou s phenomena i n social terms does no t necessaril y mean that the y were 'explaining away' these phenomena. Durkhei m and Freud , at least, were usually aware of this distinction . A n exposure o f the origin s of particular idea s tells u s nothing logically about their validity (the genetic fallacy), although, o f course, the y may be psychologicall y 15

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

distressing t o believers. Thus, eve n if it is agreed tha t religiou s belie f may be the produc t of a neurotic perpetuation of childhood fantasies , it i s still open to th e believe r to claim that Go d act s throug h thes e fantasies . However , i f one alway s sees religiou s claim s a s linked t o thes e fantasies, psychologicall y one migh t find it difficul t t o remai n convinced of their truth. Such a Freudian explanation ma y well appear as a threat to the believer, but it i s no t strictl y a logica l threat. Indeed , a n elemen t i n Christia n theolog y ha s alway s stressed th e 'oddness' or even absurdity of Christian belief. It is important tha t this poin t should be kept in mind, especially when examining the social determinants of the ideas of people a s psychologically interestin g a s Augustine or Luther . (iv) Behind the attempt in this Textbook t o isolate the social determinants of particular ideas an d position s i s th e belie f tha t suc h analysi s produce s a sharpe r critica l understanding of the Texts and Extracts . Thus, it will be maintained that it is important to know that Augustine' s theological understandin g o f the relation betwee n Churc h an d State was developed at a time of very considerable political upheaval, or that his concept of the 'just war' coincided wit h a newly established politica l status for Christianity. Again, it should be emphasized that such analysis does not thereb y invalidate Augustine's ideas, or render the m anachronistic fo r present-day Christia n ethics . But it does entail that the y should b e compared point-for-poin t wit h the latte r only with considerable caution . (v) A ful l appreciatio n o f th e socia l determinant s o f an y o f th e Text s an d Extract s would b e beyon d th e scop e o f thi s Textbook, bu t i t i s hope d tha t th e studen t wil l be encouraged t o develop the m further . Considerable selectivit y i s inevitable. I n relation t o the Texts, different point s will be raised in the context o f the various contributions fro m each of the three authors. Further , it is usually easier to suggest the social determinants o f much-studied classica l authors tha n i t i s of th e Extract s of recen t authors. A complete understanding o f their socia l determinants woul d involv e a consideration, a t one end of the spectrum , of the psychologica l peculiarities of particular authors, their family , early training, socialization an d later development and , at the other end of the spectrum, of the overall politica l structure an d cultur e o f th e ag e in whic h they lived . I n addition , th e various level s of influence of these differin g factor s would hav e to be recorded i n term s ranging fro m th e looses t coincidenc e to th e tightes t causal relationship. Eve n if such an ideal version of the sociology o f knowledge could be achieved, it is clearly not appropriat e here. However , a s th e followin g demonstrate , thi s tas k ha s alread y begu n i n ethic s generally: loh n H . Barnsley , Th e Social Reality o f Ethics (1972); J. Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests (1971); Alasdair Maclntyre, A Short History o f Ethics (1966), Against the Self-images o f th e Age (1971) , an d especiall y After Virtue (1981) ; Mari a Ossowska , Social Determinants of Moral Ideas (1971) ; and account s of the sociology of knowledge are summarized in my Theology an d Social Structure (1978) and ca n be studied in : J. E. Curtis and J . W . Petra s (eds) , Th e Sociology o f Knowledge: A Reader (1972) ; Peter Hamilton , Knowledge an d Social Structure (1974); Peter Berger and Thoma s Luckmann' s Th e Social Construction o f Reality (1966) ; and, mor e combativel y in Joh n Milbank' s Theology an d Social Theory (199 0 and 2006) . 6. SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE An interactionis t account o f knowledge requires an examination , no t jus t o f th e socia l determinants o f particular ideas , bu t als o o f their socia l significance . It maintain s tha t ideas may act both a s dependent an d independent variable s within society - bot h being shaped b y societ y and , i n turn , helpin g t o shap e it . Th e fac t tha t a particula r ide a o r 16

INTRODUCTION

position ha s bee n structure d b y societ y doe s no t preven t i t fro m havin g a subsequen t influence upo n tha t society , o r indee d upo n a quit e differen t society . On e ha s onl y t o think of the influence of the Nicene Creed in order to realize this. Church historians have no difficult y i n showin g tha t som e o f th e centra l term s use d i n thi s Cree d ow e thei r existence to a particular social context an d to the polemics of the fourth-century church. However, once accepte d by the Church , the Cree d soo n had , and indee d stil l has, a very considerable influenc e upon th e wa y in which Christologica l issue s hav e been debated . A two-way process is thus presupposed. Ideas , influenced by a number of social factors, may also be seen to hav e their own influence i n a variety of ways. Clearly, this i s the cas e with th e Texts . Whateve r socia l determinant s ma y be identified , the idea s of Augustine, Aquinas an d Luthe r hav e obviousl y ha d a profound effec t upo n theologians , upo n th e churches and upo n Wester n idea s in general. By systematically comparin g the Texts with the Extracts , som e o f this profoun d influenc e should becom e evident . Naturally , it will often b e more difficul t t o assess the social significance of the Extracts, but eve n here some immediate points ar e possible . A number o f qualifications mus t b e made : (i) The interactionist analysi s required wil l sometimes b e extraordinarily complex . So, while Luther's influence upon the Reformation may be relatively clear, his relationship to the Renaissanc e i s not . I t ha s prove d extremel y difficul t t o asses s t o wha t exten t th e Reformation wa s influenced by th e Renaissanc e an d wha t wa s the relativ e influenc e of each upo n subsequen t Wester n culture . I t i s eve n difficul t t o determin e thei r relativ e influence upo n th e churches . (ii) A full analysis of the social significance of particular Texts or Extracts would also be a very lengthy undertaking, requiring several levels of analysis and a range of causal terms. At leas t fou r level s o f analysi s ca n b e isolated : th e influenc e o f particula r idea s an d positions upo n theologian s i n a n academi c context ; thei r influenc e upo n thos e wh o preach o r teach i n a more popular context ; their influence upon la y Christians wh o listen directly to th e preacher s o r teachers ; an d thei r influenc e upo n societ y a t large . It i s to o easy to assum e tha t thes e levels of influenc e will always be broadly simila r (i n Theology and Social Structure, for example , I argue d tha t differen t level s o f influenc e ca n b e detected i n th e differin g response s t o Honest t o Go d in th e earl y 1960s) . Considerabl e selection is again inevitable . (iii) I t i s importan t t o stres s tha t a n analysi s o f th e socia l significanc e o f idea s i n Christian ethics is not a n attempt t o belittle the theological importance o f these ideas. For example, i f Weber's contention s ar e accepte d (tha t Luther' s concept s o f electio n an d predestination an d his attack on monastic asceticism had a profound influence upo n th e rise of the spirit necessar y for the development o f Western Capitalism ) i t does not follo w that Luther' s theology is thereby belittled. I t could stil l be maintained tha t the theological significance o f these idea s was even greate r than thei r socio-economi c significance . The former i s not, o f necessity, enhanced o r belittled b y the latter. However, Weber's analysis might giv e a theologia n lik e Bonino , i n Extrac t 19 , additional reaso n fo r distrustin g traditional Lutheranis m - bu t thi s woul d ste m fro m hi s ow n prio r politica l an d theological commitments . 7. CRITIQUE At the en d of each Text and group of Extracts a brief critique is appended. Thi s structure is deliberate, no t because critiqu e i s considered unimportant, bu t rathe r becaus e analysi s 17

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

must be as full and informed as possible befor e a serious critique ca n be made. O f course, students shoul d b e encourage d t o mak e thei r ow n critique . I t i s a n essentia l par t o f learning. In each case an attempt i s made to suggest some of the strengths an d weaknesse s of the particular excerpt, not only in relation to the internal ideas of the work from which it is taken, but als o i n relation t o th e ideas an d theorie s o f other exponents of Christia n ethics. FURTHER READING Books suggeste d a s furthe r reading , i n relatio n t o eac h Tex t an d se t o f Extracts , ar e intended t o provide a stimulus to the student. Although a fairly ful l bibliograph y (which includes th e publishin g detail s o f book s cite d earlier ) i s supplie d a s a n Appendix , n o attempt ha s been made to supply an exhaustive reading list. Since repetition of suggested reading woul d hav e bee n tedious , especiall y i n relatio n t o th e Texts , referenc e shoul d constantly be made back to thi s Introduction . Naturally , the Text s and Extract s should never be regarded a s substitutes fo r referring back to the original books , but, ideally, the y should provoke enough interest in students to do this for themselves. The further readin g suggested consists , first, of relevant book s by the autho r himsel f o r hersel f and , then , of bibliographical o r theologica l books abou t th e autho r o r abou t th e issu e in question . THE TEXTS : AUGUSTINE, AQUINAS AND LUTHER In any understanding o f Christian theolog y o r ethics, Augustine, Aquinas and Luther are three of the most importan t figures. Each stood a t a pivotal moment i n Christian history and eac h ha s had a n abidin g influenc e upon Christia n thought . Together , the y cove r a very broad spectrum of possibilities within Christian ethics. An analysis of the difference s between the m reveal s man y o f the centra l difference s tha t ar e still eviden t today . Of course, there is a real danger in comparing the idea s of these theologians, especially in the light o f the type of social analysi s already discussed . Eac h stood within a radicall y different socia l context , eac h presuppose d a differen t politica l situation , an d eac h ha s influenced differen t section s of the churches - althoug h i t will be seen that , i n a mor e ecumenical age, their separate influences are now less clear-cut than they were in the past. Since it has already been insiste d tha t socio-politica l difference s shoul d neve r be ignored , it would obviously be odd t o compare these three theologians' ideas point-for-point, as if they wer e alway s writin g abou t th e sam e things , albei t fro m differen t perspectives . Nonetheless, th e ver y fac t tha t thei r primar y writing s ar e stil l widel y use d i n contemporary ethica l decision-makin g b y Christians make s some comparison inevitable , if only to reveal differences betwee n their situations and our own. Most obviously, as seen in Section s 2 and 3 , the political and economic views of Augustine, Aquinas and Luthe r have ha d a majo r influenc e upo n Christia n though t an d continu e t o shap e attitude s today. At the same time, it is soon realize d that thei r thoughts wer e developed i n politica l and economic contexts which have little relation to present-day, Western, post-industrial society. I n thi s situation , th e tas k o f distinguishin g betwee n perennia l an d ephemera l problems i n Christia n ethic s can be seen a s highly important . AUGUSTINE (c.354-430 ) wa s born a t Thagaste , a small inlan d tow n i n Proconsula r Numidia i n Nort h Afric a (th e modern Tunisi a an d easter n Algeria). His mothe r wa s a devout an d somewha t asceti c 'Catholic ' Christian , bu t hi s father , a relativel y impover ished citize n of curia l rank , remaine d a 'pagan ' fo r mos t o f hi s life . Augustin e was a catechumen i n his youth, bu t wa s not baptize d unti l he was 33. He became a student at 18

INTRODUCTION

Carthage a t 1 6 and a followe r of Manichaeis m a t 19 . He remaine d a followe r fo r nin e years, wrestling fo r much o f this time with the problem of evil, which the radical dualis m of Manichaeis m seeme d t o solve . H e finally abandoned thi s for m o f religio n when th e celebrated Manichaean bishop, Faustus, failed t o answer his questions to his satisfaction. Subsequently, he became increasingly impressed with the sermon s and argument s of the Catholic bisho p o f Milan , Ambrose . H e ha d a son , Adeodatus , bu t despit e a long standing relationshi p wit h th e boy' s mother , h e neve r marrie d her . Brillian t at debate , rhetoric and logic he became a professor of rhetoric, founding his own school at Rome in 383. After hi s break with Manichaeism and a period o f contact wit h Ambrose, he finally became a 'Catholic' Christian afte r a conversion experience a t Milan. He was profoundly influenced b y neo-Platonism an d wa s baptized by Ambrose i n 387 . H e returned, wit h a small grou p o f famil y an d friends , t o lea d a monasti c lif e i n Afric a but , wit h grea t reluctance, wa s soon ordaine d pries t an d the n electe d a bisho p o f Hipp o i n 396 . H e remained ther e a s bishop fo r 3 4 years, living in community an d writin g extensively. He died as the Vandals were laying siege to Hippo . Indeed , he lived at a crucial stage in th e collapse o f the Roma n Empire, albeit i n the relativ e isolation o f North Africa . H e wrote The City o f God in order t o rebuf f th e charg e that the officia l adoptio n o f Christianity by Constantine wa s th e reaso n fo r thi s collapse . H e wa s force d t o wor k ou t afres h th e implications o f thi s adoptio n fo r Christianit y an d fel t impelled , a t variou s stages , t o defend 'Catholic ' Christianit y agains t Manichaeans , Donatist s an d Pelagian s - eve n enlisting the help of the civil authorities to suppress th e latter. Through his many writings he gav e Christianit y a new intellectual dept h an d statu s an d ha d a profoun d influenc e upon bot h Aquinas and Luther. AQUINAS (c.1225-74) was born at the castle of Roccasecca at Aquino, between Naples and Rome . Th e so n o f a count , h e wa s sen t t o th e abbe y o f Mont e Cassin o fo r hi s elementary schooling an d i n 123 9 went to universit y at Naples. There, much against the wishes of his father, h e entered th e Dominica n Order . H e studied unde r the Dominica n Albert the Great at Paris and then at Cologne and, in 1252, returned to Paris as a lecturer, becoming a regula r professo r o f theolog y i n 1256 . Fro m 125 9 t o 126 9 h e taugh t successively at Amagni, Orvieto , Rome and Viterbo , before again returnin g to Paris . In 1272 he went to Naples and in 127 4 he was summoned b y Pope Gregory X to take part in the Council of Lyons, but on the way there he died an d was buried at Toulouse. Toward s the en d o f his life h e had a number o f mystical experiences and, fou r month s before hi s death, after a n experience whilst saying Mass, he stopped work on his Summa Theologica, saying that 'all I have written seem s to me like so much straw compared with what I have seen an d wit h wha t ha s bee n reveale d t o me' . H e wrot e thi s monumenta l wor k a s a systematic exposition o f theology for 'novices'. His other mos t importan t work , Summa Contra Gentiles, wa s writte n earlie r i n orde r t o comba t th e 'naturalistic ' thinkin g o f Graeco-Islamic philosophy. I n both work s he was concerned t o sho w that th e Christia n faith rest s upon a rational foundatio n and tha t philosoph y (largel y in the for m o f newly rediscovered Aristotelianism ) an d theolog y ar e no t mutuall y exclusiv e types of activity. Aquinas lived at the tim e of the greates t power an d influenc e o f the Catholi c Church in the West. A t this stage of medieval history , the Catholic Church cam e nearest t o being a Universal Churc h - a phenomeno n tha t ca n be traced bac k t o th e ag e of Augustine. Aquinas ha s continue d t o hav e a profoun d effec t upo n Roma n Catholi c mora l an d systematic theology, reinforced by Pope Leo XIII's encyclical letter of 1879, Aeterni Patris, declaring his to be the 'perennial philosophy'. 19

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

LUTHER (1483-1546 ) wa s born a t Eislebe n i n Saxony . A miner's son , h e wen t t o school a t Mansfeld , Magdeber g and Eisenac h and entere d universit y at Erfur t i n 150 1 to study law. However, afte r a profound experienc e durin g a thunderstorm, he abandoned his legal studies at the age of 21 and, despite parental disapproval, entered an Augustinian monastery at Erfurt. Ther e he led an extremely ascetic life. H e was sent to th e University of Wittenberg and eventually became professor of biblical studies there. Convinced o f the necessity of seeking his own salvation by keeping the biblical commandments, h e became gradually persuaded o f his own inability to d o this . I n 150 7 he underwent a conversio n experience, reputedly whilst climbing the Scala Santa at Rome and, in 1517 , as legend has it poste d hi s celebrate d 9 5 These s agains t th e abuse s create d b y th e Church' s sal e o f indulgences (authorize d by Pope Le o X, in par t t o pa y fo r th e buildin g o f St Peter's i n Rome) on the door of the Castle Church i n Wittenberg. He refused t o retrac t in front o f the papal legate, Cardinal Cajetan, and appealed directly to the Pope and then in 151 9 to the ne w Emperor, Charle s V, who wa s himself o f German extraction . Excommunicate d by Leo X in 152 0 and tried by Charles V at Worms, Luther was placed under imperial ban by the Edict of Worms of 1521. His break with Rome was now complete and he spent the rest o f his lif e (albei t with the vital support o f a number o f German princes) translating the Bible , revisin g th e liturgy , writin g hymns , preachin g an d writin g book s o n man y aspects of the Christia n life, an d reorganizin g churches in defiance o f Rome. Luther lived in a n ag e o f ver y considerabl e socia l an d politica l change , whic h sa w th e declin e o f medieval Christendom and the rise of early capitalism and of new forms of nationalism in Europe. He witnessed a major rebellion o f the Germa n peasants i n 152 5 and die d i n th e year i n which war broke out between Reformer s an d Catholics - a war that ende d onl y with the Treaty of Augsburg, 1555, which allowed the German princes to choose to follo w Catholicism o r Lutheranis m an d t o coerc e thei r subject s accordingly. Himsel f a highly influential figur e i n al l thes e changes , Luthe r ha s continue d t o b e on e o f th e mos t significant theologian s withi n Reforme d or Protestan t form s o f Christianity . From thes e brief biographies a number o f key points o f contrast ca n be drawn . Each theologian represented widel y different culture s - Nort h African, Italian and German - in radically differen t ages . And , eve n thoug h bot h Aquina s an d Luthe r wer e deepl y influenced b y Augustine, temperamentally the y were very different fro m each other an d tended to emphasize different element s in his writings. It is sometimes held that, whereas Aquinas was heir mor e to the ecclesiastical sid e of Augustine's writings , Luther , with his rejection o f Augustinian monasticism, wa s heir mor e t o Augustine' s Paulin e theology . Nonetheless, i t is possible t o mak e some comparison s betwee n them, finding similarities - betwee n Augustine and Aquinas, between Augustin e and Luther, and sometimes eve n between Aquina s and Luther - provided , o f course, tha t thei r radicall y different social , political an d cultura l contexts ar e kept i n mind : (1) Bot h Augustine and Luthe r live d i n age s of revolution . Augustin e witnessed th e gradual declin e o f th e Roma n Empire , dyin g a s Hipp o itsel f wa s unde r siege . Luthe r witnessed th e decline of medieval Catholic Europe and als o died surrounded by war. Yet neither ma n wa s himself a revolutionary. Augustin e wrote t o defen d Christian s agains t the charg e that the y were responsible fo r Rome' s collapse an d h e remaine d a Roman i n much of his thinking. He even enunciated a just-war theory, in contrast to the pacifism of previous generation s o f Christian s (see Text VII) . An d Luther , t o thei r amazement , bitterly rejecte d th e caus e o f the revolutionar y peasant s (see Text IX) . Aquinas live d a t what might, at first, appear to have been one of the most settled ages in European history. 20

INTRODUCTION

But the seeds of the Renaissance were already present i n the thirteenth century , with the art o f Giott o (c . 1266-1337), celebratin g th e lif e o f Franci s of Assisi , an d th e poetr y of Dante (1265-1321) , reflectin g part s o f Aquinas ' Sumtna Theologica, soo n t o chang e cultural understandings in a manner relevan t eventually to th e Reformation . By looking forward t o th e Renaissanc e an d eve n t o th e Reformatio n an d backward s t o th e newl y established relationshi p between th e Churc h and Stat e in the fourt h an d fifth centuries, Aquinas stands a s a pivot betwee n th e two . (2) I n term s o f clas s or socia l stratification , the origin s of th e thre e men wer e quite distinct. Aquinas' origin s were the most aristocratic, Augustine' s were those of a relatively impoverished middl e clas s i n a n ag e of rapi d inflation , and Luther's , althoug h b y n o means totall y impoverished , wer e unmistakabl y lowe r class . Viewe d fro m a mor e dynamic perspective, only Luther's family wa s upwardly socially mobile, movin g from a situation o f working as miners to owning mines and then being able to send their son to university to stud y law. While all three belonged t o th e minorit y of university-educated writers and thinkers, Luther' s socially mobile background mad e him the most suitabl e to be a n agen t o f radica l socia l change , whil e Aquinas ' comparativel y stati c socia l background mad e hi m th e least suitable . Amon g the upwardl y socially mobil e i t is also not uncommo n to find an antipathy towards those belonging to the class of their origins: a tendenc y t o radica l innovatio n ca n be combine d wit h a dismissiveness o f those o f a lower socia l class. It i s possible that Luther' s rejection of the writing s and action s of th e revolutionary peasant s ma y have owed somethin g t o this factor . His tendency t o side, at times, with th e ruler s over and agains t the rule d i s seen particularly in th e wa y he, like Augustine befor e him , enliste d th e hel p o f the ruler s t o suppres s dissensio n an d eve n 'heresy'. However, the fac t tha t al l three me n wen t t o universit y and becam e monasti c Catholic priests means that there is also a strong similarit y of socialization betwee n them . (3) All three experienced celibacy and som e form o f ascetic monasticism. Nonetheless, their experience s her e wer e distinct . Aquinas , highl y cerebra l an d evidentl y rathe r corpulent, becam e a Dominica n a s a youn g ma n an d remaine d on e unti l hi s death . Augustine, havin g rejecte d Christianit y fo r s o long, becam e extremel y asceti c onl y afte r his conversion - althoug h there can be little doubt that he was always serious-minded and intense an d by no means th e sensual youth h e is sometimes though t t o hav e been. Even his celebrated amorous relationship was long-standing, apparently faithful, lovin g and i n accord wit h contemporary Roma n mora l practice . I n contrast, Luther was fiercely ascetic only before hi s radical break with monasticis m an d Rome . Both Augustine and Luther were fathers, but only Luthe r married - Augustin e painfull y broke of f his relationship , while Luthe r marrie d a former nun , seemingl y out o f duty, thoug h h e soon discovere d great happines s i n marriage . (4) In terms of religious psychology, both Augustine and Luther had what is sometimes called a 'twice-born' and Aquinas a 'once-born' type of religious temperament. Augustin e and Luthe r ha d almos t classi c Paulin e conversio n experience s and , no t surprisingly , thereafter showe d a particula r affinit y fo r th e Paulin e epistles . Lik e Paul , Luthe r wa s 'converted' fro m a lif e o f legalisti c pietis m t o on e o f entire dependenc e upo n grace . Augustine, on the other hand, was 'converted' from a relatively free-thinking attachmen t to Manichaeis m to asceti c 'Catholic' Christianity . Befor e thei r 'conversions' , bot h me n experienced a considerable perio d o f emotional an d psychological turmoi l - displayin g what some psychologists would undoubtedly identif y a s obsessive religious personalities, and, afte r thes e conversions , comparativ e calm . A numbe r o f psychologica l an d 21

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

sociological studies of conversion woul d sugges t that thi s comparativ e cal m hid a goo d deal o f continuin g doubt , uncertaint y an d marginality/liminalit y - an d thi s ma y be another point o f contrast between these two men and Aquinas. Certainly, whilst Aquinas was concerne d t o defen d 'orthodoxy ' agains t 'heresy ' (as , fo r example , i n th e Summa Contra Gentiles, se e below, p. 128) , there i s little i n hi s writing s to equa l th e polemics , scorn and , sometimes , vitriol , particularl y of th e late r Augustin e and Luthe r (se e Text XV). O f th e three , Aquina s wa s by fa r th e mos t conciliator y i n style , appealin g mor e consistently t o reaso n tha n t o emotion , although , a s ha s bee n seen , hi s lif e wa s no t without mystica l experience. Indeed, the very rationality of Aquinas has given offence t o some. I n contrast , Boo k VIII of Augustine's Confessions, writte n 1 2 years after th e event , gives his classic, and highly influential, account o f conversion, containin g man y of the key empirical feature s o f a conversio n experience : extrem e anxiety , voices , a sens e o f th e 'numinous', a rando m openin g o f th e Bible , a n instrumenta l tex t (i n thi s cas e Rom . 13.13—14), sexual remorse, catharsi s and withdrawal . These fou r set s o f psychological an d sociological variable s - politica l context , socia l stratification, marita l statu s an d religiou s psycholog y - ar e al l vita l t o a n adequat e understanding of the difference s betwee n th e three theologians an d shoul d b e examined carefully i n relation t o the Texts. Again it needs t o be emphasized tha t a preparedness t o take the m seriousl y doe s no t necessaril y reduc e th e significanc e give n t o interna l theological factor s determining thei r thought. In addition, three other point s of contrast can be made fro m th e biographica l sketches: (5) It is often pointe d ou t tha t whereas Augustine did much t o relat e Platonic or neo Platonic ideas (books were so scarce in his day that he only knew of Plato's idea s through the wor k o f Plotinus ) t o 'Catholic ' orthodox y an d thereb y rendere d Christianit y mor e intellectually respectabl e t o hi s contemporaries, Aquinas achieve d a simila r correlatio n with th e newl y rediscovered Aristotelia n idea s o f hi s time . Luther , on th e othe r hand , might hav e regarde d an y suc h undertakin g wit h stron g suspicion : fo r hi m i t wa s th e Scriptures which must form th e main axiom fo r theology. But, as so often i n his writings, Augustine wa s ambivalent i n thi s correlation , simultaneousl y bein g attracte d b y som e Platonic notion s an d repelle d b y other s suc h a s polytheis m (e.g . se e Th e City o f God VIH.9f). I t wil l be see n fro m th e Text s tha t Aquinas ' understandin g o f the relationshi p between philosophy an d theology is more consistent tha n that of Augustine and it was his thought which was instrumental in the eventual triumph, in Roman Catholic theology, of Aristotelianism ove r Platonism . Th e mor e naturalisti c Aristotelianis m seem s t o hav e provided hi m wit h a mor e congruou s rational/natura l basi s tha n transcendenta l Platonism fo r th e supernatura l overla y o f Christia n belief . Precisel y becaus e Platonis m locates th e 'reall y real ' i n a transcenden t realm , outsid e everyda y experienc e an d th e everyday world , i t present s thos e followin g Aquinas wit h a potentiall y mor e damagin g challenge tha n Aristotelianism . I f Platoni c transcendentalis m an d biblica l revelatio n conflict, an y real correlation betwee n the m break s down , sinc e the conflic t appears as a conflict betwee n tw o supernatural view s of the world. I n contrast, a correlation betwee n Aristotelian naturalis m an d Christia n supernaturalis m considerabl y reduce s thi s ris k of conflict. (6) Both Augustine and Luther were church leaders of very considerable contemporar y influence. A s a bisho p o f Hipp o fo r 3 4 years , Augustine' s pastoral , a s wel l a s hi s theological, influenc e extende d fa r beyond th e provincia l confines o f North Africa . An d Luther's contemporary fam e an d influenc e wer e even greater. Apart from hi s key role in 22

INTRODUCTION

sparking th e Reformation , he was engaged fo r ove r 2 5 years in a n astonishin g rang e of activities aimed a t reforming the Germa n churches. It is difficult t o fin d anothe r churc h leader wit h a comparabl e rang e o f gift s an d versatility . Onl y Aquina s remaine d th e academic tha t th e othe r tw o ha d onc e bee n an d too k ver y littl e par t i n ecclesiastica l politics. Ironically , h e die d o n hi s wa y to a churc h council . Regarde d a s a dangerou s theological innovato r b y som e o f hi s contemporaries , hi s wor k graduall y becam e established i n th e Roma n Catholi c Church , receivin g it s fina l endorsemen t i n 1879 . However, a s th e 'perennia l philosopher ' o f hi s church , hi s wor k ha s had , unti l ver y recently, a position o f primacy afforded t o fe w in othe r churches . (7) Al l three were voluminous writer s and eve n present-da y collections o f their work require multi-volume editions. Fo r Augustine alone there are extant 11 3 books an d over 200 letter s an d 50 0 sermons . Amon g present-da y theologian s onl y Kar l Eart h i s comparable. But, perhaps inevitably , volum e fits uneasily with consistency . Of the three , Aquinas was by far the most consisten t an d systematic, but change s can be traced even in some o f his ideas. Generalizations abou t their ideas must be carefully qualified and, with Augustine and Luther, it is often importan t t o relate their ideas to the particular point in their live s i n whic h the y wer e expressed . A s writers, however , thei r overal l task s were distinct. Augustin e wrote extensivel y to defen d th e Catholi c Christianit y to whic h h e returned agains t attacks from 'pagans ' and fro m 'heretical ' Christians. Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologica a s a systemati c expositio n o f Christianit y fo r 'novices ' withi n Catholicism. Luthe r wrote many of his books to restate the gospel in contrast to what he regarded a s the corruption s o f contemporary Catholicism . Of course, in othe r respect s there are similarities between their writings. Aquinas wrote his Summa Contra Gentiles as well a s hi s Summa Theologica and , i n thi s respect , wa s lik e Augustine . An d bot h Augustine an d Luthe r hav e bequeathe d t o u s volume s o f sermons . Ye t thei r overal l distinctiveness as writers remains . With these seven points o f contrast i n mind, a number o f key theological comparison s between thei r respectiv e theologica l notion s ca n b e made . Other s wil l emerg e fro m a detailed stud y o f th e Texts , but , i n vie w o f thei r importanc e fo r Christia n ethics , th e following deserv e special attention : 8. THEIR USES O F TH E BIBLE

In compariso n t o man y o f th e Extracts , Augustine, Aquinas and Luthe r have much i n common wit h eac h other , since : (a ) thei r ethica l prescription s ar e regularl y relate d t o biblical texts ; (b ) th e Bibl e is regarde d b y the m a s normativ e i n Christia n ethic s an d theology; (c ) th e Bibl e i s use d i n a pre-critica l an d literalisti c manner . Al l three, fo r example, might hav e understood Genesi s 3 to be literal history (even though Augustine, in his early writings, attempted an allegorical interpretation of this passage - se e De Genesi ad Manichaeos 2.15) . In contrast t o Fletcher' s Extrac t 2, they would al l have stressed th e normative rol e o f th e Bibl e i n Christia n ethics . Th e contrast , i n thi s respect , betwee n present-day Christia n ethic s an d tha t o f the Text s i s well illustrate d b y th e attitud e of Augustine an d Luthe r to polygam y (see below, p. 345.) . I n part s o f the Ol d Testament , polygamy i s clearl y accepted , s o Augustine coul d no t brin g himsel f t o sa y that i t was ethically wrong an d eve n Luther , a t on e point , conclude d tha t i t woul d b e bette r fo r Philip o f Hesse to tak e a second wife , lik e the Ol d Testament patriarchs , rather than g o against Matthew' s prohibitio n o f divorce . I n thi s respec t Augustine' s argument s ar e particularly interesting. I n seeking to defen d th e Bibl e against Faustus' attacks he wrote: 23

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

Jacob the so n o f Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he ha d four wives . Bu t her e ther e i s no groun d fo r a crimina l accusation : fo r a pluralit y of wives wa s no crim e when i t wa s the custom ; an d i t i s a crim e now, becaus e it i s n o longer th e custom . Ther e ar e sin s agains t nature , an d sin s agains t custom , an d sin s against th e law . In which, then, o f these sense s did Jaco b sin i n havin g a plurality of wives? A s regards nature , h e use d wome n no t fo r sensua l gratification , bu t fo r th e procreation o f children . Fo r custom , thi s wa s the commo n practic e a t tha t tim e i n those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now t o d o this , i s because custom an d th e law s forbid it . (Reply t o Faustus th e Manichean, XXII.47) Aquinas would no t hav e seen polygamy as consonant wit h nature (see Text XIV), but, i n spite of its offence t o their contemporary sensitivities, the fac t that it is condoned i n parts of the Ol d Testament le d both Augustine and Luthe r to vie w it a s ethically neutral . Despite thi s overall agreement , Augustine , Aquinas and Luthe r might hav e disagree d with each other about the extent to which the Bible is to be used as the sole arbiter within Christian ethics. Luther might have been the more emphatic: the Bibl e is the only arbiter of Christian faith (hi s emphasis upon 'Scripture alone' [sola Scriptura]: on e of the guiding principles o f the Reformation) . The importanc e h e gave to translatin g an d expoundin g the Bible naturally follows fro m this . Even though it will be noted that , at times, there are appeals t o conscienc e and natura l la w evident i n hi s Texts , hi s intende d sola Scriptura stress remains. It is important t o emphasize the word 'intended'. Occasions will be noted when Luther' s positio n goe s clearl y beyon d th e biblica l evidence . Nevertheless , i n hi s mind, h e was always attempting to be faithful t o the Bible - i n contrast t o th e Roman Catholic Churc h whic h had , i n hi s view , constructe d a n entirel y extra-biblical , an d therefore illegitimate , structure. Augustine, too, wa s emphatic abou t th e key role o f th e Bible i n th e Christia n life , a s hi s sermon s clearl y demonstrate . Nonetheless , h e mad e frequent appeal s to churc h tradition , sa w convergences, a t times , betwee n neo-Platoni c and Christia n value s and eve n sometimes (a s will be see n in Sectio n 3 ) borrowed fro m 'pagan' philosoph y when th e Bibl e faile d positivel y to resolv e mora l dilemmas . A sola Scriptura stres s migh t hav e mad e leas t sens e t o Aquinas . Give n hi s understanding o f natural la w (see Tex t II) , reason i s able to ascertai n mora l truth s tha t can also be known through biblical revelation. Aquinas' method o f using the Bible is seen very clearly in Tex t XIV: his argumen t i s based upo n natura l law and logica l reasonin g and biblica l evidence is only quoted onc e that argument i s completed. Thus , the Bibl e is seen to confirm what can already be known through a proper us e of reason. As a result of this method an d understanding , he was able to borro w freel y fro m Aristotle , Augustine, and church tradition generally provided, of course, that such borrowings did not seem to conflict wit h th e Bible . I n overall , an d perhap s to o schemati c terms , wherea s Luther normally intended t o start from th e Bible and use other evidence only if it was congruent with it , Aquina s tended t o star t fro m natura l reaso n an d demonstrat e tha t i t wa s i n accord with , or at least did not conflic t with, the Bible. It will be seen that these differen t methods wer e linked t o thei r differen t understanding s o f grace. It i s possibl e tha t ther e i s anothe r tendenc y whic h Augustin e an d Luthe r ha d i n common. Both had a strong disposition towards the Pauline Epistles. In the light of what has alread y bee n suggeste d concernin g thei r 'twice-born ' religiou s temperaments , thi s disposition i s ver y understandable . Further , th e earl y Luthe r wa s suspiciou s o f th e 24

INTRODUCTION

theology implicit in James and Revelation. As a result, some have claimed that their use of the Bibl e was unwittingly determine d b y some 'cano n withi n th e canon' - a perennial difficulty facin g al l emphaticall y biblica l approache s t o Christia n ethics . Th e sam e difficulty wil l b e raise d i n th e contex t o f som e o f th e present-da y Extracts , suc h a s Miranda's Extrac t 13 . The mor e pluralisti c th e Bibl e i s though t t o b e i n th e ligh t o f modern critica l scholarship , the mor e thi s difficult y i s increased . 9. THEIR THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGIES Augustine, Aquina s an d Luthe r migh t hav e agree d o n severa l point s tha t differentiat e them fro m a numbe r o f th e Extracts : (a ) the y assume d tha t th e Fal l wa s (t o us e a n anachronism fo r th e moment ) a n 'historica l event' ; (b ) a s a result , apar t fro m Christ , humans ar e in a state o f original sin ; (c ) original si n is not simpl y a propensity toward s sin, bu t involve s concupiscenc e whic h itsel f involve s actua l guilt ; (d ) a s a result , apart from Christ , non e ca n b e saved . However , thei r theologica l anthropologie s ca n b e differentiated fro m eac h other by the way in which these points were interpreted by them. In Augustine, there is a stress upon the 'original righteousness' of Adam: he is sometimes portrayed, before th e Fall , as an idea l athlete, philosophe r an d sain t (see Tex t X). But, in Aquinas, Adam's original righteousness consists, quite explicitly, in supernatural qualities (donum supernatural o r sometime s donum superadditum), s o the Fal l represent s a fal l from a supernatural to a natural level: Adam, and through him humanity subsequently, is still human and not a beast, still rational and possessing th e properties belongin g properl y to huma n natur e (pura naturalia). Fo r him , then , th e Fal l i s a privatio n rathe r tha n a deprivation. There is considerable debate abou t ho w far these scholastic notions o f Aquinas can be applied t o Augustine , whose theologica l anthropolog y ofte n appear s somewhat ambivalent, bu t the y certainl y canno t b e attribute d t o Luther . Luthe r rejecte d th e notio n o f donum supernaturale an d tende d t o se e the Fal l rathe r a s a fal l fro m th e huma n t o th e sub-human. No t surprisingly , h e tende d t o mistrus t huma n independen t rationa l abilities, a capacit y t o kno w Go d apar t fro m revelation , an d eve n fre e wil l i n mora l decision-making - thre e huma n characteristic s tha t Aquina s woul d hav e considere d essential. The ambivalenc e o f Augustin e i s demonstrate d b y hi s belie f tha t humankin d constitutes a singl e 'lum p o f sin ' (massa peccati o r massa perditionis) lackin g freedo m (libertas) bu t stil l possessin g free-will (liberum arbitrium) - a n extraordinaril y difficul t distinction that he sometimes made. I n Text I it will be seen tha t h e combined a stron g emphasis upo n th e prescienc e o f Go d wit h a belie f tha t sinfu l humanit y doe s hav e genuine fre e will . However , h e doe s littl e t o resolv e th e tensio n betwee n thes e tw o positions - bu t perhap s som e degre e of tension i s inevitable i n al l serious theologica l discussion. There is a growing recognition today that assumptions about theologica l anthropolog y have a profound effect upo n th e res t of theology. I f this is so in theology, i t must be th e case par excellence in Christia n ethics . Th e difference s her e between Augustine , Aquina s and Luther are still of considerable relevance to the Extracts and hel p to explain some of the crucial differences betwee n such Extracts as Hauerwas' Extract 18 and Welty's Extract 15 an d betwee n Earth' s Extrac t 8 , Berdyaev' s Extrac t 9 , Niebuhr' s Extrac t 1 0 an d Hollenbach's Extract 14. 25

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

10. THEIR SOTERIOLOGIES All thre e migh t hav e agree d that : (a ) God' s revelatio n i n Jesu s Chris t i s essentia l t o salvation; (b) God's laws can be known, in part at least, from a n inspection of the natural world, but tha t knowledge of these laws does not o f itself lead to salvation; (c) those who reject Jesu s Christ are damned. Yet when these points are elaborated, differences betwee n them immediatel y arise, and agai n some o f the Extract s would dissen t eve n fro m thes e general points. So, Bonhoeffer's Extrac t 1 seems to deny the initial assumption i n (b) that the natura l worl d ca n revea l anythin g abou t Go d an d man y migh t fee l uneas y abou t taking (c ) a s literally as do th e Texts . Eve n on (a ) ther e is an eviden t difference betwee n the exclusiv e Christologies of Earth's Extract 8 and Bonhoeffer' s Extrac t 1 and th e mor e inclusive Christologie s o f Temple' s Extrac t 11 , Abraham' s Extrac t 2 3 an d McFague' s Extract 25 , let alon e th e non-realis m o f Cupitt's Extract 6. Aquinas and Luther present the clearest and most sharply differentiated account s of the relations between nature and grac e and between reason and revelation . If, for the former, these relation s wer e continuous , fo r th e latte r the y wer e discontinuous . Fo r Aquinas, 'natural' religion and morality were crowned by revelation: natural reason could establish the existenc e an d som e o f the attribute s of God, but onl y revelation coul d establis h th e triune nature of God. I n short, grace completes o r crowns nature and revelatio n add s t o what ca n be know n throug h reaso n an d make s u s fi t fo r salvation . Thus , fait h i s not a contradiction o f reason as it appears to be, at times, in a theologian like Kierkegaard, but rather is a stage beyond reason, albeit a necessary stage for salvation. However, for Luther, what ca n be establishe d throug h reaso n o r natura l la w can, at best, simpl y show u s th e impossibility o f achievin g moral perfectio n throug h ou r ow n efforts . Humanit y i s s o embedded i n original sin and throug h this concupiscence is such a powerful force i n th e world that, at worst, the apparent 'good deeds' o f non-Christians are really sins. Even the Ten Commandments ca n do little more o n thei r ow n than convic t u s of our sinfulness : We have in the Ten Commandments a summary of divine teaching. They tell us what we are to d o to mak e our live s pleasing to God . They show us the true fountain fro m which, and the true channel in which, all good works must flow. N o deed, no conduc t can be good an d pleasin g to God , however worthy or preciou s i t be in the eye s of the world, unless it accord with the Te n Commandments. No w let us see what our note d saints fin d t o boas t i n thei r hol y order s an d th e grea t an d difficul t task s the y have invented fo r themselves , a t th e sam e tim e neglectin g th e commandment s a s i f they were to o trivia l or ha d lon g ag o been fulfilled . M y opinion i s that w e shall hav e ou r hands ful l i n keeping these commandments - i n practising gentleness, patience , lov e towards our enemies , chastity, kindness, and whatever other virtue s they may include ... Poor, blind people! They do not see that no one can perfectly observe even so much as one of the Ten Commandments; but th e Creed and th e Lord's Prayer must help us. Through the m w e mus t see k an d beseec h th e grac e o f obedience , an d receiv e i t continually. (Fro m Th e Large Catechism, conclusio n t o th e Te n Commandments , trans. Joh n Nichola s Lenker , Luther O n Christian Education: Luther's Catechetical Writings.) For Luther, then, salvation is achieved emphatically not through human efforts, but solely through God' s action. The notions of election an d justification b y faith wer e central t o 26

INTRODUCTION

this positio n and , indeed , t o th e Reformatio n as a whole. Go d alone chooses who m t o save and people in turn are saved, not through any works of their own, but solel y by faith, that is , by faith itsel f given to people by God. For Luther, God 'foresees, determines and actually doe s al l things , b y hi s unchangeable , eterna l an d infallibl e will . B y thi s thunderbolt th e whole idea of free will is smitten down and groun d to powder' (De Servo Arbitrio 1.10). He would have flatly denied the advice of Th e Rule of Benedict that: 'If ou r wish be to have a dwelling place in his Kingdom, let us remember i t can by no means be attained unless one run thither by good deeds' (from th e Prologue, trans. W. K. Lowther Clarke, 1931) . Yet Luther refraine d fro m th e mor e strictly logical Calvinis t doctrin e of double predestination , accordin g t o whic h th e lo t o f bot h th e save d an d thos e t o b e eternally damned ar e predestined b y God . In Augustine , man y o f thes e idea s sa t togethe r uneasily . H e hel d a doctrin e o f predestination, but i t was relatively uninfluential compared with Luther's doctrine, being known mainly , no t t o ordinary churchgoers but t o scholars . He frequently emphasize d grace and maintained that his own efforts t o find God through the gnosis of Manichaeism had bee n disastrous . H e knew and use d Paul' s notion o f justification b y fait h and , like Luther, was convinced that all those who were not justified, even unbaptized infants who died, wer e damned . I n contrast , Aquina s argued tha t unbaptize d infant s g o t o limbo , where they certainly would not be punished. On the other hand, it has already been seen that Augustin e did no t rejec t free wil l o r rational/philosophica l argumen t an d tha t h e used natura l la w positively, although no t a s systematicall y as Aquinas. Further , he di d write, at times, about the Christian seekin g moral perfection - bu t even Paul, despite his stress on grace, could also say that God 'will render to every man according to his works' (Rom. 2.6) . I f th e bia s o f Augustine' s soteriolog y i s i n Luther' s direction , i t i s no t a consistent bias . Most complicated o f all is Augustine's concept o f 'grace'. For him, grace was essential, both to enable people to act rightly in the first place and to allow them to continue to act rightly (cf . the scholasti c distinctio n betwee n prevenien t an d cooperan t grace) . Grace appears t o b e irresistibl e but , a t th e sam e time , i t doe s no t destro y fre e will . Further , through its operations some who are still damned ar e enabled to d o certain good works (i.e. Jews, 'heretics' and schismatics, but not complete 'pagans'), some are foreordained to become Christian s throug h baptism , but backslid e an d ar e also damned , an d other s are elected, no t jus t to b e Christians , but als o t o receiv e the gif t o f final perseverance and, eventually, that o f eternal lif e i n heaven (cf . the scholasti c distinction between sufficien t and efficaciou s grace) . The issues raised here go to the very heart of some of the present-day differences within Christian ethic s an d constitut e som e o f th e mos t intractabl e problem s facin g th e discipline. They also have strong resemblances to som e of the key problems facin g mora l philosophy generally, notably those concerned with the issue of free will versus biological or socia l determinism , tha t o f reaso n versu s emotion, an d tha t o f subjectivis m versus objectivism withi n ethical analysis (see Joh n Paul II's Extract 4). 11. THEIR DOCTRINES O F CHURCH AN D STATE It is often hel d that their doctrines of Church and Stat e are readily distinguishable since: Augustine regarde d Churc h an d Stat e as entirely separate realms, with th e Churc h a s a temporary and somewha t uneasy resident in the State; Aquinas regarded them simply as different sphere s of a single society, wit h the Churc h having primacy of authority; while 27

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

Luther regarde d the Churc h a s always subordinate t o th e authorit y o f the State . Thes e positions ar e the n frequentl y compare d wit h Calvin' s concep t o f theocrac y an d th e Anabaptists' radica l rejectio n o f the State . But these superficia l contrasts (whic h are well in evidenc e i n Text s IV-VI ) disguis e more subtl e difference s an d similaritie s betwee n their positions . I n relatio n t o thei r socio-politica l contexts , Aquina s an d Luthe r wer e closer t o eac h othe r tha n t o Augustine . Augustine was writing at th e beginnin g of th e attempt b y Christians t o com e t o term s wit h th e State and t o mak e sense o f the mora l problems confronting , no t jus t th e individua l withi n th e State , bu t th e Stat e itself . Constantine's adoptio n o f Christianity - fo r whatever persona l motive s - presente d Christians wit h ne w problems , o r problem s fro m a ne w perspectiv e whic h Ambros e almost alone , before Augustine, had begun seriously to tackle. It is hardly surprising tha t Augustine did no t presen t a thoroughly consistent theor y of the Stat e or o f the relatio n between Churc h an d State . No r i s it surprisin g that , i n vie w o f th e State' s paga n an d sometimes anti-Christia n past , h e remaine d war y of identifying th e Churc h too closel y with th e State . Yet , despit e hi s sometime s vivi d contrast s betwee n th e earthl y an d heavenly cities, Text I V shows that Augustine did se e a relationship between earthly and heavenly peace , whil e Tex t VI I show s how , a t th e ris k o f contradictin g centurie s o f Christian pacifism , h e adapted t o th e moral perspective created by altered Church/State relations. The socio-politica l contexts o f Aquinas and Luthe r were quite differen t fro m tha t o f Augustine. The thirteenth centur y witnessed th e climax of the close relationshi p betwee n the Stat e and th e Catholi c Church , an d Aquina s never appeare d t o regar d th e overal l relationship a s problematic. Th e boundaries betwee n th e two were boundaries o f power and authority , no t o f opposin g aims , value s an d socia l orders , an d eve n Luther' s challenge wa s concerne d primaril y wit h th e forme r rathe r tha n th e latter . Neithe r Aquinas no r Luthe r conceive d o f anythin g resemblin g th e nineteenth - an d twentiet h century notions of the 'secula r State'. From thi s latter perspective , Calvin' s Genev a an d Rome i n Aquinas ' time appea r remarkabl y similar. I t i s significant to o tha t Luther , in Text VI, is still basically a medieval in his underlying economic assumption s - despit e the possibility that h e may have been instrumenta l in underminin g these assumptions . If these socio-political factor s are taken seriously - an d in this area of Christian ethics , at least, they surely must be taken seriously - i t is dangerous to assume that when Barth in Extract 8 appealed t o Roman s 1 3 his presuppositions, idea s and language were the sam e as those o f Luther or Augustin e when they appealed t o th e sam e passage. And non e of them ma y hav e ha d muc h i n commo n wit h th e eschatologicall y fragil e worl d o f Pau l himself. Th e task of distinguishing between thes e various socio-political factor s an d th e underlying Christia n principle s essentia l t o a n adequat e theologica l understandin g o f Church-State relationship s toda y i s on e o f th e mos t difficult , bu t important , facin g exponents o f Christian ethics . It is also a task that directly affects one' s understanding o f the problem s raise d i n th e Extract s in Section s 2-5 . I n thi s sense , thes e are , indeed , perennial problems . Students o f Augustine , Aquinas an d Luthe r ar e wel l serve d b y thes e readabl e an d authoritative studies : Pete r Brown , Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1967 ) (hi s Religion and Society i n th e Ag e o f Saint Augustine (1972) i s als o ver y useful) ; F . C . Copleston , Aquinas (1955 ) (se e als o hi s History o f Philosophy, 1976) ; Rolan d H . Bainton , Here I Stand: A Life o f Martin Luther (1950). Although ther e i s no substitut e fo r going back to thei r primar y writings , othe r book s 28

INTRODUCTION

will be recommended i n relation to particular Texts. In attempting to make comparisons between thei r theologica l concept s o f grac e an d origina l sin , i t i s wort h recallin g th e important works of Williams: N. P. Williams: Th e Ideas o f the Fall and o f Original Sin, the 1924 Bampton Lectures, and Th e Grace of God (1930), a much slighter, but stil l readable, book. THE EXTRACTS The Extracts have been chosen to represen t a wide spectrum of approaches within recent Christian ethics . S o eac h Sectio n attempt s t o offe r a rang e o f Extract s fro m Roma n Catholic, Orthodox , Anglica n and Reforme d traditions . I n addition , th e Extract s fro m each o f thes e tradition s hav e bee n chose n t o represen t differin g interna l emphase s (themselves sometime s a s great a s differences betwee n traditions) . Thus, th e Roma n Catholi c Extract s contai n part s o f thre e papa l encyclicals , John XXIII's Pacem i n Tern's , Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, and Joh n Paul II's Veritatis Splendor, Extracts 12 , 29 and 4 (themselve s of very different emphasis) , traditionalist position s i n Copleston's Extrac t 3 an d Welty' s Extrac t 15 , reformis t position s i n th e U S Roma n Catholic Bishops ' Extrac t 17 , Hollenbach's Extrac t 14 , Porter's Extrac t 7 an d Cahill' s Extract 30 , an d radica l position s i n Fiorenza' s Extrac t 5 , Miranda's Extrac t 13 , Kiing's Extract 2 6 an d Ruether' s Extract 32 . Miranda i s evidently influence d by th e Reforme d tradition and , possibly , ha s mor e i n commo n wit h non-Roma n Catholi c liberatio n theology tha n wit h traditiona l Roma n Catholi c mora l theology . Certainl y h e compare s interestingly with the Methodist Bonino' s Extract 19. Ruether now sits only ambiguously within th e Roma n Catholic traditio n at all . The Anglica n Extract s var y fro m th e modifie d natura l la w positio n o f Templ e i n Extract 11 , through th e philosophicall y and theologicall y oriented approache s o f Clark's Extract 2 4 and O'Donovan' s Extrac t 20 , to th e iconoclas m o f Fletcher' s Extrac t 2 an d Cupitt's Extract 6. Anglican 'comprehensiveness' i s well in evidenc e in thes e Extracts. The Reformed Extracts also show considerable variety and internal divisions. Niebuhr's Extract 1 0 has similarities in style to the modified natural law approach of Temple. At the other end of the spectrum is the radica l rejection of secular ethics of Bonhoeffer's Extract 1, Earth' s Extrac t 8 an d Hauerwas ' Extrac t 18 . A combination o f Reforme d Christia n ethics and radicalism can be found in both Bonino's Extract 19 and McFague's Extract 25. And Extrac t 27 serves to illustrat e the distinctiv e Quake r approach. The Orthodo x tradition i s represented i n Berdyaev' s Extract 9, Gregorios' Extrac t 22 and Ware's Extract 28. Ware represents a traditionalist approach to marriage and divorce, whereas Gregorios ' offer s a uniqu e Indian/Orthodox approac h t o technolog y an d th e environment. Berdyae v was clearl y influence d by hi s Russia n Orthodoxy , bu t h e wa s always too independen t a philosopher t o res t firmly in any single tradition. Hi s mystical individualism was most evident i n his understanding of sexuality. For him, the sexual act 'shackles man to that decadent orde r of nature, where reigns the endless relay of birth and death'; true love is 'a tormenting search for the androgynous image, for cosmic harmony', with mal e and femal e nature s mystically fused int o the androgynou s image of God ( The Meaning o f the Creative Act, p. 193) . Overall, the stron g Orthodox stres s upon th e Spirit and th e spiritua l i s apparent i n al l three Extracts. The interna l variation s apparen t withi n thes e tradition s mak e inappropriat e an y simplistic identificatio n o f particula r ethica l approache s o r stance s wit h particula r Churches. Naturally , ther e alway s hav e bee n interna l difference s withi n th e Roma n 29

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

Catholic, Orthodox , Anglican or Reformed Churches. However , ecumenism and , with it, the growing tendency of professional theologian s to rea d widely in traditions othe r tha n their own, make these differences considerabl y mor e complicate d t o analyse. A t the same time, they make comparative analysis all the more interesting. Aquinas and Luther can no longer be describe d a s the propert y o f particular churches. METHOD OF STUDY The fac t tha t thi s is a textbook an d no t simpl y a reader require s that i t shoul d b e used systematically. The System of Analysis, already outlined, requires particular attention an d the description o f it should be re-read as study of the Texts and Extracts progresses. There are three vital phases of a systematic study of these Texts and Extracts - comprehension , comparison, an d critique - whic h should alway s be undertaken in that order . C 1. COMPREHENSION A student shoul d rea d eac h Text an d Extrac t several times carefully , firs t t o understan d the genera l argumen t an d the n t o b e able t o comprehen d i t i n term s o f the Syste m of Analysis. At this stage, there is often a danger of becoming too involved in the substantive issues i n question , o r o f making prematur e comparison s o r criticisms . Comprehensio n must tak e priority.

2. COMPARISON The main comparison, around which this Textbook ha s been constructed, is that between Texts and Extracts. The System of Analysis is designed to make this comparison easier . In addition, th e introductio n t o eac h sectio n make s a numbe r o f overal l comparison s between the Texts and the Extracts within it . It has already been thoroughl y emphasize d that comparisons between documents coming from ver y different age s and socio-politica l contexts should onl y b e made wit h caution . Further , i t shoul d be emphasize d tha t th e thoughts o f one theologia n shoul d onl y be compare d wit h thos e o f another i n all their complexity. I t i s precisely thi s that has caused som e o f the greates t difficultie s alread y i n comparing the ideas of Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Their views on a given issue were not alway s consisten t throughou t thei r writings . Fo r example , Augustine' s view s o n sexuality were , a t som e stages , mor e Manichaea n an d dualis t tha n a t othe r stage s an d Luther ma y hav e becom e mor e anti-Semiti c a s h e gre w older . Comparison s betwee n Texts and Extract s should kee p in mind comparison s betwee n the Text s or Extract s of a single author, represented elsewher e in thi s Textbook. A thir d typ e of comparison ca n als o b e made, i.e . tha t betwee n th e variou s Extracts. This can be done in three separate ways: by comparing differing view s on the substantive issue in question; by comparing the approaches of different traditions ; an d by comparing approaches fro m th e sam e traditio n bu t fro m differen t Section s o f th e book . Al l these comparisons will be made, at times, in the System of Analysis accompanying th e variou s Texts an d Extracts. 3. CRITIQUE This is the most importan t phase , but it should be the last. An attempt should be made to assess the strengths and weaknesses of particular Texts and Extracts. Reference shoul d b e made bot h t o th e metho d use d an d t o th e substantiv e issue s raise d an d shoul d b e concerned bot h wit h th e interna l consistenc y o f an author' s argument s and wit h thei r

30

INTRODUCTION

external consistenc y wit h th e argument s o f othe r authors . I t wil l als o sometime s b e important to rais e question s about the socia l effect s o f a particular author' s ideas . As already mentioned, th e five Sections o f this Textbook ca n be studie d i n an y order . Nonetheless, these three phases of study and their relative order should alway s be used in whichever Sectio n i s to b e studied .

31

This page intentionally left blank

SECTION 1

Methodology

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction t o Methodology

Fundamental difference s ar e eviden t amon g exponent s o f Christia n ethic s o n bot h external an d interna l question s abou t th e natur e o f thei r discipline . An d th e followin g Texts an d Extract s hav e bee n chose n t o illustrat e som e o f thes e differences . The y ar e evident on th e external question of the distinctivenes s of Christian ethics vis-a-vis secular forms o f ethics. The y are also evident o n th e internal question of the relativ e importance to be given, withi n th e discipline, to th e distinctivel y Christia n appeal s t o th e Bible , to Christian tradition , t o Christia n experienc e and/o r t o Christia n belief . Ye t answers t o these question s hav e a crucia l effec t upo n th e wa y the disciplin e o f Christia n ethic s is conceived and practised. It will be the object of this introduction t o focus upo n these two questions. The external question abou t th e distinctivenes s o f Christia n ethic s vis-a-vi s mora l philosophy is , i n part , a moder n problem . I t wa s Kant , afte r all , wh o insiste d s o emphatically tha t ethic s i s a n autonomou s disciplin e (eve n thoug h h e subsequentl y advanced a moral argument fo r the existenc e o f God). An d the separat e attack s of Kant and Hume on an assumed bond betwee n Christian ethics and Christian dogma did more than anythin g else to produc e th e present-da y gul f between Christia n ethic s an d mora l philosophy. Ou r moder n assumptio n tha t mora l philosoph y can , i n principle , b e conducted without referenc e t o Go d is a clear product o f eighteenth-century rationalism and a sharp departure from the medieval assumptions of Aquinas or from thos e of Luther (and on e that i s increasingly questione d toda y i n Christian ethic s - se e Extracts 1 8 and 24). Eve n Augustin e wa s primaril y concerne d wit h contrastin g Christia n ethic s wit h 'heresy' an d 'paganism ' rathe r than with atheis m (althoug h se e Text 1.8) . Nonetheless, th e fac t tha t Aquina s was so concerned t o explor e correlation s betwee n Aristotelian ethics and Christia n ethics makes his work highly relevant to a discussion of the externa l question . I t does , a t least , provid e a clea r answe r t o th e proble m o f th e relationship between Christian ethics and moral philosoph y (a s presented i n Copleston' s Extract 3) . Fo r Aquinas , ther e wa s n o inheren t conflict betwee n Aristotelianis m an d Christianity, since th e first was primarily concerned with what coul d be known throug h natural reason, whereas the second relied, in addition, upon supernatural revelation. As it was the same God who created the natura l world, who established it s laws, and was then revealed i n Jesu s Christ , ther e coul d b e n o inheren t conflict betwee n reaso n an d revelation an d thus , surely , n o inheren t conflic t betwee n Christia n ethic s an d mora l philosophy. O f course , particula r mora l philosopher s migh t mak e mistake s i n thei r reasoning, o r the y migh t eve n be wilfull y pervers e in thei r reasonin g and this , i n turn , might lea d t o a conflic t betwee n th e tw o disciplines . But , inherently , o n Aquinas ' assumptions, there need be no conflict . In terms of the presupposition s derive d fro m Luther , conflict appear s distinctly more 35

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

likely. Bonhoeffer' s shar p contras t betwee n ethic s an d Christia n ethic s whil e owin g something, a s wil l b e argued , t o hi s particula r socia l context , i s consisten t wit h hi s Lutheranism. Any individual quest for moral perfection, especially one guaranteed by the ministrations o f th e clerg y or o f th e papacy , wa s rejecte d b y Luthe r i n favou r o f th e doctrine of justification b y faith. Moralit y is essentially a product o f faith, not a means to faith, an d certainl y no t a n autonomou s entit y apar t fro m faith . Whil e Luthe r clearly recognized th e nee d fo r societ y to mak e laws in mora l area s and, indeed , continue d t o make appeals to natura l law and t o conscienc e when i t suite d hi s argument, his overall position wa s quite different fro m tha t o f Aquinas (see above, pp. 26f.) . Human natur e is far to o corrupte d by sin for it to be a reliable source of ethical judgement. B y somewhat extending Luther' s position , Bonhoeffe r maintain s tha t eve n evidenc e o f huma n conscience is , in fact , evidenc e o f huma n disunio n wit h God . Whe n someon e aspire s to b e a moral person , whil e ignoring Christ, tha t perso n i s actually sinful. However , fo r Niebuhr, such a conclusion would be quite untenable. Although his Extract 10 in the nex t Section show s a frequen t stres s upo n si n an d a n attac k o n wha t Niebuh r regarde d a s unrealistic Christian utopianism, nonetheless he argued later in life that each person does have, naturally , som e knowledg e o f th e goo d and , indeed , tha t withou t this , 'fait h i n Christ coul d fin d n o lodgin g plac e in th e huma n soul ' (The Nature and Destiny of Ma n (1949), vol. 1 , p. 281) . In relatio n to th e external question, bot h o f these overall positions ca n find echoes in Augustine's writings. In Tex t I h e emphasizes th e realit y of human free will , despit e it s evident conflic t wit h God' s prescience . But , elsewher e h e wa s no t s o consistent . Fo r example, whe n expositin g Roman s 9.10 , h e wrot e that , 'i n thi s enquir y w e laboure d indeed on behalf of human free will: but th e grace of God won the day' (Retractions 2.1) . More illuminatingly, elsewhere he could write that, 'to will or not to will is in the power of the man who wills or wills not, only in such a way that it does not imped e God's will or vanquish hi s power' (De Con. et grat. 14.43). But even here he could disconcertingly add that, 'God has men's wills more in his power than they themselves have their wills in their own power ' (14.45) . Sinc e th e realit y o f huma n free wil l i s a prerequisit e o f Aquinas ' understanding o f mora l decision-making , bu t seem s irrelevan t t o tha t o f Luther , thi s ambivalence i s highly significant. It i s also a n ambivalenc e that stil l affect s present-da y exponents o f Christian ethics . Serious doubts abou t the realit y of human fre e wil l stem fro m thre e distinct, although frequently interrelated , considerations . Th e firs t i s a belie f i n th e omniscienc e an d omnipotence o f God . Thi s wa s on e o f Augustine' s mai n problems : i f Go d know s everything in advance and indeed create d everything that exists , how is it that people can be said to choos e anything on the basis of human volition, sinc e even the will to choos e has bee n create d b y Go d an d al l it s content s ar e know n t o Go d a t th e momen t o f creation? The second concern s the corruption o f humans and i t was this that was one of the central focuse s of Luther's thinking. If humans, through Adam, live in a constant state of sin, so that even the 'best * aspirations are corrupted b y sin, it is difficult t o se e how, in any real sense, the huma n wil l remains 'free' . Indeed , from this perspective (viewing the Fall as a deprivation and not simply as a privation - se e above, p. 25), an insistence upo n free wil l raises suspicions o f Pelagianism. The thir d consideratio n involve s socia l an d physica l determinism . I f ful l accoun t i s taken o f th e sociological , psychological , biologica l an d geneti c factor s determinin g human behaviour, it becomes notoriously difficul t nonetheles s t o maintai n that humans 36

METHODOLOGY

do posses s fre e will . The present-day explosio n o f knowledge about th e huma n genom e adds considerabl y t o thi s problem . Onc e suc h determinin g factor s ar e relate d t o a n individual's ac t of moral decision-making i n a concrete situation , littl e roo m ma y have been lef t fo r fre e will . I n fact , eve n thos e philosopher s wh o stil l clai m tha t human s d o possess free wil l tend t o admi t tha t i t i s considerably mor e restricte d tha n i s popularly imagined (e.g . H. D. Lewis in Philosophy o f Religion, 1965). In most situations one act s in one way rather than another becaus e one is genetically shaped to do so, because one has been brought u p to do so, because one is expected to do so by others, and so forth - no t because on e consciousl y an d freel y choose s t o d o so . Although , o f course , h e kne w nothing o f Freudian , Weberian , o r geneti c analysis , Augustine' s critiqu e o f astrolog y shows that h e kne w something o f these various factors (see The City o f Go d V.2). There are obvious connections her e with other highly intractable problems in theology and philosophy . Th e proble m o f evi l (theodicy) , i n th e contex t o f Christianity , i s intensified b y an insistence upo n th e omnipotence an d omniscienc e of God. And one of the 'solutions' offered b y Christian theodicy is precisely that, if God were to give humans free will, then Go d must also have allowed humans the possibilit y of moral evil as well as moral goo d - sinc e th e secon d make s n o sens e withou t th e first. In thi s respec t 'th e problem o f evil ' an d 'th e proble m o f good ' ar e interconnected , thoug h equall y intractable. Again , i f a Luthera n such a s Bonhoeffe r i s tempte d t o distinguis h 'better ' secular regimes from other s (a s he appears to do elsewhere in Ethics) h e may be in danger of reintroducing thos e secula r ethical categorie s that h e has methodologically rejected . If a tension i s often fel t i n theology between God' s omnipotence an d omniscienc e and human fre e wil l an d mora l evil , th e tensio n i n philosoph y betwee n fre e will , self determination an d physica l an d socia l determinis m i s jus t a s severe . A numbe r o f philosophers today , sometime s terme d Compatibilists , hav e argue d tha t fre e wil l an d thoroughgoing determinis m ar e compatible. I n various ways, they maintain tha t the fac t that people can reason and then act morally is sufficient evidenc e of free will, even if their moral decision s ar e entirel y predictable . S o a n abilit y t o predic t accuratel y th e mora l behaviour of particular individuals, or an ability to identify the antecedent cause s of their moral reasoning, do not belittle th e reality of their moral decision-making. Indeed , there is a clear difference betwee n a n individual such as a so-called 'psychopath ' or 'sociopath' who i s incapable o f mora l reasoning , an d a n individua l who i s so capable , eve n i f it i s entirely predictable ho w both wil l behave. An adapted version of Compatibilism could also be used to resolve some of the tension between God' s omnipotenc e an d omniscienc e an d huma n fre e will . So , i t coul d b e maintained tha t th e fac t tha t Go d ha s create d individual s whos e action s ar e alread y known befor e thei r birt h doe s no t o f itsel f invalidat e thei r mora l reasoning . Th e ke y difference her e between thi s version of Compatibilism an d philosophica l Compatibilis m is that the determinan t (God ) is already aware of what is determined. Bu t this, in itself, is a very crucial differenc e an d i s considerably complicate d b y the fac t tha t term s suc h as 'know' and even 'create' are used of God only analogically. If people could understand, in any literal sense, what i t means for God to 'know ' everything in advanc e they would, of course, b e God and no t people . Both versions o f Compatibilism wil l seem unsatisfactor y t o some . Th e notio n o f fre e will offere d b y Compatibilist s i s clearl y no t strong , particularl y i f th e ac t o f mora l reasoning itsel f i s though t t o b e determined . An d i n philosophica l Compatibilis m i t might see m tha t a n ontological, rathe r than simpl y methodological, determinis m i s too 37

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

often assume d (see above, pp. 14f.) . In most recen t understanding s o f Christian ethics , a rather stronge r notio n o f free wil l would see m t o b e required. I t migh t even be possible for th e Christian apologis t t o argue that i t is the fac t that one believes i n a created, rathe r than fortuitous, world and i n people within that world who are created in the image of a loving God - a God possessing free wil l - tha t one is given grounds for belief that peopl e do hav e real free will . Thus, without a doctrine o f creation one migh t fin d i t difficul t t o escape th e conclusio n tha t huma n action s ar e wholl y determine d b y a n ultimatel y fortuitous world . I t i s no t necessar y t o dra w fro m thi s argumen t th e additiona l conclusion that secular ethics is a worthless undertaking, as Bonhoeffer might . The theist can stil l maintai n tha t fre e will , whic h i s though t t o b e necessar y b y som e secula r moralists, is made possible by a loving God - whethe r or not the non-theist knows this. The internal question concerning the relative importance to be given to the distinctively Christian appeal s t o th e Bible , Christia n tradition , Christia n experienc e an d Christia n belief, revea l just as many differences betwee n the Texts and th e Extracts in this Section . The single-minded focus upon the Bible in Luther is apparent i n all his Texts. In contrast, there are more appeals t o tradition and to Aristotle tha n t o the Bible in Aquinas' Tex t II. Interestingly, though , Luther' s Text II I opens wit h th e criterio n tha t i f one find s one' s 'heart confident tha t it pleases God, then the work is good' (III.l). Augustine, in Text I, is more philosophical tha n exegetical. However, their differing approache s to the Bible have already bee n discusse d (see above, pp. 23-5) . Within th e Extracts , one o f the mos t importan t difference s i s caused by the claim s of situation ethics . Fletcher' s boo k Situation Ethics (1966) , coincidin g wit h th e radica l writings an d utterance s o f Bisho p John Robinso n i n Britai n and o f Bisho p Pik e in th e United States , proved remarkabl y influential i n th e 1960 s and earl y 1970s. Its somewha t anecdotal and superficia l styl e reads oddly in comparison wit h the other Extracts, but it s position cannot be ignored. Indeed, few works in Christian ethics have been written since its publication withou t makin g som e referenc e to it . It s iconoclasm ha s irritate d man y and it will shortly be observed that its criticisms of 'legalisrn' fail to take fully into account Aquinas' comple x theor y o f exceptions . Further , man y hav e argue d tha t Fletcher' s characteristic metho d o f arguin g fro m idiosyncrati c paradigm s (see 2.18f ) distort s Christian ethic s - jus t as, at the secular level , no nation can construct a legal system on the basi s of exceptions. Fletche r tends t o writ e as if no on e ha d eve r thought seriousl y about exception s befor e him . However , whe n al l thes e point s hav e bee n made , hi s thoroughgoing stress upon agape and his overall personalist approac h to Christia n ethics have undoubtedl y foun d importan t sympathizers . Fo r them , personalis m an d agapis m accord mor e full y wit h present-da y consciousnes s tha n Aquinas ' theor y o f natural law. There ar e als o obviou s similaritie s betwee n Fletcher' s an d Bonhoeffer' s account s o f Christian ethics . Fo r Bonhoeffer , too , th e disciplin e i s predominantl y personalis t (see 1.13f) an d i t is based upon a single criterion, the 'Call of Christ'. Further, both men justif y their positions in relation to what they take to be the central thrust of the New Testament (see 2.9-10) . Bu t i n relatio n t o th e externa l questio n mentione d earlie r the y ar e quit e different. Bonhoeffe r see s a sharp divide between ethic s and Christia n ethic s whereas, for Fletcher, Christian and non-Christia n situation ethics differ onl y in the summum bonum (highest good ) regarde d a s their standar d (see 2.11) and , i n practice , h e move s almos t imperceptibly fro m on e disciplin e t o th e other. Fletcher' s approvin g quotatio n fro m Bonhoeffer (2.5 ) ignore s thi s crucia l differenc e betwee n them . Fletcher's difference s wit h othe r Anglican s also emerg e i n Extrac t 2 . H e specificall y 38

METHODOLOGY

rejects th e notio n o f 'middle axioms' tha t Templ e an d other s withi n th e Lif e an d Wor k Movement in the 1930 s believed to be so important. In part, his rejection i s based upon a semantic quibbl e (2.13) , but i n par t i t may be based upo n a correct realizatio n tha t th e notion o f 'middl e axioms ' assume s a modifie d natura l la w theory - itself , o f course , assumed b y Temple. Th e Church o f Scotland's war-tim e 'Baillie Commission' accurately described thi s notion: It is ... th e duty of the Church in our day and place to guide the individual, within ... limits of its competence ... what to do with his vote and in what directions to exercise his influence . Th e requisit e principle s fo r th e implementin g o f thi s dut y ar e full y available t o u s i n th e Ne w Testament . N o ne w principle s ar e necessar y o r ar e permissible, bu t onl y th e applicatio n o f th e dominica l an d apostoli c teachin g t o a situation different fro m tha t in which ou r Lor d and Hi s first disciples were ever calle d upon t o stan d ... It is clear, however, that th e carrying out o f such a task will involve the formulation , i n each case , of certain secondar y an d mor e specialise d principle s to the particula r field of action i n which guidanc e i s needed. 'Middl e axioms' the y have been calle d .. . The y ar e not suc h a s to b e appropriat e t o ever y time an d plac e and situation, but the y are offered a s legitimate and necessary applications o f the Christia n rule of faith an d lif e t o th e specia l circumstances i n which we now stand . ( God's Will for Church an d Nation, p . 445) This understandin g o f Christia n ethic s adhere s mor e strictl y t o a us e onl y o f thos e principles tha t ca n b e derive d fro m th e Bible , tha n d o traditiona l understanding s o f natural la w theory. I t clearly wishes to avoi d th e sor t o f casuistry and comple x theor y of exceptions als o associate d wit h th e latter . Nonetheless , i t seek s t o tak e bot h genera l principles and th e exigencie s of particular situations seriousl y by developing, admittedl y fallible, secondary principles for these exigencies. It is in this sense that it can be identifie d as a modified natura l la w theory an d i t i s probably i n thi s aspec t tha t i t i s most sharply differentiated fro m Fletcher' s situatio n ethics . Fletcher's case-stud y on abortio n ca n be compared wit h Paul VI's Extract 29 (and th e latter, i n turn , wit h Fiorenza' s Extrac t 5) . Th e substantiv e issue s wil l b e discusse d i n Section 5 , bu t fo r th e momen t i t i s wort h comparin g Fletcher' s supposition s abou t 'legalist' position s wit h thos e o f Pau l VI . Again , i t appear s tha t Fletche r ha s blurre d distinctions an d oversimplifie d positions . Nonetheless , i t i s perhap s hi s positio n o n abortion tha t mor e closel y represent s th e positio n o f man y Christian s today . Take n together wit h th e radica l non-realism o f Cupitt's Extrac t 6, both poin t t o th e pluralis m that increasingl y characterized Christian ethic s a t the tur n o f the millennium . I t wil l be noted i n th e critiqu e a t th e en d o f thi s Sectio n tha t eve n whe n position s i n Christia n ethics ar e asserte d stridentl y - a s they ar e i n Joh n Pau l II' s Extrac t 4 an d Fiorenza' s Extract 5 - whe n set side by side they paradoxically become example s of moral pluralism within Christianit y (and , i n this instance , o f pluralism withi n Catholicism) . Even Cupit t i s no t immun e fro m suc h stridency . A s it stand s hi s Extrac t 6 offer s a strong assertion of non-realism. However, i t can also be seen a s a sharp exampl e o f one form o f Christian postmodernism, wit h Hauerwas' Extract 18 representing another form . They hav e i n commo n a postmodernis t assumptio n tha t a n increasingl y fragmente d society no longer shares a convincing rational discourse. I t is only particular communitie s that hav e shared beliefs an d values. Both are also sceptical of the universa l aspirations of 39

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

moral philosophy . Bu t the y diffe r radicall y fro m eac h othe r i n thei r respons e t o traditional forms o f Christian communities. Cupitt clearly believes that we need to mov e beyond the m t o for m new , non-realis t communities . Hauerwas , i n contrast , a s will be seen i n Sectio n 3 , champions a move back to them .

40

TEXT I

AUGUSTINE God's foreknowledge and human free-will 1. BACKGROUND This Text comes fro m Th e City o f Go d V.9-11 (Pelican Classics, trans. Henr y Bettenson (ed.) Davi d Knowles, Penguin, 1972 , pp. 190-6) . Consisting altogethe r o f 22 books, Th e City o f Go d was Augustine' s mos t substantia l wor k an d a vita l sourc e fo r hi s matur e theology. I t wa s inspire d b y Alaric' s sackin g o f Rom e i n 41 0 an d i n i t h e se t ou t t o demonstrate tha t this event was a punishment fo r Rome's paganism and not the result (as 'pagans' claimed ) o f th e Emperor' s adoptio n o f Christianity . T o achiev e thi s demon stration h e attempte d t o expos e a numbe r o f ke y 'pagan ' notion s (e.g . 'fate' ) an d t o ridicule the whole idea tha t th e 'paga n gods' had, in any way, protected Rom e from he r enemies. I n contras t t o this , Augustin e elaborate d th e concep t o f th e heavenl y city , founded an d ruled alone by God revealed in Jesus Christ (see further, Tex t IV). He started the work in 413 , but di d no t finis h i t unti l 426 , writing Book V in abou t 416 . H e later described i t a s follows: 'The first five books refut e thos e wh o attribut e prosperit y an d adversity to the cult of the gods or to the prohibition of this cult. The next five are against those wh o hold tha t ill s ar e never wantin g to men , but tha t worshi p o f the god s help s towards th e futur e lif e afte r death . Th e secon d par t o f the wor k contain s twelve books . The first four describ e the birth of the two cities, one of God, the other of this world. The second four continue their story, and the third four depict their final destiny' (Retractions 2,43,2). I n relatio n t o th e followin g Text, i t i s importan t t o realiz e tha t th e Pelagia n controversy was taking place then, but despit e its obvious relevanc e to th e them e of fre e will, it i s seldom mentione d i n the work . Cicero' s O n th e Nature of th e Gods, which ha d been an important influence on Augustine in his Manichaean phase, however, is explicitly attacked here . 2. KE Y ISSUES Augustine is concerned i n this Text to defend both God' s prescience and human free will. He is fully awar e of a potential conflict between th e two, but reject s Cicero's resolution o f this conflict i n terms of denying God's prescience (1.2-3). For Augustine, God 'knows all things before they happen', but thi s does not impl y either a notion o f 'fate' o r a denial of human free will (1.4). Distinguishing betwee n 'natural ' and 'voluntary' causes, he regard s God as the author o f the first, but insist s that God still allows humans the second (1.6-8) . So huma n wil l ha s 'onl y a s muc h powe r a s Go d ha s wille d an d foreknown ' (1.9) . Augustine also seeks to refut e the Stoic understanding o f 'necessity' as a limitation which abolishes freedo m fo r Go d o r human s (1.10-11) . Fre e wil l i s not invalidate d b y God' s foreknowledge, bu t rathe r in , th e ver y fac t tha t Go d doe s forekno w huma n fre e wil l

41

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

demonstrates its genuine existence - sinc e otherwise there would be nothing to foreknow (1.12-13). Go d ha s indee d create d human s fre e (1.14) . 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS There i s a stron g deontologica l emphasi s throughou t hi s refutatio n o f Cicer o an d th e Stoics. Augustin e treat s bot h God's prescience an d huma n fre e wil l as given an d simpl y accuses hi s opponents o f 'profanity ' an d 'impudence ' (1.4) , potentia l atheis m (1.8 ) an d 'blasphemy' (1.12) . Fo r him , thei r positio n i s manifestl y wron g an d i t i s sufficien t t o demonstrate tha t the y den y eithe r prescienc e or fre e will . Natura l law assumptions are also apparen t i n th e Text, notabl y i n his claim tha t 'evi l wills do no t procee d fro m hi m because the y ar e contrar y t o th e natur e whic h proceed s fro m him' : th e natural , fo r natural la w theory , i n itsel f i s alway s goo d (1.7) . A mor e consequentia l argumen t i s introduced in 1.12-13: the reality of human free will, prayer, exhortations and sin can be derived fro m th e fac t tha t Go d foresee s them , since , if they did no t exist , God could no t foresee them . 4. BASES OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS Augustine's two uses of the Psalms in this Text illustrate two different use s of the Bible. In 1.4 the Psalms play a central role in his argument, but i n 1.8 they merely provide a flourish at the en d o f the argument . However , i t i s the doctrin e o f creation whic h provide s th e central basi s o f Augustine's positio n (especiall y in 1.14) . H e i s particularly offende d b y Cicero, sinc e he believes tha t hi s contentions undermine th e very basis o f God as creator (1.8). In his defence of the latter, he is convinced tha t 'pagan ' notions, suc h as fate, mus t be refute d b y the Christia n a s 'profane an d irreveren t impudence ' (1.4) . 5. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS Various facets of Augustine's pre-Christian life have influenced the argument in this Text. Cicero's notion s ar e single d ou t fo r particula r attac k an d Augustine' s ow n previou s interest in , an d subsequen t rejectio n of , astrolog y i s evident. Fre e will i s defended but , above all, he stresses the power of God: his own rejectio n of Pelagianism is clear, as is the strong conviction o f the convert tha t it is God who is triumphant. Augustine , the forme r rhetorician, i s also strongly in evidence (althoug h this is even more th e cas e in his muc h earlier O n th e Free Choice of the Will). I t might even be claimed that a defence of free will comes mor e naturall y t o on e fro m th e middl e classe s tha n one , lik e Luther , wh o ha s known at first hand the social constraints upon th e agrarian working classes. In addition , in hi s arguments abou t th e ver y notions of 'prescience' and 'fre e will' , Augustine show s that h e was heir mor e t o th e Graeco-Roman worl d tha n t o th e Hebrai c world: eve n his declaration of faith (i n 1.14) uses the non-biblical notions of'omnipotence ' and 'soul' (see further, p . 20 0 below). 6. SOCIAL

SIGNIFICANCE

Augustine's twin stresse s upo n th e prescience/omnipotenc e o f Go d an d th e fre e wil l of humans ha d a ver y considerabl e effec t upo n subsequen t theolog y an d upo n Wester n thought. Hi s correlation betwee n neo-Platoni c an d biblica l notion s prove d enormousl y influential an d serve d t o giv e Christianit y a ne w intellectua l credibility . H e als o bequeathed a sometimes puzzlin g combination o f Graeco-Roman an d Hebrai c notions , particularly i n th e area s of Christian anthropology an d eschatology . 42

METHODOLOGY FURTHER READING In additio n t o th e primar y reading fro m O n th e Free Choice o f th e Will an d Th e City o f God an d th e secondar y readin g suggeste d i n th e Introductio n o n Augustine , N . P . Williams' Th e Ideas o f th e Fall an d o f Original Si n (1924 ) i s particularly important .

TEXT I AUGUSTINE God's foreknowledge and human free will I.I For our part , whatever may be the twists and turn s o f philosophical dispute and debate , we recognise a God who is supreme and true and therefore we confess his supreme power and foreknowledge . We ar e no t afrai d tha t wha t w e do b y a n ac t o f will ma y no t b e a voluntary act, because God, with his infallible prescience, knew that we should do it. This was th e fea r tha t le d Cicer o t o oppos e foreknowledg e an d th e Stoic s t o den y tha t everything happen s b y necessity , althoug h the y maintaine d tha t everythin g happen s according to fate .

1.2 Now what was it that Cicer o so dreaded i n prescience of the future , tha t h e struggled to demolish th e ide a by so execrable a line of argument? H e reasone d tha t i f all events are foreknown, they will happen in the precise order of that foreknowledge ; if so, the order is determined i n the prescience of God. If the order of events is determined, so is the causal order; for nothing can happen unless preceded by an efficient cause . If the causa l order is fixed, determining all events, then all events, he concluded, ar e ordered b y destiny. If this is true, nothin g depend s o n u s an d ther e i s no suc h thin g a s free-will. 'Onc e we allow this,' he says, 'all human lif e is overthrown. There is no point i n making laws, no purpose in expressing reprimand o r approbation, censur e or encouragement; there is no justice in establishing reward s for th e goo d an d penaltie s fo r the evil. ' 1.3 It i s to avoi d thos e consequences , discreditabl e an d absur d a s they are, an d perilou s t o human life , tha t Cicer o refuse s t o allo w an y foreknowledge . An d h e constrain s th e religious sou l t o thi s dilemma , forcin g i t t o choos e betwee n thos e propositions : eithe r there is some scope for our will, or there is foreknowledge. He thinks that both canno t be true; t o affir m on e i s t o den y th e other. I f w e choos e foreknowledge , free-wil l i s annihilated; i f w e choos e fre e will , prescienc e i s abolished . An d so , bein g a ma n o f eminent learning , a counsellor o f wide experience an d practise d skil l in matters affectin g human life , Cicer o chooses free will. To support this , he denies foreknowledge and thus , in seekin g t o mak e me n free , h e makes the m irreverent . Fo r the religiou s min d choose s both, foreknowledge as well as liberty; i t acknowledges both, and support s bot h i n pious faith. 'How? ' ask s Cicero . I f there i s prescience o f th e future , th e logica l consequence s entailed lea d t o th e conclusio n tha t nothin g depend s o n ou r fre e will . An d further , i f anything does so depend, then, by the converse logical process, we reach the position tha t there i s no foreknowledge . The argumen t proceed s thus : i f there i s fre e will , everything

43

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

does not happe n by fate; if everything does not happe n by fate, there is not a fixed order of all causes; if there is not a fixed order o f all causes, there is not a fixed order o f events for th e divin e prescience, fo r thes e events cannot tak e place unless preceded b y efficien t causes; if there is not a fixed order for God's prescience, everything does not happe n as he has foreknown them as due to happen. Thus, he concludes, if everything does not happe n as foreknown b y God, the n ther e i s in hi m n o foreknowledg e o f all the future . 1.4 Against such profane an d irreverent impudence we assert both tha t God knows all things before the y happe n an d tha t w e d o b y ou r fre e wil l everythin g that w e fee l an d kno w would not happe n without our volition . We do not sa y that everything is fated; in fact we deny that anything happens by destiny. For we have shown tha t the notion o f destiny, in the accepte d sense , referrin g to conjunctio n o f stars a t the tim e o f conception o r birth, has no validity , since it assert s something which has no reality . It i s not tha t w e deny a causal order where the will of God prevails; bu t w e do not describ e it by the word 'fate' , unless perhaps if we understand fat e t o b e derived from fari (speak) , that i s from th e ac t of speaking. We cannot i n fact den y that i t is written in Scripture, 'God has spoken once , and I have heard those two things: that the power belongs to God; and that mercy belongs to you , Lord , and yo u rende r t o eac h i n accordanc e wit h hi s works ' [Ps . 61. 1 If]. Th e words 'has spoken once' mea n 'he has spoken immovably', tha t is , unalterably, just a s he knows unalterably all that is to happen and what he himself is going to do. For this reason we should b e able t o us e the wor d 'fate' , derivin g i t fro m fari, excep t tha t thi s wor d i s generally used in a different sense , a sense to which we should not wish men's hearts to be directed. 1.5 Now if there is for God a fixed order of all causes, it does not follow that nothing depend s on ou r fre e choice . Ou r will s themselves are i n th e orde r o f causes , which is , for God , fixed, and i s contained i n hi s foreknowledge, sinc e huma n act s o f will are the cause s o f human activities . Therefore h e who ha d prescienc e o f the cause s of al l events certainl y could not b e ignorant of our decisions , which he foreknows as the causes of our actions . 1.6 Cicero's ow n concessio n tha t nothin g happen s unles s precede d b y a n efficien t caus e is enough to refute hi m in the present question. I t does not help his case to assert that while no even t i s causeless, no t ever y caus e i s the wor k o f destiny, sinc e ther e are fortuitou s causes, natural, and voluntary causes. It is enough that he admits that every event must be preceded b y a cause . Fo r ou r part , w e d o no t den y th e existenc e o f cause s calle d 'fortuitous' (fro m th e same root a s the word 'fortune') ; onl y we say that they are hidden causes and attribut e them t o th e will , either o f the tru e God , or o f spirits of some kind . The 'natural' causes we do not detac h from th e will of God, the author and creato r of all nature. The Voluntary' causes come fro m God , or fro m angels , or men, o r animals - i f indeed on e can appl y th e notio n o f will to th e movement s of beings devoi d o f reason, which carr y out action s i n accordanc e wit h thei r nature , t o achiev e som e desir e o r t o avoid some danger. By the wills of angels I mean both the wills of the good angels of God, as we call them, and of the evil 'angels of the devil', or even 'demons'. The same applies to the will s of men; ther e ar e those o f good men , an d thos e o f evil. 44

METHODOLOGY 1.7

This implie s tha t th e onl y efficien t cause s o f event s ar e voluntar y causes , tha t is , they proceed from that nature which is the 'breath of life'. ('Breath' also refers to the air or the wind; but sinc e that i s corporeal, i t i s not th e 'breat h of life'.) Th e breath o f life, whic h gives life to everything , and i s the creator of every body an d every created spiri t (breath), is God himself, the uncreated spirit. In his will rests the supreme power, which assists the good wills of created spirits, sits in judgment on the evil wills, orders all wills, granting the power o f achievement t o som e an d denyin g i t t o others . Jus t a s he i s the creato r o f all natures, so he is the giver of all power of achievement, but no t o f all acts of will. Evil wills do no t procee d fro m hi m becaus e the y are contrary to th e natur e which proceed s fro m him. Bodie s are mostly subject to wills, some to our wills - tha t i s to the wills of mortal beings, the wills of men rather than o f animals - th e others to the wills of angels. But all bodies ar e subjec t abov e al l to th e wil l o f God , an d t o hi m al l wills als o ar e subject , because the onl y power the y have is the powe r that Go d allow s them . 1.8 Thus th e caus e whic h i s caus e only , an d no t effect , i s God . Bu t othe r cause s ar e als o effects, a s are al l created spirit s an d i n particula r th e rationa l spirits . Corporea l causes , which ar e mor e acte d upo n tha n active , ar e not t o b e counte d amon g efficien t causes , since al l they can achiev e i s what i s achieved throug h the m b y the will s o f spirits. Ho w then doe s th e orde r o f causes , whic h i s fixe d i n th e prescienc e o f God , resul t i n th e withdrawal o f everythin g fro m dependenc e o n ou r will , whe n ou r act s o f wil l pla y an important par t i n that causa l order ? Le t Cicero disput e wit h thos e who assert tha t thi s causal order i s decided b y destiny, or rathe r who give that orde r th e name of destiny, o r fate - a positio n whic h shock s u s particularl y becaus e o f tha t wor d 'fate' , whic h i s generally understood i n a way which corresponds t o nothing i n the real world. But when Cicero denies that the order o f all causes is completely fixed and perfectly known to God' s foreknowledge we execrate his opinion eve n more than do the Stoics. For either he denies the existenc e o f God , whic h indee d h e ha s bee n a t pain s t o do , i n th e perso n o f a disputant i n hi s treatis e O n th e Nature o f th e Gods; o r else , i f h e acknowledge s God' s existence whil e denying hi s foreknowledge , he i s even s o saying , i n effect , exactl y what 'the fool has said in his heart'; for he is saying, 'God does not exist' [Ps . 14.1]. For a being who does not kno w al l the futur e is certainly no t God . 1.9 Thus our will s have only as much powe r a s God has willed an d foreknown ; God, whos e foreknowledge i s infallible , ha s foreknow n th e strengt h o f ou r will s an d thei r achievements, an d i t i s fo r tha t reaso n tha t thei r futur e strengt h i s completel y determined an d their future achievement s utterly assured. That i s why, if I had decided t o apply the term 'destiny' at all, I should be more ready to say that the destiny o f the weak is the will of the stronger, wh o has the weak in his power, tha n t o admi t tha t destiny , i n the Stoic sense of 'the causal order' (a use peculiar to Stoics, in conflict with the generally accepted one ) doe s away with th e fre e decisio n of our will .

1.10 There i s no need , then , t o drea d tha t 'necessity' , through fea r o f which th e Stoic s too k such pains to distinguis h between th e cause s of things, withdrawing some o f them fro m 45

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

the sway of necessity, subjecting others to it, and classing our wills among the causes they wished t o emancipat e fro m necessity , fo r fear , I suppose, tha t the y would no t b e fre e i f subject to it. Now if, in our case , 'necessity' is to be used of what is not i n our control , of what achieves its purpose whethe r we will or no - th e 'necessity' of death, for example then it is obvious that our wills , by the exercise of which we lead a good lif e or a bad, are not subjec t t o a necessity o f this kind. We do a great man y thing s whic h we should no t have done i f we had no t wishe d to. I n the first place, our willin g belongs t o thi s class of acts. If we so wish, it exists; i f we do not s o wish, it does not; fo r we should no t will , if we did no t s o wish.

1.11 If, o n th e othe r hand , we define 'necessity' i n th e sens e implie d whe n w e say that i t i s necessary a thing should be thus, or should happen thus, I see no reaso n to fea r tha t thi s would ro b u s of free-will. We do no t subjec t th e lif e an d th e foreknowledg e o f God t o necessity, i f w e sa y tha t i t i s 'necessary ' fo r Go d t o b e eterna l an d t o hav e complet e foreknowledge; no r i s hi s powe r diminishe d b y sayin g tha t h e canno t di e o r mak e a mistake. Th e reason why he cannot i s that, if he could, his power would certainly be less; and h e i s rightl y calle d 'all-powerful' , althoug h h e ha s no t th e powe r t o die , o r t o b e mistaken. 'All-powerful ' mean s that h e does wha t h e wills, an d doe s no t suffe r wha t h e does not will; otherwise he would be by no means all-powerful. It is just because he is allpowerful that there are some things he cannot do. The same applies when we say that it is 'necessary' that when we will, we will by free choice . That statement i s undisputable; an d it doe s no t mea n tha t w e ar e subjectin g ou r fre e wil l t o a necessit y whic h abolishe s freedom. Ou r will s are our s an d i t i s our will s that affec t al l that w e do b y willing, an d which would no t hav e happened i f we had no t willed . Bu t when anyon e ha s somethin g done to him agains t his will, here, again, the effectiv e powe r is will, not hi s own will, bu t another's. Bu t the power of achievement comes fro m God . Fo r if there was only the will without th e power o f realisation, that will would hav e been thwarte d b y a more powerful will. Even so, that will would have been a will, and the will not o f another, but o f him who willed, although it was incapable of realisation. Hence, whatever happens to man against his will is to be attributed not t o the wills of men, or angels, or any created spirits, but t o the wil l of him wh o give s the powe r o f realisation . 1.12 It does not follow , then, that there is nothing in our will because God foreknew what was going t o b e i n ou r will ; fo r i f h e forekne w this , i t wa s no t nothin g tha t h e foreknew. Further, i f in foreknowin g what would b e i n ou r will , he forekne w something , and no t nonentity, i t follow s immediatel y tha t ther e i s somethin g i n ou r will , eve n i f Go d foreknows it . Hence we are in n o wa y compelled eithe r t o preserv e God's prescience by abolishing ou r fre e will , or t o safeguar d ou r fre e wil l b y denyin g (blasphemously ) th e divine foreknowledge . W e embrac e bot h truths , an d acknowledg e the m i n fait h an d sincerity, the one for a right belief, the other for a right life. And yet a man's life cannot b e right withou t a righ t belie f abou t God . Therefore , le t u s neve r drea m o f denyin g hi s foreknowledge i n the interest s of our freedom ; for it is with his help that we are, or shal l be, free . 46

METHODOLOGY

1.13 By the sam e token , i t i s not tru e tha t reprimands , exhortations , prais e an d blam e ar e useless, because God ha s knowledge of them before; they are of the greates t efficacy i n so far a s h e ha s foreknow n tha t the y woul d b e effective . An d prayer s ar e effectua l i n obtaining al l that Go d forekne w that h e would gran t i n answe r to them ; an d i t i s with justice tha t reward s ar e appointe d fo r goo d action s an d punishment s fo r sins . Th e fac t that Go d foreknew that a man woul d si n does no t mak e a man sin ; on th e contrary , i t cannot b e doubted tha t i t is the man himsel f who sins just because he whose prescienc e cannot b e mistake n ha s foresee n tha t th e ma n himsel f would sin . A man doe s no t si n unless he wills to sin; and if he had willed not to sin, then God would hav e foreseen that refusal. 1.14 Thus God is the supreme reality, with his Word and the Holy Spirit - thre e who are one. He is the God omnipotent, Creato r and maker of every soul and every body; participation in him bring s happiness to al l who are happy in trut h and no t i n illusion ; he has made man a rational animal, consistin g of soul an d body ; an d when ma n sin s he does not let him go unpunished, no r doe s he abandon hi m without pity. He has given, to good me n and bad alike, the existence they share with the stones; he has given man reproductiv e life which he shares with th e plants , th e lif e o f the senses , which he shares with the animals, and the life o f the intellect, shared onl y with the angels. Fro m him derives every mode of being, every species, every order, all measure, number, and weight. He is the source of all that exist s i n nature , whateve r it s kind, whatsoever it s value, and o f the seed s of forms , and th e form s o f seeds , an d th e motion s o f seed s an d forms . He ha s give n to fles h it s origin, beauty, health, fertilit y i n propagation, the arrangement of the bodily organs, and the healt h tha t come s fro m thei r harmony . H e has endowed eve n the sou l o f irrational creatures with memory, sense, and appetite, but abov e all this, he has given to the rational soul thought , intelligence , an d will . H e ha s no t abandone d eve n th e inne r part s o f th e smallest an d lowliest creature, or the bird's feather (to say nothing of the heavens and the earth, th e angel s an d mankind ) - h e ha s not lef t the m withou t a harmon y o f thei r constituent parts , a kind o f peace. I t i s beyond anythin g incredible that h e should have willed th e kingdom s of men, thei r domination s an d thei r servitudes , t o b e outside th e range o f the law s of his providence . CRITIQUE It ha s alread y been see n tha t th e tensio n betwee n ascribin g prescience/omnipotence t o God and free will to humans is a serious one - i n Christianity, Judaism and Islam. If God is seen a s all-powerful, all-knowing an d all-loving , then i t i s difficult t o se e why there is evil i n th e worl d an d ho w human s ar e reall y abl e t o hav e fre e will . Augustin e solved neither problem . At one level, his argument in 1.12-13 appears to work. If George is able to foretell what Stephen is going to will in a particular situation, this fact doe s not diminish Stephen's fre e will. It might impl y a notion of 'fate' apparentl y incompatibl e wit h rea l fre e will , but hi s own foreknowledge as such does not do so. But the difference betwee n George and God is that one is creature and the other creator. If it is the creator, who has given existence to all that is, including Stephen' s very will, who is the one to know, in advance, what Stephen is to will, his free wil l appears considerably more problematic. The greater the stres s on th e 47

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

power o f God, the more people appear a s automata create d b y God. Further , Augustin e only vaguely considers th e possibilit y that, whil e God ma y kno w o f al l the million s o f human potentia l choice s a t th e momen t o f creation , nevertheless , God' s lovin g condescension migh t allow humans t o mak e the actual choices. Naturally, it is no criticism o f Augustine to say that he did not full y resolv e al l of these major problems . Man y exponents o f ethics, whethe r Christia n o r not , woul d insis t tha t free wil l i s a prerequisit e o f mora l behaviou r and , a s a result , the y ar e force d int o th e tensions mentioned earlier . Indeed, there is something curiously circular and nonsensica l about thoroughgoing theories of social, biological or even theological determinism: for , if they are true, then we cannot properl y know them to be true, since presumably both the y and our perception s of them ar e themselves completely determined an d possibly thereby distorted (see further, Extrac t 4) .

48

TEXT I I

AQUINAS Natural law 1. BACKGROUND This Tex t come s fro m Summa Theologica, Ia2ae , 94 , 4-6 (Vol . XXVII I o f th e English Dominican translation, Blackfriar s wit h Eyr e and Spottiswoode , London , an d McGrawHill, Ne w York, 1966) . Aquina s wrote this , hi s majo r but unfinishe d work, fro m 126 5 until his mystical experience of December 1273 , shortly before his death. I t is designed as a textboo k fo r 'theologica l novices' - henc e it s style of starting with a question, raisin g objections an d counter-objections , an d the n givin g a repl y and conclusions . A s befits a textbook, Summa Theologica i s liberally sprinkle d wit h quotations , fro m Aristotl e (e.g . Ethics in II. 1.2), the Bible, Cicero, the early Fathers, Augustine (see particularly Text VIII) , Isidore (o f Seville , d.636 , whos e Etymologies wa s th e mai n encyclopedi a o f classica l learning fo r the Middl e Ages, in II . 1 and 8.3 ) an d mor e recen t authoritie s like Gratia n (whose Decretum o f 1141 , reviewin g existin g legislatio n i n th e Wester n Church , wa s regarded a s seminal in th e Middl e Ages, along with Lombard' s Sentences in theology, in II.l.l, 7. 1 and 8) . The text come s fro m th e majo r sectio n i n Summa Theologica, Prima Secundae, which, together with Secunda Secundae, deals with Christian ethics. The initial section, Prima Pars (cite d i n II . 11.2), i s mainl y concerne d wit h th e existenc e an d attributes o f God , whil e th e las t section , Tertia Pars, deal s wit h Christolog y an d ecclesiology. Aquinas has distinguished fou r type s of law - eternal , natural , human and divine. For him 'law is nothing but a dictate of practical reason issued by a sovereign who governs a complete community' . God is indeed a sovereign an d i t ca n be held tha t 'th e whole community o f the universe i s governed b y God's mind'. This governance i s eternal law. However, this law can be known properly only to God and those who have seen God. As intelligent creatures , humans can join i n and mak e this eternal law their own and, in so far as they do, this is natural law: 'natural law is nothing other tha n the sharing in th e eternal law by intelligent creatures' . Huma n laws , themselves derive d fro m natura l law, are also necessary, because of the limitation s o f human reason. And finally, divine law is essential fo r salvation : human s hav e bee n designe d fo r 'a n eterna l happines s ou t o f proportion t o thei r natura l resource s .. . an d therefor e mus t nee d b e directe d b y a divinely give n law above natura l an d huma n la w ... Although through natura l law the eternal law is shared in, according to the capacity of human nature, nevertheless in orde r to be directed to their ultimate supernatural en d men have to be lifted up' (S.T. , Ia2a e 91). Hence the need for revelation. Thus, grace can be seen to crown nature and fait h ca n be seen to crow n reaso n (see above, pp. 26-7) .

49

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

2. KE Y ISSUES In thi s Text , Aquina s focuse s specificall y upo n natura l la w an d respond s t o thre e questions: (a) I s natural law the sam e for all ? Despit e empirical indication s to th e contrar y (see further Copleston' s Extrac t 3) , Aquina s i s convince d tha t natura l la w i s ubiquitou s i n humans. Followin g Aristotle, he believes tha t human s hav e a natura l tendenc y toward s happiness or well-being (eudaimonia), leadin g ultimately, for the Christian , to a beatifi c vision o f God . Thi s i s the 'end ' o f humans (i n bot h senses ) an d i s the mai n spu r fo r morality i n al l people. Moralit y is to b e discerne d throug h th e us e o f 'practical reason ' whereas 'science' is to be discerned through theoretic reason . But , of course, humans are fallible i n their use of practical reason - eve n more fallibl e tha n i n their use of theoretic reason (II.4) . But the genera l principles of both type s of reason remain th e sam e for all people, whethe r they actually recognize them o r not. Secondar y principles, derived fro m the general principles of morality, are also the same for most people . Bu t here, error, sin or bad customs may distort these secondary principles (II.6) . (b) Ca n natura l la w be changed ? General principle s ar e unalterable , bu t secondar y principles ma y occasionall y b e altered . Lik e Augustin e (see above, p . 23) , Aquina s believed, on th e basis of the Ol d Testament, tha t Go d can sometimes g o against natural law (II . 11.2). I n addition , althoug h human s canno t contradic t natura l law , the y ca n sometimes ad d t o i t (II . 11.3). (c) Ca n natura l la w be abolishe d fro m th e huma n heart ? Again, genera l principle s cannot be destroyed i n any person, although, in particular situations, lust and passion can override them (11.13) . Secondar y principles, i n contrast , ca n b e effectivel y destroye d b y error, sin and bad customs. 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS The Aristotelian framework to Aquinas ' theory o f ethics tends t o giv e it a consequentia l bias. The telos, finis or 'end' of humans provides the spur for morality and, as will be seen in the substantiv e Texts, ultimately directs hi s ethical analysis of particular issues . Thus, for him , 'the objects to which men have a natural tendency are the concern of natural law, and among such tendencies it is proper to man to act according to reason' (II.2). But, as can als o b e see n fro m thi s quotation , ther e i s a stron g deontologica l assumptio n underlying it : an understanding of human natur e reveal s huma n mora l obligations. An identification i s made between description an d prescription: people 'are' created thus and also 'ought ' t o behav e thus . Further , th e precept s o f natura l la w ar e als o containe d (prescriptively) i n divin e law (II.7.1). 4. BASES O F CHRISTIAN ETHICS The Bibl e i s seen t o b e i n keepin g with natural law, although i t add s t o i t (II . 7.1) and , sometimes, produce s exception s t o i t (II.11.2) . Significantl y and, perhap s erroneously , Aquinas views Romans 2 in the light of natural law theory (II. 12.1). As already noted, h e characteristically refer s t o a larg e bod y o f Christia n an d pre-Christia n traditio n and , through Aristotle, to the natural rational 'experience ' of humans. Further, just as humans perceive th e genera l principle s o f theoretic reaso n throug h intellectus, they perceive th e general principle s of practical reason throug h synderesis (no t quit e 'conscience', but stil l an innat e huma n faculty) . 50

METHODOLOGY

5. SOCIAL

DETERMINANTS

Aquinas derive d thi s theor y o f natura l la w fro m a numbe r o f classica l an d Christia n sources (see P. M. Farrell, 'Sources of St. Thomas' Concept o f Natural Law', Th e Thomist, 20: 3, 1957). Aristotle distinguished between natural justice and conventional , or written, law, an d Aquina s extensivel y use d an d adapte d hi s theor y o f knowledge . I n addition , Aquinas use d Roma n lega l thinking , ofte n mediate d throug h Cicero , an d Augustine' s concept o f eternal law. The whole balance that he achieved between the fou r type s of law may well reflect th e confidence and 'balance' of medieval Christendom. Certainly , it is far removed fro m th e radica l discontinuitie s o f Augustin e and o f Luther , i n thei r age s of revolutionary change . I n addition, the 'once born' religious personality o f Aquinas migh t possibly b e compare d wit h th e liminalit y o f Augustine' s an d Luther' s conver t personalities. Correlatio n an d inclusivenes s characterize d bot h hi s theoretica l positio n and hi s personality . 6. SOCIAL

SIGNIFICANCE

Through moder n Thomis m an d neo-Thomism , Aquinas ' theor y o f natura l la w ha s continued t o have a considerable effec t upo n theology . Even Reformed theologians , such as Niebuhr in his later writings, have been significantl y influence d by it. There are signs, too, tha t Aquinas ' wor k continue s t o b e o f interes t amon g som e mora l philosophers . Although he borrowed extensivel y from previou s sources, his achievement in producing a system of moral, theological and metaphysical concepts is unique. In this respect, he both reflected an d surpasse d th e ambition s o f thirteenth-century Catholicism . FURTHER READING S.T. Ia2a e 90-7 is the basic primar y sourc e fo r Aquinas' natura l la w theory. Copleston's Aquinas (Extract 3) offers a sympathetic guide to his theory and D. J. O'Connor's Aquinas and Natural Law (1967) provides a critical account of it in the light of present-day moral philosophy. N . D . O'Donoghue' s articl e 'Toward s a Theor y o f Exceptions' , Irish Theological Quarterly, Sept . 1968 , provide s a clea r accoun t o f Aquinas ' theor y o f exceptions i n the light of the situation ethic s debate - ther e will be further discussio n of this i n relatio n t o Extrac t 3, Text VII I and Tex t XIV . For an analysi s of the wide r legal, political and ethica l aspects of natural law theory, see A. P. D'Entreves, Natural Law: An Introduction t o Legal Philosophy (1951) . Fo r a recen t sympathetic , bu t mor e radical , approach t o Aquinas , se e Porter's Extrac t 7.

TEXT I I AQUINAS Natural law Is natural law the same for all? II. 1 OBJECTIONS: i. Apparently natural law is not the same for everybody. It is stated in the Decretum that 'the natural law is that containe d i n the Law and the Gospel'. Taken so it is not commo n

51

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

to everybody; it is said i n Romans, 'Al l do not obe y the Gospel' [Rom . 10.16]. Therefore natural law is not th e sam e fo r everybody. ii. According to the Ethics, 'All lawful acts are said to be just acts'. Yet in the same work it is remarked that nothing i s so just for all as not t o vary for some. Natural law, then, is not identica l fo r all . iii. Or put th e matter like this, it has been said that objectives sought because of man's very constitution belon g to natural law. These are different i n different men , fo r by their constitution som e are moved b y desire for pleasure, others by ambition fo r honour, an d others by other incentives . Therefor e ther e i s not on e natura l la w for all . ON TH E OTHER HAND Isidore says , Natural right i s common t o al l nations .

II.2 REPLY: As we have shown , th e object s t o whic h me n hav e a natura l tendenc y ar e th e concern o f natural law, and amon g such tendencies i t is proper t o ma n t o ac t according to reason . No w a characteristi c o f reaso n i s t o procee d fro m commo n principle s t o particular conclusions: this is remarked in the Physics. However the theoretic reaso n an d the practica l reaso n se t abou t thi s somewha t differently . Th e busines s o f th e theoreti c reason i s with natural truth s tha t canno t b e otherwise , an d s o without mistak e i t find s truth in the particular conclusions it draws as in the premises it starts from. Wherea s the business o f th e practica l reaso n i s wit h contingent matter s whic h ar e th e domai n o f human acts , and althoug h there is some necessit y in genera l principles the mor e we get down t o particula r cases the mor e w e can be mistaken . II.3 So then in questions of theory, truth is the same for everybody, both a s to principles an d to conclusions, thoug h admittedl y al l do not recognise trut h in the conclusions, bu t onl y in thos e principle s whic h ar e calle d 'commo n conceptions' . I n question s o f action , however, practica l trut h an d goodwil l ar e no t th e sam e fo r everybod y wit h respec t t o particular decisions, but only with respect to common principles ; and even those who are equally in the right on some particular cours e of action are not equally aware of how right they are. II.4 So then i t i s evident that wit h respec t t o genera l principles of both theor y an d practic e what is true or right is the same for all and i s equally recognised. With respect to specifi c conclusions of theory the truth i s the same for all, though al l do not equall y recognise it, for instanc e som e ar e no t awar e that th e angle s o f a triangl e togethe r equa l tw o righ t angles. With respect to particular conclusions come to by the practical reason there is no general unanimit y about what i s true or right, and even when there is agreement ther e is not th e sam e degree of recognition . II.5 All hold that it is true and right that we should act intelligently. From this starting point it is possible t o advanc e the specifi c conclusion , tha t goods hel d i n trust ar e to be restore d to their owners. This is true in the majority of cases, yet a case can crop up when to retur n the deposit would be injurious, and consequently unreasonable, as for instance were it to 52

METHODOLOGY

be required i n order t o attac k one' s country. Th e more you descend int o th e detai l the more i t appears how the genera l rule admits of exceptions, s o that yo u hav e to hedg e it with cautions and qualifications. The greater the number of conditions accumulate d th e greater the numbe r o f ways in which the principle is seen to fal l short, so that all by itself it canno t tel l you whether i t be right to retur n a deposit o r not .

II.6 TO SU M UP: as for it s first common principles, her e natura l la w is the sam e fo r al l in requiring a righ t attitud e toward s i t a s wel l a s recognition . A s fo r particula r specifi c points, which are like conclusions draw n from common principles , here also natural law is th e sam e fo r mos t peopl e i n thei r feeling fo r an d awarenes s o f wha t i s right . Nevertheless i n fewe r case s eithe r th e desir e o r th e informatio n ma y b e wanting . The desire to do right may be blocked by particular factors - s o also with physical things that come t o b e an d di e awa y ther e ar e occasiona l anomalie s an d failure s du e t o som e obstruction - an d the knowledge als o of what is right may be distorted by passion or bad custom o r eve n by racial proclivity; for instance , a s Julius Caesar narrates , the Germans did no t conside r robber y wicked , though i t i s expressly agains t natura l law . II.7 HENCE: i. The text should no t b e taken to mean that everything in the Old and Ne w Laws is of natural law, since many things there imparted are above our nature. It means that natural law precepts are ther e full y covered . S o when Gratia n says that 'natura l righ t is what is contained i n th e Ol d an d Ne w Laws' he explain s himsel f a t once , an d adds : 'B y which everyone i s commande d t o d o t o other s wha t h e woul d hav e don e t o himself , an d forbidden t o do to others what h e would no t hav e done to himself . ii. Aristotle's statemen t shoul d b e understoo d t o refe r t o thing s whic h ar e naturally just, not merely according to general principles, but als o according to certain conclusions drawn from them . In most cases these are rightful, yet in a few cases they fail to meet th e situation. iii. Sinc e mind i n ma n dominate s an d rule s hi s othe r powers , s o their natura l urges should be subordinated t o mind . Henc e it is generally held that i t is right for all human tendencies to be directed accordin g t o intelligence . Can natural law be changed? II.8 OBJECTIONS: i. It seems that natura l law can be changed. For on th e tex t of Ecclesiasticus, 'He gave instructions and the law of life' [17.9] , the Glos s comments, 'H e willed the document o f the Law to be written i n order to correct natural law'. Now what is corrected i s changed. Therefore natura l la w can b e changed. ii. Moreover, th e killin g o f the innocen t is against natura l law , and s o is adultery an d theft. Yet you find God changing these rules, as when he commanded Abraham to put hi s son t o death , th e peopl e o f Israe l t o spoi l th e Egyptians , and Hose a t o tak e a wif e o f harlotry. Natural law, then, ca n be altered . iii. Furthermore , Isidor e say s tha t 'commo n ownershi p o f propert y an d th e sam e 53

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

liberty fo r al l ar e o f natura l law' . Huma n la w seem s t o chang e al l this , an d therefor e natural la w can be changed . ON THE OTHER HAND it i s said i n the Decretum, 'Natural law dates fro m th e ris e of rational creation, an d doe s no t var y according to period , bu t remain s unchangeable' .

II.9 REPLY: A change can be understoo d t o mea n eithe r addition o r subtraction . A s for th e first, there is nothing against natural law being changed, for many things over and abov e natural law have been added, by divine law as well as by human laws, which are beneficial to socia l life . 11.10 As for change by subtraction, meaning that something that once was of natural law later ceases to be so, here there is room fo r a distinction. The first principles of natural law are altogether unalterable. Bu t its secondary precepts, which we have described a s being like particular conclusion s clos e t o firs t principles , thoug h no t alterabl e i n th e majorit y of cases where they are right as they stand, can nevertheless be changed on som e particular and rar e occasions , a s w e hav e mentione d i n th e precedin g article , becaus e o f som e special caus e preventing their unqualifie d observance. 11.11 HENCE: i. Th e writte n La w is said t o hav e been fo r th e correctio n o f natura l la w because i t supplied wha t wa s wanting there , o r becaus e part s o f natura l la w were decaye d i n th e hearts of those who reckoned tha t som e things were good whic h by nature are evil. This called fo r correction . ii. All men without exception, guilty and innocen t alike , have to suffe r th e sentence of natural deat h fro m divin e powe r becaus e o f original sin, accordin g t o th e words , 'Th e Lord kill s an d bring s t o life ' [ 1 Sam . 2.6] . Consequentl y withou t injustic e God' s command ca n inflic t deat h o n anybod y whether h e b e guilt y or innocent . Adulter y is intercourse wit h a woma n t o who m yo u ar e no t marrie d i n accordanc e wit h divinel y given law; nevertheless to go unto any woman by divine command i s neither adultery nor fornication. Th e same applies to theft , th e taking of what belongs to another , fo r what is taken b y God's command , wh o i s the owne r o f the universe , i s not agains t th e owner' s will, and thi s is of the essenc e of theft. No r i s it only in human affair s tha t whatever God commands i s just , bu t als o i n th e worl d o f nature , fo r a s state d i n th e Prima Pars, whatever Go d doe s ther e in effec t i s natural. iii. You speak o f something being according to natura l righ t i n tw o ways. The first is because natur e i s se t tha t way ; thu s th e comman d tha t n o har m shoul d b e don e t o another. The second is because nature does not bid the contrary; thus we might say that it is of natural law for man to be naked, for nature does not giv e him clothes; these he has to make b y art . I n thi s wa y common ownershi p an d universa l libert y ar e sai d t o b e o f natural law , becaus e privat e propert y an d slaver y exist b y huma n contrivanc e fo r th e convenience of social life, and not by natural law. This does not chang e the law of nature except b y addition . 54

METHODOLOGY

Can natural law be abolished from the human heart? 11.12 OBJECTIONS: i. It would seem that natural law can be abolished fro m th e human heart, for a text i n Romans speaks of the Gentiles 'who have not th e law' [2.14] . The Gloss comments, 'Th e law of justice blotted ou t b y fault , i s engraved o n man' s hear t whe n h e i s restore d b y grace'. The la w of justice is natural law , and this , therefore , can be abolished . ii. Again, the law of grace is more powerful tha n the law of nature. Yet it can be wiped away by sin, and this therefore, and with all the more reason, can happen to natura l law. iii. Besides , what i s establishe d b y la w i s se t fort h a s bein g just. No w man y huma n statutes have been enacted against natural law. Therefore natural law can be destroyed i n men's hearts . ON TH E OTHE R HAND Augustine says, 'Thy la w is written i n men' s hearts , an d n o wickedness can effac e it' . This is natural law, and i t canno t b e effaced . 11.13. i REPLY: As we noticed when speaking of what belongs to natura l law, to begin with there are certai n mos t genera l precept s know n t o all ; an d next , certai n secondar y an d mor e specific precept s which are like conclusions lying close to th e premises . As for these first common principle s i n thei r universa l meaning, natura l law cannot b e cancelle d i n th e human heart , nevertheless it can be missing from a particular course of action whe n the reason is stopped fro m applyin g the general principle there, because of lust or some other passion, as we have pointed out .

11.14 As fo r it s othe r an d secondar y precepts , natura l la w ca n b e effaced , eithe r b y wron g persuasions - thu s als o error s occu r i n theoretica l matter s concernin g demonstrabl e conclusions - o r by perverse customs an d corrupt habits ; fo r instance robber y wa s not reputed t o b e wron g amon g som e people , no r even , a s th e Apostl e mentions , som e unnatural sin s [i.e . Rom. 1.24] . 11.15 HENCE: i. Sin cancels natural law on som e specific point, not a s to it s general principles, unless perhaps with regar d to secondar y precept s i n th e manne r w e have touched on . ii. Though grace is more powerful tha n nature, nevertheless nature is more essential to man, an d therefor e mor e permanent . iii. This argumen t i s true o f secondary precepts of natural law, against which human legislators have sometimes passe d wrongfu l enactments . CRITIQUE In view of the historical and moder n importanc e of Aquinas' natural law theory, it is not surprising that i t has generated extensive analyses and critique s (see further o n Tex t XIV, which provide s a strikin g illustratio n o f the theory) . Seriou s criticisms can b e mad e of each o f the replie s he give s to th e thre e questions i n the Text : (a) 7 s natural la w th e same for all? Both the existenc e of a ubiquitous natural law an d 55

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

the mora l us e t o whic h Aquina s put s i t hav e bee n questioned . I n vie w o f th e extraordinary mora l difference s betwee n group s o f human s reveale d b y socia l anthro pology, it may be more difficult toda y to maintain that these differences ar e simply due to the distortions cause d by error, sin or bad custom (thoug h see Extracts 3 and 7). Further, as D. J. O'Connor asks, 'what is there in common between a human being of the capacity of Newto n o r Shakespear e an d th e brie f sub-anima l existenc e o f a monstrou s birth? ' (Aquinas an d Natural Law (1967), p. 30). But, even if such a natural law is accepted, can one derive , a s Aquina s does , huma n mora l end s legitimatel y fro m huma n natura l tendencies? Fo r many, thi s seem s a pre-Humean confusio n o f the 'ought ' wit h th e 'is' : description i s conflated wit h prescription. Thi s i s still a particularly contentious are a i n moral philosophy, but i t raises important issue s in Christian ethics (see above, p. 14) . For example, if ethical precepts are derived fro m th e theory of evolution, as they are in som e forms o f evolutionary ethics, this criticism clearl y applies: evolutionar y 'development' is not simplisticall y to b e identifie d wit h moral 'progress' , unles s a category error i s to b e made (se e A. G. N. Flew, Evolutionary Ethics (1967)). But, if such an undertaking wer e to be made from th e explici t perspective of a world create d by God, it is not s o clear that a category error would be involved. Granted a belief in the Christia n God, it might well be assumed tha t natura l huma n tendencie s accor d wit h th e wa y Go d wishe s peopl e t o behave - unless , o f course, on e accepts Luther' s (an d especiall y Calvin's) positio n tha t these tendencies have become thoroughl y distorted b y si n (see further, below, p. 123) . (b) Ca n natural la w b e changed? Aquinas' distinction betwee n genera l and secondar y principles raise s man y problems . Th e relationship betwee n the m i s by no mean s alway s clearly specifie d an d man y hav e foun d th e genera l principle s to b e s o genera l a s to b e vacuous (e.g . the principle tha t good ough t to be done and evil avoided). The question of whether general principles can be usefully specifie d wil l recur in Section 3 in relatio n t o just-war theory. Furthermore , the notion tha t humans can sometimes add to natural law (II. 11.3), now seems particularly dangerous in view of the way Aquinas used i t to justif y the existenc e of slavery. Again, as O'Connor asks , 'if slaver y can be excused i n this way, why not contraceptio n o r abortion or euthanasia? ' (p . 64) . (c) Ca n natural law be abolished from th e human heart? For Aquinas, it is synderesis that enables human s t o apprehen d genera l principles , i t i s reason tha t human s mus t us e to derive secondar y principle s fro m thes e genera l principles , an d i t i s conscienc e (conscientia) tha t prompt s human s t o ac t o n them . Th e natur e an d existenc e o f thi s innate disposition, synderesis, unfailingl y abl e to apprehen d genera l principles, ha s been the subjec t of debate amon g Thomist scholar s and mora l philosophers . Clearly , this has similarities t o th e wider debat e abou t conscienc e in Christia n ethic s (see above, pp. 12 13). Further, Luther (and again especially Calvin) might have responded tha t si n and th e Fall have radically reduced th e significance of natural law and that, in any case, the whol e attempt to build a system of morality from i t distorts the doctrine of justification by faith. This poin t leads naturally to th e nex t Text.

56

TEXT II I LUTHER Treatise on good works 1. BACKGROUND This Text comes from th e Treatise o n Good Works o f 152 0 (from Luther's Works, Vol. 44, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1966 , trans. W. A. Lambert and rev. James Atkinson, sections 4-6, 8, 12 , 13-14 an d 16) . This year was crucial for Luther , coming between th e Leipzi g Disputation o f 151 9 (when he debated hi s new radical position i n public with John Eck, appealing i n the sam e year unsuccessfully to th e Pop e an d then , later , t o th e Emperor) and th e Die t of Worms o f 1521 . The latter finally placed Luther under th e Imperia l ban and forbad e th e publicatio n o f hi s works , o r th e proclamation , o r defence , o f hi s opinions. Luther spent th e respit e (betwee n Leipzi g and th e arriva l of Pope Leo X's Bull excommunicating him, in October 1520 ) writing in great haste. Believing himself to be a doomed man , he was determined t o write as much as possible. Both the Treatise on Good Works and Th e Appeal t o the German Nobility came from thi s period, a s did Th e Papacy a t Rome, Th e Babylonian Captivity an d Th e Freedom o f th e Christian Man. Together , they sealed Luther's decisive break with Rome. Begun as sermon materia l for his congregation, Treatise o n Good Works soo n gre w int o a smal l book . I n it , Luthe r wa s particularl y concerned t o refut e th e criticism that a stress upon justification by faith alon e leads to a neglect of good works and to genera l antinomianism. H e elaborated his argument in the context of a discussion of the Decalogue - thi s Text comes from th e opening sections on the firs t Commandment . I n th e wor k a s a whole , th e medieva l distinctio n betwee n 'religious' goo d work s (fasting , praye r recitations , attendanc e a t mass , almsgivin g etc.) and 'secular ' goo d works , i s challenged . Fo r Luthe r i t wa s just a s importan t tha t a n individual shoul d b e a good father , i n faith , a s that h e shoul d d o 'religious ' works , i n faith. Howeve r trivial i t migh t see m t o others , whateve r i s done i n fait h i s pleasing t o God. I t i s faith alone tha t i s vital. 2. KEY ISSUES Luther's centra l argument, th e very touchstone of the Reformation, come s ou t clearl y in this Text . I t i s fait h alon e tha t matters : 'good ' works , withou t faith , ar e wors e tha n worthless, the y ar e actuall y sin . Monasteries , an d th e Churc h generally , ar e deepl y implicated i n this sin. Paul's notion of justification by faith i s seen to refut e conventional understandings of morality and piety . In the sequence presented here , the argument is as follows: Wor k without fait h i s sin (III.l). Faith has been turne d int o just another virtu e and eve n a wor k (III.2) . Bu t i n fait h al l works becom e equa l (III.3) . Fait h need s n o instruction (III.4) , bu t i s rathe r lik e th e spontaneit y o f lov e i n marriage , whic h i s destroyed by efforts t o win favour (III.5) . The Christian does things that need to be done, 57

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

not to gather merit, but simply to please God (III.6). So no amount o f fasting, confession , intercessions, monasterie s o r churche s ca n functio n withou t fait h i n Go d (III.7) . Outward works , without fait h - suc h as papal bulls, seals, flags and indulgences (III.9 ) lead onl y t o idolatr y and hypocris y (III.8). Of course, fait h doe s no t forbi d goo d works : the vital thing i s that fait h shoul d alway s come firs t (III . 10). Indeed, i f everyone lived by faith, there would b e no need fo r laws or ceremonies (III . 11 - se e further Tex t VI) . Faith can eliminat e all sins - eve n the most deadl y (111.12) . 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS In on e sense , Luther' s positio n i s strongl y anti-ethical . Th e mora l calculation s o f hi s contemporaries ar e condemne d a s the followin g o f 'blin d reaso n an d heathe n way s of thinking' (III.2) . An unequivocall y theologica l stanc e i s taken agains t ethica l argument . But, in another sense , there is an evident personalism involve d in his position, both i n his initial appea l t o th e inspectio n o f an individual' s feeling s (III.l ) an d i n th e analog y o f married lov e (III.5) . Indeed, th e clai m tha t ' a Christia n ma n livin g i n thi s fait h ha s n o need o f a teacher o f good works , bu t h e doe s whateve r th e occasio n call s for ' (III.4 ) i s characteristically personalist . I t i s eve n possibl e tha t natura l la w ha s influence d hi s analogy i n III. 5 (cf. VI.5). The exampl e o f marrie d lov e (h e di d no t himsel f marr y fo r another five years) gains greater strength i f there i s actually an analogia entis — that is , if the affinit y betwee n husband-and-wif e lov e an d God-and-human s lov e actuall y result s from th e way the worl d i s created b y God . 4. BASES O F CHRISTIAN ETHICS The principle o f sola Scriptura i s well in evidence: all but fou r o f the paragraph s contai n direct biblica l quotations . No t surprisingly , a stron g affinit y fo r Pau l i s apparent , bu t there ar e als o severa l quotation s fro m th e Ol d Testamen t an d fro m th e Gospels . I n contrast to Aquinas, n o reference is made t o Christian tradition, other than to disparage contemporary papa l practices . Luther' s appea l to the feeling s o f the individua l Christian has already been note d an d th e whole Text is clearly dominated b y a theological concer n for faith . 5. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS At the psychological level , Luther's deb t t o Paul (possibly throug h Augustin e - se e above, p. 27 ) i s apparent i n hi s centra l notio n o f justificatio n b y faith . But , as with Paul , i t i s important t o se e his stres s upo n thi s i n th e contex t o f hi s persona l experienc e o f th e failure of 'legalism'. He came to identif y hi s own struggles as a monk with Paul's life a s a Pharisee: increase d 'works ' serve d onl y to precipitat e their crise s o f faith . And , a s with Augustine, the converted Luthe r characteristically despised hi s pre-conversion life . At the more socia l level, the undoubted excesse s of the sixteenth-century Catholi c Church , with its sometime s astonishingl y corrup t papacy , bot h provoke d an d confirme d Luther' s rejection o f contemporary practice s and beliefs. As his personal rif t with Rome deepened , so hi s animosit y toward s i t an d hi s identificatio n o f th e Pop e wit h th e 'anti-Christ ' increased. At the political level, it is often argue d that a growing German nationalism was also relevan t t o thi s rift . 58

METHODOLOGY

6. SOCIA L SIGNIFICANCE Luther's writings of 1520 were crucial to the subsequent development of the Reformation. In attacking papal indulgences and insistin g so forcefully o n individua l faith, Luthe r was instrumental i n effectin g a radica l chang e i n churc h structur e an d i n Wester n consciousness. Fe w theologians ca n eve n approximat e t o th e vas t influenc e h e ha s ha d upon bot h th e Western Churc h an d Wester n society . The challenge to papa l authority, evident i n this Text, caused lasting repercussion s i n the West. The already ailing power of Rome would neve r agai n be able to dominat e Europe . And th e 'new ' understandin g of Christian living, vocation an d fait h woul d encourag e a new consciousness whic h Weber saw as related t o th e ris e o f Western capitalis m (see above, p. 17) . The consequence s o f Luther's understandin g o f fait h ar e tha t 'al l work s becom e equal ' (III.3 ) an d tha t th e person o f faith 'ha s no nee d of a teacher' (III.4) , of ecclesiastical intermediaries, or even 'of the laws of the church and of the state' (III.l 1). In short, the new European must work out her/hi s ow n individua l relationshi p t o Go d an d t o others . Th e individualistic , business entrepreneur i s but on e produc t o f this radical shif t o f consciousness . FURTHER READING In additio n t o thi s primar y sourc e an d t o th e secondar y source s referre d t o i n th e Introduction, a number o f books wil l be foun d useful . Ma x Weber's theor y i s found i n The Protestant Ethic an d th e 'Spirit' o f Capitalism (1901 ) an d i n hi s Th e Sociology o f Religion (1920) . Criticism s o f this theory are numerous, bu t se e especially Michael Hill' s A Sociology o f Religion (1973) for a review of some of the sociological discussion of it. For interpretations of Luther's theological notions here , see George W. Forell's Faith Active in Love (1954 ) an d History o f Christian Ethics (1979 ) an d Gusta v Wingreen's Luther o n Vocation (1957 ) and Th e Christian's Calling (1958).

TEXT II I LUTHER Treatise on good works III. 1 Now everyone can notice and fee l fo r himself when he does what is good an d wha t is not good. If he finds his heart confiden t tha t it pleases God , then the work is good, even if it were so small a thing as picking up a straw. If the confidence is not there , or if he has any doubt abou t it , then the work is not good , even if the work were to raise all the dead an d if the man were to giv e his body to be burned. Thi s is the teaching of St Paul in Romans 14[.23], 'Whatsoeve r i s not don e o f fait h o r i n fait h i s sin.' I t i s from fait h a s the chie f work and fro m n o othe r wor k that w e are called believers in Christ. A heathen, a Jew, a Turk, a sinne r ma y als o d o al l other works ; bu t t o trus t firml y tha t h e please s God i s possible only fo r a Christian who i s enlightened an d strengthene d b y grace. III.2 That these words seem strange, and that some people call me a heretic because of them, is due to the fac t tha t they have followed blind reason an d heathe n way s of thinking. The y have se t fait h no t abov e but besid e othe r virtues . The y hav e mad e fait h int o a kind o f 59

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

work of its own, separated from al l works of the other virtues, althoug h fait h alone makes all other work s good, acceptable , an d worthy because it trusts God and never doubts tha t everything a man does in faith i s well done in God's sight. In fact, they have not le t fait h remain a work but hav e made it a habitus, as they call it, although the whole of Scripture gives th e nam e good , divin e wor k t o n o wor k excep t t o fait h alone . Therefore , i t i s no wonder tha t the y have become blind an d leader s of the blind. An d this fait h soo n brings along with it love, peace, joy, and hope. Fo r God gives his spirit immediately to him who trusts him, as St Paul says to th e Galatians , 'You hav e received th e spiri t no t fro m you r good work s but becaus e you hav e believed th e wor k o f God' [Gal . 3.2]. III.3 In thi s fait h al l works becom e equal , an d on e wor k i s lik e th e other ; al l distinction s between work s fall away , whether they be great, small, short , long , many, or few . For the works are acceptable no t fo r their own sake but because of faith, which is always the sam e and live s and works in each and ever y work without distinction , howeve r numerou s an d varied thes e work s alway s are, just a s all the member s o f the body live, work , an d tak e their nam e fro m th e head , an d withou t th e hea d n o membe r ca n live, work, o r hav e a name. III.4 It furthe r follow s fro m thi s tha t a Christia n ma n livin g i n thi s fait h ha s n o nee d o f a teacher of good works, but h e does whatever the occasion call s for, and all is well done. As Samuel sai d t o Saul , 'Yo u shal l becom e anothe r ma n whe n th e spiri t enter s you ; do whatever your hand finds to do, for God is with you' [ 1 Sam. 10.6-7]. So also we read of St Anna , Samuel' s mother . Whe n sh e believe d th e pries t Eli , who promise d he r God' s grace, she went hom e i n joy and peac e [ 1 Sam. 1.17-18], an d fro m tha t tim e pace d th e floor no longer: this means that whatever happened t o her was all the same to her. St Paul also says , 'Where th e Spiri t o f Christ is , there al l is free' [Rom . 8.2] . Fo r fait h doe s no t permit itsel f to be bound to any work or to refuse any work, but, as the first Psalm says, 'it yields it s frui t i n it s season ' [Ps . 1.3], that is , in th e norma l cours e o f events . III.5 We ma y se e thi s i n a n everyda y example . Whe n a husban d an d wif e reall y lov e on e another, hav e pleasure i n eac h other , an d thoroughl y believ e i n thei r love , wh o teache s them how they are to behave one to another, wha t they are to do or not to do, say or not to say, what they are to think? Confidence alone teaches them all this, and even more than is necessary. For such a man ther e i s no distinctio n i n works. H e does th e grea t an d th e important a s gladly as the smal l and the unimportant , an d vice versa. Moreover, h e does them al l in a glad, peaceful, an d confiden t heart, an d i s an absolutely willing companio n to the woman. But where there is any doubt, h e searches within himself for the best thing to do; then a distinction of works arises by which he imagines he may win favour. And yet he goes abou t i t with a heavy heart an d grea t disinclination . He is like a prisoner, mor e than hal f i n despair , an d ofte n make s a foo l o f himself. III.6 Thus a Christian ma n wh o lives in this confidenc e toward Go d knows al l things, can do all things , venture s everythin g tha t need s t o b e done , an d doe s everythin g gladl y an d 60

METHODOLOGY

willingly, not tha t h e may gather merit s and goo d works , but becaus e i t is a pleasure for him t o pleas e Go d i n doin g thes e things . H e simpl y serve s Go d wit h n o though t o f reward, content that his service pleases God. On the other hand, he who is not at one with God, or is in a state of doubt, worries and starts looking about fo r ways and mean s to d o enough an d t o influenc e Go d wit h hi s man y goo d works . H e run s of f to S t James, t o Rome, to Jerusalem , hither an d thither; h e prays St Bridget's prayer, this prayer and tha t prayer; he fasts on this day and that day ; he makes confession here and make s confession there; h e questions thi s ma n an d tha t man , an d ye t he finds no peace . H e does al l this with grea t effor t an d wit h a doubting an d unwillin g heart, s o that th e Scripture s rightly call such works in Hebrew aven amal, that is , labour an d sorrow. And even then the y are not goo d work s and are in vain. Many people have gone quite crazy with them and their anxiety ha s brought the m int o al l kinds o f misery. O f these i t i s written i n Wisdom (o f Solomon) 5[.6] . 'We have wearied ourselves in the wrong way and hav e followed a hard and bitter road ; bu t God' s way we have not acknowledge d an d th e sun o f righteousness has not risen upo n us ' ... III.7 As I have already said, I have always praised fait h an d rejecte d all works which are don e without suc h faith i n this way in order t o lead men fro m th e false , pretentious , pharisai c good work s don e withou t faith , wit h whic h al l monasteries, churches , homes , an d th e upper an d lowe r classe s are overfilled, and to lea d the m t o th e right , true , genuine , real works of faith. Nobod y strive s agains t m e i n thi s excep t the unclea n beast s who d o no t part th e hoo f (a s the la w of Moses decrees ) an d wh o will tolerate n o distinctio n o f any kind betwee n goo d works , bu t g o lumberin g along . I f onl y the y pray , fast , establis h endowments, g o to confession , an d d o enough , everythin g i s supposed t o b e al l right, although i n al l this the y hav e ha d n o fait h i n th e grac e of God an d n o certaint y o f his approval. In fact, they regard these works most highl y when they have done a great many major ones for a long time, without any such confidence, and they look for good only after the works have been performed. And so they build thei r confidenc e not o n God's favour , but on the works they have done. That is building on sand and water, and in the end they must fall , a s Christ sai d i n Matthe w 7[.26-7] . This goo d wil l and favour , o n whic h ou r confidence rests, was proclaimed b y the angels from heave n when they sang on Christma s morn, 'Glory be to Go d on high, peace on earth, goo d wil l to men' [Luk e 2.14] ... III.8 See fo r yoursel f wha t a differenc e ther e i s betwee n th e fulfilmen t o f th e firs t commandment with outwar d work s an d fulfilment wit h inwar d trust . For it is the latter which makes true, livin g children o f God; the forme r make s for a wretched idolatr y an d the most perniciou s hypocrite s o n earth, who with their great show of righteousness lead countless folk into their way, yet they leave them without faith. So these folk are led astray pitiably and bogged down i n external wailing and show. Christ speaks of their kind when he said in Matthew 24[.23], 'Beware then i f any one say s to you, "Lo, here is the Christ!" or "Ther e he is!"' Or again, Joh n 4[.21-3] , ' I say to you, the time will com e when you shall no t worshi p Go d eithe r o n thi s mountai n o r i n Jerusalem , fo r th e Fathe r seek s spiritual worshippers.' 61

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

III.9

These an d passage s like them hav e moved m e (an d ough t t o mov e everybod y else ) t o repudiate th e ostentatiou s displa y o f bulls, seals , flags, and indulgences , b y whic h th e poor peopl e ar e led to buil d churches , to give , endow, an d pray . Eve n then fait h i s not mentioned a t al l an d i s eve n suppressed , fo r sinc e fait h make s no t distinctio n amon g works, then where faith i s present such trumpeting and urging of one kind of work above another canno t exist. Faith desires to be the only way of serving God, and will allow this name an d honou r t o n o othe r work , except i n so far as faith impart s it, as it does when the work is done in and by faith. Thi s perversion is indicated i n the Old Testament whe n the Jews left th e Temple an d sacrifice d a t other places , in gardens and o n the mountain s [Isa. 65.3, 66.17] . These men d o exactl y the same . They are zealous to d o al l works, bu t this chie f work of faith the y never have any regard for a t al l .. . 111.10 Therefore, when some people say, as they do, that when we preach faith alon e good works are forbidden, it is as if I were to say to a sick man, 'If you had health you would have the full us e of all your limbs, but withou t health the works of all your limbs are nothing', and from thi s he wanted t o infe r that I had forbidden th e works of his limbs. Whereas on the contrary I meant that the health must first be there to work all the works of all his limbs. In the same way faith mus t be the master-workman an d captain i n all the works, or they are nothin g a t all .

III. 11 You might ask, if faith doe s everything through the first commandment, wh y then do we have so many laws of the churc h and o f the state , and s o many ceremonies o f churches, monasteries, an d hol y places , whic h urg e an d temp t me n t o d o goo d work s throug h them? The answer: simply because we do not all have or heed faith. If every man had fait h we would need n o mor e laws. Everyone would o f himself do goo d work s all the time, as his faith show s hi m ... 111.12 But you say, how can I be absolutely sure that al l my works are pleasing to God, when at times I fall, talk, eat, drink, an d slee p too much , or otherwise transgress in ways I cannot avoid? Answer : This questio n show s tha t yo u stil l regar d fait h a s a work amon g othe r works and d o no t se t it above all works. It i s the highes t work because it blots out thes e everyday sins and stil l stands fas t b y never doubting tha t Go d i s so favourably dispose d toward you that he overlooks such everyday failures and offences . Yes , even if a deadly sin should aris e (which, however, never or rarely happens to those who live in faith an d trust in God) , nonetheles s fait h alway s rises agai n an d doe s no t doub t tha t it s si n i s already gone. As it is written in 1 John 2[.1-2], 'My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you ma y not sin ; but i f any one doe s sin , we have an advocate befor e God , Jesu s Christ, who is the forgiveness for our sins' . And Wisdom [o f Solomon] 15[.2] , 'And though we have alread y sinned , w e ar e stil l thine , an d kno w tha t tho u ar e great' . An d Proverb s 24[.16], ' A righteous ma n ma y fal l seve n times , but h e alway s rises u p a s many times' . Yes, this confidence and fait h mus t be so high and stron g tha t a man know s that al l his life and works are nothing but damnabl e sin s in the judgment o f God, as it says in Psalm 143[.2], 'For n o ma n livin g i s found righteou s before thee' . H e must despai r entirel y of 62

METHODOLOGY

his works, an d believe that the y cannot b e good excep t through this faith whic h expects no judgment but onl y pur e grace , favour, kindness , an d mercy . CRITIQUE There ar e element s i n Luther' s understandin g o f th e doctrin e o f justificatio n b y fait h which almost al l Christians today might accept . Most would agre e that th e Christia n lif e is primarily about pleasin g God and no t seekin g to gathe r merit (III.6 ) and that , for the Christian, fait h shoul d b e regarde d a s primar y an d work s a s secondar y (III . 10). They might even agree that i f everyone lived by faith there would be no need for laws (III. 11 see further, below, pp. 131-2) . However, i t i s important t o recogniz e tha t Aquina s would als o hav e accepte d thes e propositions. So, just because Luther's contemporaries appeared to reject the m and were, in a number o f cases, highly corrupt, a n acceptanc e of them doe s no t commi t on e t o a rejection o f Catholicis m a s such . Argument s agains t a corrup t papac y an d a corrup t Church ar e not necessaril y argument s agains t papac y an d Catholicis m - a poin t tha t Luther sometime s appeare d t o forget , particularl y as , i n late r life , hi s writing s became more irascible. Aquinas would have insisted that good works do not on their own achieve salvation (grac e bein g essentia l fo r that ) but , nonetheless , the y ar e stil l importan t prerequisites for salvation: works are necessary, but no t sufficient , fo r salvation. Whatever merits ar e achieve d b y works , salvation , a s such , mos t certainl y i s not . No r woul d Augustine have accepted suc h a Pelagian position: for him , grac e was essential, bot h t o enable people to act rightly in the first place and to allow them to continue to act rightly (see above, p. 26) . Further, man y hav e argue d tha t ther e i s a dangerou s antinomianis m inheren t i n Luther's arguments. At first, Augustine's dictum 'love God, and do what you want' might seem to have similarities to Luther's position, particularl y when it is used in conjunction with Paul' s notio n o f justificatio n b y faith . Bu t Augustine' s positio n wa s les s single minded tha n that o f Luther: like Paul himself, he could stil l talk about 'merit ' (see above, p. 27) . I t i s possibl e tha t th e sor t o f single-minde d stres s o f Luther , o f Bonhoeffe r i n Extract 1 , or of Fletcher in Extract 2, does less than justice to Christia n ethics. I n the case of al l three , i t wil l b e see n late r tha t the y ma y brin g mor e presupposition s t o mora l decision-making tha n the y realize (for Luther, see the analysi s of Text IX). Finally, there ma y be a dangerous exclusivism inheren t i n Luther's position. For him, all goo d work s withou t fait h i n Chris t ar e nothin g bu t sin . Th e shockin g attitud e h e adopted toward s th e Jew s i n Tex t X V i n late r lif e wa s consisten t wit h thi s position . Indeed, ther e ma y alway s be a dange r i n drawin g negative conclusions fro m a positiv e position o n faith . So , to clai m tha t fo r th e Christia n fait h i s primary an d work s onl y secondary, o r eve n that work s only flow fro m faith , i t i s not necessar y to claim , at th e same time, that the good works of those who do not share this faith ar e entirely without virtue. Augustine shrank from thi s negative conclusion, i n at least some of his works (see Text IV). And, clearly, it would no t accor d with Aquinas' theory of natural law. Whereas the notions of 'empty works' and hypocrisy are obviously important for Christians toda y (thanks i n par t t o Luther) , th e complet e denigratio n o f th e mora l action s o f al l bu t explicit Christian s migh t be accepte d b y comparatively few.

63

This page intentionally left blank

EXTRACTS 1- 7

BONHOEFFER, FLETCHER , COPLESTON , JOHN PAU L II, FIORENZA , CUPITT an d PORTER 1. BACKGROUND Dietrich Bonhoeffer' s Extrac t 1 comes fro m hi s Ethics (SCM Press, 1978 , pp. 3-6 and 9 13); Joseph Fletcher' s Extrac t 2 from hi s Situation Ethics (SC M Press, 1966 , pp . 26-30 , 30-3 an d 37-9) ; F . C . Copleston' s Extrac t 3 fro m hi s Aquinas (Harpe r an d Ro w and Search, 1976 , pp . 22-35) ; Pop e Joh n Pau l II' s Extrac t 4 come s fro m hi s Encyclica l Veritatis Splendor (Catholi c Trut h Society , 1993 , section s 31-7 , pp . 51-60) ; Elisabet h Schiissler Fiorenza' s Extrac t 5 comes fro m 'Women : Invisible in Churc h an d Theology' , Concilium (T&T Clark, 1985 , No . 182 , pp. 6-12) ; Don Cupitt' s Extrac t 6 from hi s Solar Ethics (SCM Press, 1995, pp. 6-9, 13 , 16, 19-20 an d 45); and Jean Porter's Extrac t 7 from her Moral Action and Christian Ethics (Cambridg e University Press, 1995 , pp . 182-8) . The chapter in Ethics from whic h the Bonhoeffe r Extrac t comes, 'The Love of God an d the Deca y o f th e World' , ca n b e date d t o th e perio d 1939-4 0 an d i s thu s almos t contemporary wit h hi s Th e Cost o f Discipleship o f 193 7 an d Reinhol d Niebuhr' s Th e Nature an d Destiny of Man. Obviously , thi s was an extremel y turbulent perio d fo r bot h theologians. Niebuhr wrote in his preface that 'these lectures were given in April and May of 193 9 whe n th e cloud s o f wa r wer e alread y hoverin g ominousl y ove r Europe' . Bonhoeffer ha d alread y joined th e Confessin g Church an d ha d returne d i n 193 5 fro m America t o Hitler' s Germany . Whil e i n America , Bonhoeffe r (1906-45 ) studie d a t th e Union Theological Seminary, where Niebuhr had been Professor of Christian Ethics since 1928. Niebuhr later recollected tha t Bonhoeffe r ha d sai d at this critical stage in his life, 'I shall have no righ t to participat e in the reconstructio n o f Christian lif e i n Germany afte r the war if I do not shar e the trials o f this tim e with my people' (quote d i n the prefac e t o The Cost o f Discipleship, SC M Press , 1978 , p . 11) . A t th e tim e o f writin g thi s Extract , Bonhoeffer wa s still hea d o f the Colleg e o f the Confessin g Church a t Finkenwalde . Joseph Fletche r (1905-92 ) was , lik e Bonhoeffer , a pasto r befor e h e becam e a n academic. H e wa s appointe d a s Professo r o f Socia l Ethic s at th e Episcopa l Theologica l School, Cambridge , Massachusetts , i n 194 4 (from wher e he wrote Situation Ethics) an d taught finall y i n th e Universit y of Virginia . B y 1955, whe n h e firs t publishe d Aquinas, Copleston, a Jesuit and Oxford-traine d philosopher , wa s Professor of Metaphysics in th e doctorate cours e at the Gregorian University in Rome. He was appointed Professo r of the History of Philosophy at Heythrop College in 193 9 at the age of 28, retired in 197 4 from a chair in London Universit y and was author before his death o f the multi-volume History of Philosophy. Cardina l Karo l Wojtyla o f Polan d wa s elected Pop e Joh n Pau l II i n 197 8 and die d i n offic e i n 2005 . His Encyclica l Letter Veritatis Splendor wa s first published i n 1993, expressin g th e titl e in hi s opening word s (reflectin g Gen . 1.26) : 'The Splendor o f 65

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

Truth shines forth i n all the works of the Creator and, in a special way, in man, created in the imag e and likenes s of God.' Elisabet h Schussler Fiorenz a is also a Roma n Catholic , albeit one considerably more radical and feminist than Pope John Paul II. She has worked as both a New Testament schola r an d a s a modern theologia n an d i s currently Kriste r Stendahl Professor of Divinity at the Harvard Divinity School. Her best-known books are In Memory o f Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction o f Christian Origins (1983) an d Discipleship o f Equals: A Critical Feminist Ekklesialogy o f Liberation (1993) . Sh e ha s als o edited severa l volume s o f Concilium (from whic h thi s Extrac t i s taken) . Do n Cupit t (b.1934) was , unti l hi s retirement , Lecture r i n th e Philosoph y o f Religio n i n th e University of Cambridge and remain s a Fellow of Emmanuel College . Ordaine d a pries t in th e Churc h o f England i n 1959 , h e i s a prolifi c autho r and , sinc e publishing Taking Leave of God in 198 0 and Only Human i n 1985 , has often bee n regarded as controversial . Jean Porte r i s Professo r o f Mora l Theolog y an d Christia n Ethic s at th e Universit y of Notre Dame , Indiana . A Roman Catholic and exper t o n Aquinas, sh e has also publishe d The Recovery o f Virtue (1990 ) and Natural and Divine Law (1999) . 2. KE Y ISSUES Bonhoeffer highlight s the differenc e betwee n ethic s and Christia n ethics: unaided ethical deliberations an d conscienc e merel y reflec t a disunio n wit h God . Humanit y wa s originally created in the image of God, with a knowledge of an origin in God but, through the Fall, this knowledge has been reversed, so that people are now thought to be their own creators and originators of good and evil (1.1-4). Human conscience (1.10) and quest for self-knowledge (1.11 ) bot h illustrat e thi s reversal , sinc e the y falsel y tr y t o reac h Go d through interpersona l relationships : i n contrast , Jesus ' ethic s star t fro m hi s unit y wit h God (1.15) . Fletcher has criticized legalist and antinomian approaches to Christian ethics earlier in his book and now, in Extract 2, seeks to defend a third approach, that of situation ethics. In this, ethical maxims ar e treated as illuminators (bu t not a s rules or laws) in particular situations: if love is better served, they can be compromised or set aside (2.1 and 12) . Like natural law , situatio n ethic s accept s reaso n i n mora l decision-makin g (2.2 ) an d eve n involves rationa l calculatio n (2.12f : elsewher e i n Situation Ethics h e accept s th e ter m 'utilitarianism' t o describ e thi s function) . Bu t i t reject s th e 'objectivity ' o f natura l law (2.2) an d accepts only one summum bonum - o r 'highest good ' - a s law (2.10-11). For the Christian situationist , this summum bonum is agape (2.10) : only th e commandment to love, for the Christian, is categorically good: and only general 'principles', not rule s or laws, ca n be derived fro m thi s summum bonum (2.3-9). Copleston's concern s i n Extrac t 3 ar e mor e philosophica l tha n theological . H e i s concerned t o clarif y Aquinas ' natura l la w theory i n th e ligh t o f moder n relativis t an d emotive theorie s o f ethic s (3.13) . I n contras t t o relativis t objection s t o a theor y o f unalterable mora l precepts , h e point s ou t tha t empirica l difference s o n mora l issue s between people do not, of themselves, disprove Aquinas' theory (3.3-5). With emotivists, he agree s tha t Aquinas ' theor y i s no t simpl y rationalisti c - mora l decision-makin g involves rational and prudentia l reflection on huma n nature a s known in experience (3.8 : an importan t poin t t o compar e wit h Fletcher' s criticism s o f 'legalism') . Agains t emotivists, however , h e point s ou t tha t Aquinas ' positio n assume s a n objectiv e mora l relationship: whils t feeling s ar e importan t i n mora l decision-making , the y ar e to o subjective t o for m th e basis of morality (3.12) . 66

METHODOLOGY

John Pau l II's Extract 4 is concerned with the tensio n betwee n secular conceptions of personal freedom and autonomy and traditional natura l law theology. H e notes that there is a heightene d sens e o f freedo m an d autonom y i n th e moder n worl d (4.1-3) , ye t h e believes tha t thi s i s sometime s exalte d t o a n absolut e statu s - individua l conscienc e becoming the supreme tribunal o f moral judgement (4.4). In the process any notion o f a universal mora l trut h i s lost : individual s posses s onl y thei r ow n relativ e truth s (4.5) . Ironically, som e o f th e behavioura l science s questio n th e realit y o f individua l huma n freedom, renderin g morality highly relativistic (4.7-8). For Catholic theology morality is in contras t objectiv e an d right s an d obligation s ar e relate d t o eac h othe r (4.9) . Som e Catholic mora l theologian s hav e themselve s bee n wrongl y influence d b y secula r subjectivism (4.10-11) . Vatica n I I insiste d tha t huma n freedo m i s not unlimite d sinc e people are called to accept the moral law given by God which both protects and promote s that freedo m (4.12-14). Catholic mora l theology which forgets thi s is misleading (4.1520). Fiorenza's Extrac t 5 sets ou t th e challeng e of feminis t theology . Sh e admits tha t thi s theology i s influence d b y th e women' s liberatio n movement , a s well a s by churc h an d theological institution s (5.1) . Feminist theology seeks to chang e the patriarchal state and church and , indeed , al l intellectual institution s (5.2-3) . Lik e othe r form s o f liberatio n theology, i t seek s t o recove r an d reconstruc t theologica l symbol s an d expression s fo r a discipleship of equals (5.5). A variety of approaches are evident within feminist theolog y (5.6-7), but togethe r the y offer a challenge to androcentrism (5.8) . This does constitute a distinctive theologica l method , base d upo n dialogue , participatio n an d non-hierarch y (5.10-11). Sexism, racism and militaristic colonialism all have roots i n patriarchy, which feminist theolog y seek s to oppos e (5.13-17). Cupitt's Extrac t 6 sets out an d celebrates the non-realist 'sola r ethics' position tha t he now holds. H e criticizes moral philosoph y for 'clingin g to mora l realis m or objectivism long afte r tha t belie f ha s becom e manifestl y untenable ' (6.4) . Instea d h e believe s tha t ethics should , lik e th e Sun , simpl y b e 'it s ow n outpourin g self-expression ' (6.6) . Fo r Cupitt ther e is 'no objective mora l order' (6.12) and 'the entire vocabulary of the rationa l soul, conscience , th e will , the mora l la w and s o on i s dead (6.20) . In contrast , Porter' s Extrac t 7 seek s to defen d a n understandin g o f Christia n virtue ethics tha t depend s bot h upo n sociall y constructe d communitie s an d upo n huma n nature. Unlike Aquinas, she argues that self-regarding and other-regarding virtues are not entirely distinct. Fo r he r th e other-regardin g [feminine? ] virtue s of 'empathy, care, and concern fo r others cannot b e separated so neatly, either from th e virtues of self-restrain t and courage, or from a commitment t o justice' (7.5). Moral agency requires the former as much as the latter (7.7) , as does the human need for intimacy (7.9): an absence of human feeling fo r other s may , then , resul t fro m socia l factor s (7.10 ) o r fro m a failin g o f th e intellect (7.11) . Properl y understoo d 'ou r concept s o f sel f an d other s ar e inextricabl y bound together ' (7.12) . 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS It has already been argued that there are obvious similarities and difference s betwee n the personalism o f Bonhoeffe r an d th e situationis m o f Fletche r (see above, p . 38) . Bonhoeffer's personalis m i s evident als o i n hi s earlie r writings. A s an assistan t ministe r in Barcelona , he wrote i n 192 9 that, 'ther e ar e not an d canno t b e Christia n norm s an d principles o f a mora l nature ; th e concept s o f "good " an d "evil " exis t onl y i n th e

67

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

performance of an action, i.e. at any specific present , and henc e any attempt t o lay down principles is like trying to draw a bird i n flight' (N o Rusty Swords, Fontana, 1970 , p. 36) . And again , 'ther e ar e no action s whic h ar e bad i n themselve s - eve n murde r ca n be justified — there i s only faithfulness t o God' s will or deviatio n fro m it ' (p . 41). Thus, 'w e can giv e n o generall y vali d decision s whic h w e migh t the n hol d ou t t o b e th e onl y Christian one , becaus e in s o doing w e are onl y setting ou t ne w principles an d comin g into conflic t wit h th e la w of freedom. Rathe r we can onl y see k t o b e brought int o th e concrete situatio n o f the decisio n an d to sho w one of the possibilities of decision which present themselve s at that point' (p. 42). Affinities wit h situation ethic s are evident here . But, i n th e sam e lecture , ther e i s als o eviden t hi s radica l divisio n betwee n ethic s an d Christian ethics. In addition, unlike Fletcher, it is the 'will of God', rather than agape, that he regard s a s central i n Christia n ethics : for hi m 'ther e i s no othe r la w than th e la w of freedom' (p . 40) : agape canno t b e treated a s law: 'the new commandments o f Jesus can never b e regarde d merely as ethical principles' (p . 41) . Clearl y this positio n i s differen t from tha t o f Fletcher in 2.10 . The Extract s o f Copleston , Joh n Pau l II , Fiorenz a an d Porte r diffe r fro m thos e o f Bonhoeffer an d Fletche r i n tha t the y al l postulat e a stron g for m o f deontology . Interestingly, Coplesto n conclude d a critica l review of Situation Ethics by insistin g tha t 'belief tha t i n Christia n ethic s lov e i s th e suprem e valu e seem s t o m e unquestionabl y valid' (quoted in the third impression of Situation Ethics). Nonetheless both Extract 3 and Extract 4 offe r clea r defence s o f traditiona l natura l la w theory . Fo r Joh n Pau l II , i n complete contras t t o Cupitt , natura l la w offers a for m o f moral objectivis m whic h ha s been considerably eroded in secular morality. Extract s 5 and 7 , although no t based upo n traditional natura l law , ar e stil l clearl y deontological . Fiorenz a simpl y assume s tha t feminist theolog y i s rightly concerne d wit h th e 'transformatio n o f th e patriarcha l stat e and church' (5.2 ) and that 'academi c institutions need t o be redefined and transformed ' (5.3). She also regards sexism, racism and militaristic colonialism a s self-evidently wrong. And Porter argues at length for the virtues of caring, regarding moral agency as deficient without them . Extract 6 seems t o b e the mos t puzzling . While rejectin g moral realis m i n an y form , Cupitt argue s almost a s a proselyte for 'solar ethics', even using the collective 'we' to d o so. Descriptive and normativ e feature s appea r to intermingl e i n this extract . 4. BASES O F CHRISTIAN ETHICS This point leads naturally to the next part of analysis. Only in Bonhoeffer's Extrac t 1 and John Paul II's Extract 4 is the Bible used as the basic resource of Christian ethics. Fletcher does use the New Testament in 2.9 and Cupitt in 6.8, yet their discussions appear dictated more b y appeals t o Christia n tradition . I n Copleston' s Extrac t 3 and , t o a n exten t i n Porter's Extrac t 7 , th e discussio n i s rathe r dictate d b y philosophy . Indeed , Coplesto n wrote his Aquinas primarily 'to make it easier for the reade r to conside r sympathetically his style of philosophising an d his interpretation o f the world' (p. 17) , not t o defend his theology as such, and Fiorenz a starts Extract 5 by acknowledging her debt t o the secular women's movement . Despit e hi s earl y interes t i n sociolog y an d psycholog y (e.g . i n Sanctorum Communio), i t i s doubtful whethe r Bonhoeffe r woul d hav e considere d suc h philosophical or secular concerns to be worthwhile undertaking s in Christian ethics. They belong mor e t o th e tradition o f Augustine and Aquina s than t o tha t o f Luther. Appeals to Christian experience ar e made, at times, by all seven theologians. In Extract 68

METHODOLOGY

1 Bonhoeffer appear s to rejec t conscience , but late r i n Ethics, he claims that 'i t can never be advisabl e t o ac t agains t one' s ow n conscience ' (p . 211) . This , i t woul d seem , i s conscience whic h ha s alread y bee n informe d b y Christia n faith , rathe r tha n a n innat e human faculty . Eve n Fletcher has a puzzling reference to 'problem s of conscience' in 2.8 . However, Bonhoeffer' s rejectio n o f secular conscienc e is complicated by the fac t that , as the Germa n Churc h becam e increasingl y divide d i n th e wa r an d a numbe r o f secula r liberals started t o stand ou t agains t Hitler, he began to note a n affinity o f 'consciousness' of values between thei r positio n an d tha t o f his own. I t became clear to hi m tha t 'i t was not the Church that was seeking the protection an d alliance of these concepts; but, on the contrary, it was the concepts that had somehow become homeles s and now sought refug e in the Christian spher e ... The children of the Church, who had become independent and gone their own ways, now in the hour of danger returned to their mother' (Ethics, pp. 38 9). However, thi s 'consciousness' may still not be an innate human facult y or tendency: i t may, instead , be better understoo d i n term s o f a transposition theor y (see above, p. 7) . 5. SOCIAL

DETERMINANTS

These Extract s represen t fou r distinc t phase s o f Wester n theology : th e late-1930s , th e mid-1950s, th e mid-1960s , an d th e 1990s . Th e firs t phas e wa s dominated b y th e neo orthodox reactio n o f Barth an d other s agains t theologica l liberalis m an d b y impendin g world war . Th e secon d wa s a perio d o f som e optimis m an d attempt s a t theologica l construction. Th e thir d wa s characterize d b y theologica l fermen t an d radica l self criticism. And the fourth seem s to be characterized by increasing pluralis m - wit h sharp divisions emergin g between radical s and neo-conservatives . Both Niebuh r an d Bonhoeffe r wer e heir s t o th e Barthia n theologica l revolution . The early Niebuhr , eviden t i n Extrac t 10 , rejecte d theologica l liberalis m an d h e alway s remained critical of 'Christian utopianism'. Ye t his mature theological writings showed a considerable hostilit y toward s a rigidl y neo-orthodo x approac h t o Christia n ethics . Bonhoeffer, i n contrast , remaine d firml y attache d t o thi s approac h an d show s th e considerable influenc e o f Bart h i n Extrac t 1 . In som e respects , bot h h e an d Bart h ar e more Lutheran than Luther: for instance, residual elements of natural law theory (present in Luther's own writings) are consciously denied b y them. Thei r negativ e understanding of humanit y apar t fro m Chris t ma y ow e much t o thei r experienc e o f political collaps e and chao s i n th e 1920 s an d 1930s . Indeed , thei r suspicio n o f natura l la w ma y ow e something t o thei r observation s o f its misuse in Naz i Germany. This contrasts with the tentative attempt a t reconstruction offered b y Copleston in the 1950s. Hi s tentativenes s i s doubtles s a respons e t o th e sever e stricture s o f Englis h philosophy i n th e 1930 s an d 1940 s agains t theolog y an d metaphysic s and , characteris tically, h e seeks to 'clarify ' rathe r than defend . I n contrast again, th e radica l innovation s of th e 1960 s ar e strongl y reflecte d i n Fletcher' s iconoclasm . Som e hav e suggeste d tha t there i s a stron g middle-class , Wester n intellectua l assumptio n i n Situation Ethics (an d perhaps i n Cupit t a s well), that th e individua l i s capable of making unstructure d mora l decisions fro m on e situatio n t o th e next . I n part , Pau l VI' s Extrac t 2 9 was a reactio n against thi s assumption . The fourth phase is evident in the contrast between the Catholic theologians here: John Paul II's Extract 4 contrasting sharply with both Fiorenza' s Extract 5 and Porter's Extract 7. And all of these contrasting even more sharpl y with Cupitt' s Extract 6 . Extract 4 offer s a forcefu l Christia n apologeti c agains t th e characteristi c assumption s o f secularism ,

69

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

Extract 5 a feminist critique o f assumptions withi n bot h Christianit y an d th e worl d a t large, an d Extrac t 7 dissent s fro m traditiona l Catholi c attitude s t o sexua l behaviou r (especially 7.2). Despite the evident conviction o f these extracts, se t side by side they serve to reinforc e th e considerabl e pluralis m tha t i s characteristi c o f bot h theolog y an d intellectual lif e generall y in th e 1990s . Man y depict thi s a s th e postmoder n contex t o f present-day theolog y (see further m y Readings i n Modern Theology). Cupitt' s Extrac t 6 offers a radica l postmodern, non-realis t alternative. 6. SOCIALSSIGNIFICANCE All o f thes e theologian s hav e ha d a n influenc e upo n Christia n ethics . Interes t i n Bonhoeffer's writing s was inevitably sharpened b y his martyrdom, bu t hi s books remai n important fo r theology in their own right. Copleston, unti l his death i n 1992 , established himself throug h hi s History o f Philosophy a s th e mos t influentia l Roma n Catholi c philosopher i n England. His Aquinas successfully presente d hi s subject as one to be taken seriously b y present-da y philosophers , wh o migh t otherwis e den y hi s theologica l an d biblical presuppositions . Fletcher' s Situation Ethics, a s alread y noted , ha s ha d a majo r effect upo n Christia n ethic s an d fe w within th e disciplin e fai l t o tak e i t into account (i f only t o den y it s premises) . Pop e Joh n Pau l I I prove d himsel f t o b e on e o f th e mos t forceful an d remarkabl e Popes o f the twentiet h century . Hi s considerabl e us e of powe r within the Roman Catholic Church was a significant featur e of his ministry and i s plainly evident in Extract 4 in his attempt to constrain Catholic moral theologians (e.g . 4.15—20). Fiorenza remains a Catholic, albeit with the freedom to teach outside Catholic structures , and i s now one o f the most significan t feminis t theologians. He r boo k I n Memory o f Her has been extremely influential. Porter's influence as a modern re-interprete r o f Aquinas is increasing an d Cupitt' s positio n a s th e enfant terrible of moder n theolog y i s no w wel l established. Ther e is even an annual conference in Britain for people inspired b y Cupitt's non-realist religion . FURTHER READING Bonhoeffer ha s been th e subjec t of many studies, but amongs t thes e Eberhar d Bethge's Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1970 ) an d Joh n D . Godsey' s Th e Theology o f Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1960) are still amongst the most important. Comparison s of Niebuhr's and Bonhoeffer's ethical method s ar e containe d i n Edwar d LeRo y Long , Jr's A Survey o f Christian Ethics (1967). Suggeste d readin g o n natura l la w theory ha s alread y bee n give n i n relatio n t o Aquinas' Text II . Fletcher's Situation Ethics has been subjecte d to considerabl e criticism , including J . C . Bennet t (ed.) , Storm Over Ethics (1967) , G . R . Dunstan , Th e Artifice o f Ethics (1974) , and Stanle y Hauerwas , Vision an d Virtue (1974) . Fletcher responde d t o some o f th e earl y criticis m directe d a t hi m i n hi s Moral Responsibility (1967) . Jea n Porter's articl e o n virtu e ethic s i n m y Th e Cambridge Companion t o Christian Ethics (2001) provide s usefu l additional reading . An d Susa n Parsons ' Feminism and Christian Ethics (1996 ) provides a n influentia l ma p o f differin g understandings .

70

METHODOLOGY

EXTRACT 1 BONHOEFFER Ethics and Christian ethics 1.1 The knowledge of good and evil seems to be the aim of all ethical reflection. The first task of Christia n ethic s i s t o invalidat e thi s knowledge . I n launchin g thi s attac k o n th e underlying assumption s o f al l other ethics , Christia n ethic s stand s s o completel y alon e that it becomes questionabl e whether ther e is any purpose i n speaking of Christian ethic s at all. But if one does so notwithstanding, that can only mean that Christian ethics claims to discuss the origin of the whole problem o f ethics, and thus professes to be a critique of all ethics simply as ethics.

1.2 Already in th e possibilit y o f the knowledg e of good an d evi l Christia n ethic s discerns a falling awa y from th e origin . Ma n a t his origin knows only one thing : God. I t i s only in the unity of his knowledge of God that he knows of other men , of things, and of himself. He knows all things only in God, and Go d i n all things. The knowledge of good an d evi l shows tha t h e is no longe r a t one with thi s origin . 1.3 In the knowledge of good an d evil man doe s not understan d himsel f in the realit y of the destiny appointed i n his origin, but rathe r in his own possibilities, his possibility of being good or evil. He knows himself no w as something apar t from God , outside God, and thi s means that he now knows only himself and no longer knows God at all; for he can know God only if he knows onl y God . Th e knowledge o f good an d evi l is therefore separatio n from God . Onl y against God ca n me n kno w good an d evil . 1.4 But man canno t be rid of his origin. Instead of knowing himself in the origin of God, he must now know himself a s an origin. He interprets himsel f accordin g to his possibilities, his possibilities of being good o r evil, and he therefore conceive s himself to be the origin of good an d evil . Eritis sicut deus. 'Th e ma n i s become a s one o f us , to kno w good an d evil', says God (Gen . 3.22). 1.5 Originally man wa s made i n the imag e of God, but no w hi s likeness to Go d i s a stole n one. As the image of God man draws his life entirely from hi s origin i n God, but th e ma n who has become lik e God has forgotten ho w he was at hi s origin an d ha s made himself his ow n creato r an d judge . Wha t Go d ha d give n ma n t o be , ma n no w desire d t o b e through himself . But God's gift i s essentially God's gift. It is the origin that constitutes this gift. I f the origi n changes , th e gif t changes . Indee d th e gif t consist s solel y i n it s origin . Man a s the imag e o f Go d draw s his lif e fro m th e origi n o f God, bu t th e ma n wh o ha s become lik e Go d draw s hi s lif e fro m hi s ow n origin . I n appropriatin g th e origi n t o himself ma n too k t o himsel f a secre t o f Go d whic h prove d hi s undoing . Th e Bibl e describes thi s event wit h th e eatin g o f the forbidde n fruits . Ma n no w knows goo d an d

71

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

evil. This does not mean that he has acquired new knowledge in addition to what he knew before, bu t th e knowledg e o f goo d an d evi l signifie s th e complet e reversa l o f man' s knowledge, which hitherto ha d bee n solel y knowledge of God as his origin . I n knowing good and evil he knows what only the origin, God Himself, can know and ought to know. It is only with extreme reserve that even the Bible indicates to us that God is the One who knows o f goo d an d evil . I t i s the firs t indicatio n o f th e myster y of predestination , th e mystery of an eternal dichotomy whic h has its origin in the eternally One, the mystery of an eternal choice and electio n b y Him i n whom ther e i s no darknes s but onl y light. To know good an d evi l is to know oneself as the origin of good an d evil, as the origi n of an eternal choice and election. How this is possible remains the secret of Him in whom there is no disunion because He is Himself the one and eternal origin and the overcoming of all disunion. This secret has been stolen from Go d by man in his desire to be an origin on his own account . Instea d o f knowin g onl y th e Go d wh o i s goo d t o hi m an d instea d o f knowing all things in Him, he now knows himself as the origin of good and evil . Instead of acceptin g th e choic e an d electio n o f God, ma n himsel f desire s t o choose , t o b e th e origin o f th e election . An d so , i n a certai n sense , h e bear s within himsel f the secre t o f predestination. Instea d of knowing himself solely in the reality of being chosen an d loved by God, he must now know himself in the possibility of choosing and of being the origin of goo d an d evil . H e ha s becom e lik e God , bu t agains t God . Herei n lie s th e serpent' s deceit. Ma n know s good an d evil , but becaus e he is not th e origin , because he acquires this knowledge only at the price of estrangement from th e origin, the good an d evi l that he knows are not th e good an d evil of God but goo d and evil against God. They are good and evi l o f man' s ow n choosing , i n oppositio n t o th e eterna l electio n o f God . I n becoming like God man ha s become a god agains t God . 1.6 This finds its expression in the fac t tha t man , knowing of good an d evil , has finally torn himself loose from life , that is to sa y from th e eternal life which proceeds from th e choice of God. 'And now, lest he put fort h his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for eve r ... he drove out th e man ; and h e placed a t th e eas t of the garde n o f Eden Cherubims, an d a flaming swor d which turned ever y way, to keep the way of the tree of life' (Gen . 3.2 2 an d 24) . Ma n know s goo d an d evil , agains t God , agains t hi s origin , godlessly an d o f his ow n choice , understandin g himsel f accordin g t o hi s ow n contrar y possibilities; and h e is cut of f from th e unifying , reconcilin g life i n God , and i s delivered over t o death . Th e secre t whic h ma n ha s stole n fro m Go d i s bringin g abou t man' s downfall. 1.7 Man's life i s now disunion wit h God , with men , with things, and wit h himself. 1.8 Instead o f seein g Go d ma n see s himself . 'Thei r eye s wer e opened ' (Gen . 3.7) . Ma n perceives himself in his disunion wit h God and with men. He perceives that he is naked. Lacking th e protection , th e covering , which Go d an d hi s fellow-ma n afforded him , h e finds himself laid bare. Hence there arises shame. Shame is man's ineffaceable recollection of his estrangement fro m th e origin ; it i s grief for thi s estrangement, an d th e powerles s longing to return to unity with the origin. Man is ashamed because he has lost something

72

METHODOLOGY

which i s essential t o hi s origina l character , to himsel f as a whole; h e i s ashamed o f hi s nakedness. Just as in the fairy-stor y the tree is ashamed of its lack of adornment, so , too , man i s ashame d o f th e los s o f hi s unit y wit h Go d an d wit h othe r men . Sham e an d remorse are generally mistaken fo r one another . Ma n feel s remors e when he has been a t fault; an d h e feel s sham e becaus e h e lack s something . Sham e i s mor e origina l tha n remorse. The peculiar fact tha t we lower our eye s when a stranger's eye meets our gaz e is not a sign of remorse for a fault, but a sign of that shame which, when it knows that it is seen, i s reminded o f somethin g tha t i t lacks , namely, the los t wholenes s of life , it s ow n nakedness. T o mee t a stranger' s gaz e directly , as i s required, fo r example , i n makin g a declaration of personal loyalty, is a kind of act of violence, and i n love, when the gaz e of the othe r is sought, it i s a kind o f yearning. In both case s it i s the painfu l endeavour t o recover the lost unit y by either a conscious and resolut e or else a passionate and devote d inward overcomin g o f shame as the sign of disunion .. . 1.9 In sham e man i s reminded o f his disunion wit h Go d and wit h other men ; conscience is the sig n o f man' s disunio n wit h himself . Conscienc e i s farthe r fro m th e origi n tha n shame, i t presuppose s disunio n wit h Go d an d wit h ma n an d mark s onl y th e disunio n with himsel f o f th e ma n wh o i s alread y disunite d fro m th e origin . I t i s th e voic e o f apostate life whic h desires at least to remai n on e with itself . I t i s the cal l to th e unit y of man wit h himself . This i s eviden t alread y fro m th e fac t tha t th e cal l o f conscienc e i s always a prohibition 'Tho u shal t not' . 'Yo u ough t no t t o have' . Conscienc e i s satisfie d when th e prohibitio n i s no t disobeyed . Whateve r i s no t forbidde n i s permitted . Fo r conscience life fall s int o two parts : what is permitted an d wha t is forbidden. There is no positive commandment. Fo r conscience permitted i s identical with good, and conscience does not registe r the fact, that even in this, man i s in a state of disunion with his origin. It follows fro m thi s also that conscienc e does not, like shame, embrac e the whole of life; i t reacts only to certain definite actions. I n one sense it is inexorable; i n forbidden actions it sees a peril to lif e a s a whole, that i s to say , disunion wit h oneself; it recalls what is long past an d represent s thi s disunio n a s somethin g whic h i s alread y accomplishe d an d irreparable, bu t th e fina l criterio n remain s precisel y tha t unit y wit h onesel f whic h i s imperilled onl y i n th e particula r instance s i n whic h th e prohibitio n i s disobeyed. Th e range o f experienc e o f conscienc e doe s no t exten d t o th e fac t tha t thi s unit y itsel f presupposes disunio n wit h Go d an d wit h me n an d tha t consequently , beyon d th e disobedience t o th e prohibition , th e prohibitio n itself , a s the cal l o f conscience , arise s from disunion wit h the origin. Thi s means that conscienc e i s concerned no t wit h man's relation t o Go d and t o othe r me n but wit h man's relatio n t o himself . But a relation o f man to himself, in detachment fro m hi s relation to God and to other men, can arise only through man' s becoming lik e God in the disunion .

1.10 Conscience itself reverses this relation. I t derives the relation to God and to men from th e relation of man to himself. Conscience pretends to be the voice of God and the standard for th e relation to other men. It is therefore from his right relation to himself that man is to recove r the righ t relatio n t o Go d and t o othe r men . Thi s reversa l is the clai m o f the man wh o ha s become lik e God i n his knowledge of good an d evil . Man ha s become th e origin o f goo d an d evil . H e doe s no t den y hi s evil ; bu t i n conscienc e ma n summons 73

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

himself, who has become evil , back to hi s proper, better self, to good. This good, which consists i n th e unit y of man wit h himself, i s now t o b e th e origi n o f all good. I t i s th e good o f God , an d i t i s th e goo d fo r one' s neighbour . Bearin g withi n himsel f th e knowledge of good and evil, man has become judge over God and men, just as he is judge over himself .

1.11 Knowing o f goo d an d evi l i n disunio n wit h th e origin , ma n begin s t o reflec t upo n himself. Hi s lif e i s now hi s understandin g o f himself , whereas a t th e origi n i t wa s hi s knowledge o f God . Self-knowledg e is now th e measur e and th e goa l o f life . Thi s hold s true eve n when man presse s ou t beyon d th e bound s o f hi s ow n self . Self-knowledg e is man's interminabl e strivin g t o overcom e hi s disunio n wit h himsel f b y thought ; b y unceasingly distinguishin g himsel f fro m himsel f h e endeavour s t o achiev e unit y wit h himself. 1.12 All knowledge is now based upo n self-knowledge . Instead o f the origina l comprehension of God and of men and of things there is now a taking in vain of God and of men and of things. Everything now is drawn in into th e process of disunion. Knowledge now means the establishment o f the relationship t o oneself; it means the recognitio n in all things of oneself and o f oneself in al l things. And thus , for man wh o i s in disunion wit h God, all things are in disunion, what is and wha t should be , life an d law , knowledge and action , idea an d reality , reaso n an d instinct , dut y an d inclination , convictio n an d advantage , necessity an d freedom , exertio n an d genius , universa l an d concrete , individua l an d collective; eve n truth, justice, beauty and lov e com e int o oppositio n wit h on e another , just as do pleasure and displeasure, happiness and sorrow. One could prolong the list still further an d th e cours e o f human histor y add s t o i t constantly . Al l these disunion s ar e varieties of the disunion in the knowledge of good and evil . 'The point of decision of the specifically ethical experience i s always conflict.' Bu t in conflict the judge is invoked; an d the judge is the knowledg e of good an d evil ; he i s man. 1.13 Now anyon e wh o read s th e Ne w Testament eve n superficiall y canno t bu t notic e th e complete absenc e o f thi s worl d o f disunion , conflic t an d ethica l problems . No t man' s falling apar t fro m God , fro m men , fro m thing s an d fro m himself , bu t rathe r th e rediscovered unity , reconciliation , i s now th e basi s o f th e discussio n an d th e 'poin t o f decision o f th e specificall y ethica l experience'. The lif e an d activit y of me n i s not a t all problematic or tormente d o r dark : it i s self-evident, joyful, sur e and clear . 1.14 It i s i n lesus' s meetin g wit h th e Pharise e tha t th e ol d an d th e ne w ar e mos t clearly contrasted. The correct understandin g o f this meetin g i s of the greates t significanc e for the understanding of the gospel as a whole. The Pharisee is not a n adventitious historical phenomenon of a particular time . H e is the man t o whom onl y th e knowledge o f good and evi l has come to be of importance in his entire life; i n other words, h e is simply the man of disunion. Any distorted picture of the Pharisees robs Jesus's argument with them of it s gravit y and it s importance . Th e Pharise e i s tha t extremel y admirable ma n wh o 74

METHODOLOGY

subordinates hi s entire life t o hi s knowledge of good an d evi l and i s as severe a judge of himself a s o f hi s neighbou r t o th e honou r o f God , who m h e humbl y thank s fo r thi s knowledge. Fo r th e Pharise e ever y momen t o f lif e become s a situatio n o f conflic t i n which h e ha s t o choos e betwee n goo d an d evil . For th e sak e of avoidin g an y laps e hi s entire though t i s strenuousl y devote d nigh t an d da y t o th e anticipatio n o f th e whol e immense range of possible conflicts, to the reaching of a decision in these conflicts, and to the determinatio n o f hi s ow n choice . Ther e ar e innumerable factor s t o b e observed , guarded against and distinguished. Th e finer the distinctions th e surer will be the correct decision. Thi s observatio n extend s t o th e whol e o f lif e i n al l its manifol d aspects . Th e Pharisee i s not opinionated ; specia l situation s an d emergencie s receiv e specia l consid eration; forbearanc e and generosit y are not exclude d b y the gravit y of the knowledge of good an d evil ; the y ar e rathe r a n expressio n o f thi s gravity . An d ther e i s n o ras h presumption here, or arrogance or unverifie d self-esteem . The Pharisee is fully consciou s of hi s ow n fault s an d o f hi s dut y o f humilit y an d thankfulnes s towards God . But , of course, there are differences, whic h for God's sak e must not b e disregarded, between th e sinner and the man who strives towards good, betwee n the man who becomes a breaker of the law out o f a situation o f wickedness and th e ma n wh o does s o out o f necessity. If anyone disregards these differences, i f he fails to take every factor int o account in each of the innumerabl e case s of conflict, he sins against the knowledg e of good an d evil .

1.15 These me n wit h th e incorruptibl y impartial an d distrustfu l vision canno t confron t any man in any other way than by examining him with regard to his decisions in the conflict s of life . An d so , even when the y come fac e t o fac e wit h Jesus , they canno t d o otherwis e than attempt t o forc e Him , too, int o conflicts and int o decisions i n order t o see how He will conduc t Himsel f i n them . I t i s this tha t constitute s thei r temptatio n o f Jesus. One need onl y read th e twenty-secon d chapte r o f St Matthew, with th e question s about th e tribute money , th e resurrectio n o f the dead an d th e first and grea t commandment , an d then the story of the good Samarita n (Luke 10.25) and the discussions about the keeping of the Sabbat h (Matt . 12.11) , and on e will be most intensel y impressed by this fact. Th e crucial point abou t al l these arguments is that Jesu s does not allo w Himself to be drawn in into a single one of these conflicts and decisions . With each of His answers He simply leaves the cas e of conflict beneat h Him . When i t i s a matter o f conscious malic e on th e part o f the Pharisee s Jesus's answer is the stil l cleverer avoidance of a cleverly laid trap , and as such it may well have caused the Pharisees to smile. But that is not essential . Just as the Pharisees cannot do otherwise than confront Jesus with situations of conflict, so, too, Jesus canno t d o otherwis e tha n refus e t o accep t thes e situations . Jus t a s the Pharisees ' question an d temptatio n arise s from th e disunion o f the knowledge of good an d evil , so, too, Jesus's answer arises from unit y with God, with the origin, and fro m th e overcoming of th e disunio n o f ma n wit h God . Th e Pharisee s an d Jesu s ar e speakin g o n totall y different levels . That is why their words so strikingly fail to make contact, and that is why Jesus's answers do not appea r to be answers at all, but rathe r attacks of His own against the Pharisees , which i s what they , in fact , are .

75

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S ICS EXTRACT 2 2

FLETCHER

Situation ethics 2.1 A thir d approach , i n betwee n legalis m an d antinomia n unprincipledness , i s situatio n ethics. (To jump from one polarity to the other would be only to go from th e frying pan to the fire). The situationist enters into every decision-making situation fully armed wit h the ethical maxims of his community an d its heritage, and he treats them wit h respect as illuminators of his problems. Jus t the same he is prepared i n any situation to compromis e them o r se t them asid e i n th e situation if love seems bette r serve d b y doing so .

2.2 Situation ethic s goe s par t o f th e wa y wit h natura l law , b y acceptin g reaso n a s th e instrument o f moral judgment, whil e rejecting the notio n that the goo d i s 'given' in th e nature o f things , objectively . I t goe s par t o f th e wa y with Scriptura l la w b y acceptin g revelation a s the sourc e o f the norm while rejecting al l 'revealed' norm s or law s but th e one command - t o lov e God in the neighbour. Th e situationist follow s a moral la w or violates it according to love's need . Fo r example, 'Almsgivin g is a good thin g //...' The situationist neve r says , 'Almsgivin g i s a goo d thing . Period! ' Hi s decision s ar e hypothetical, no t categorical . Onl y th e commandmen t t o lov e i s categoricall y good . 'Owe no on e anything , excep t t o lov e on e another ' (Rom . 13.8) . I f help t o a n indigen t only pauperise s an d degrade s him , th e situationis t refuse s a handou t an d find s som e other way . He makes n o la w out o f Jesus' 'Giv e to ever y one wh o begs fro m you.' I t is only on e ste p fro m tha t kin d o f Biblicis t literalis m t o th e kin d tha t cause s wome n i n certain sects to refuse blood transfusions even if death results - eve n if they are carrying a quickened fetu s tha t will be lost too . Th e legalist says that eve n if he tells a man escape d from a n asylu m where his intende d victi m is , if he finds and murder s him , a t least onl y one si n has been committe d (murder) , no t tw o (lyin g as well)! 2.3 As Brunner puts it, 'The basis of the Divine Command i s always the same, but it s conten t varies wit h varyin g circumstances. ' Therefore , th e 'erro r of casuistry doe s not li e in th e fact tha t i t indicate s th e infinit e variet y o f form s whic h th e Comman d o f lov e ma y assume; it s error consist s i n deducing particula r laws from a universal law ... as though all coul d b e arrange d beforehan d .. . Love , however , i s fre e fro m al l this predefinition ' (The Divine Imperative, pp . 132f) . W e might say , from th e situationist' s perspective , that it is possible to derive general 'principles' from whateve r is the one and only universal law (agape for Christians , something els e for others), but not law s or rules . We cannot mil k universals fro m a universal ! 2.4 William Templ e pu t i t thi s way : 'Universa l obligatio n attache s no t t o particula r judgments o f conscience bu t t o conscientiousness . Wha t act s are righ t ma y depend o n circumstances .. . bu t ther e i s a n absolut e obligatio n t o wil l whateve r ma y o n eac h occasion b e right ' (Nature, Ma n an d God, p. 405) . Ou r obligatio n i s relativ e t o th e

76

METHODOLOGY

situation, bu t obligatio n i n th e situatio n i s absolute . W e ar e onl y 'obliged ' t o tel l th e truth, fo r example , i f th e situatio n call s fo r it ; i f a murdere r ask s u s hi s victim' s whereabouts, ou r dut y migh t be t o lie . Ther e i s in situatio n ethic s a n absolut e elemen t and a n elemen t o f calculation , a s Alexander Mille r onc e pointe d out . Bu t i t woul d b e better to say it has an absolute norm and a calculating method. Ther e is weight in the old saying that what is needed i s 'faith, hope and charity'. We have to find out what is 'fitting' to be truly ethical, to us e H. R. Niebuhr's word for it in his Th e Responsible Self. Situatio n ethics aims at a contextual appropriateness - no t the 'good' or the 'right' but the fitting . 2.5 A cartoon i n a fundamentalist magazine once showed Mose s scowling, holding his stone tablet wit h it s graven laws, all ten, an d a n eage r stonecutter sayin g to him , 'Aaro n said perhaps you'd let us reduce them t o "Ac t responsibl y i n love"'. This was meant a s a dig at th e situationist s an d th e ne w morality, bu t th e legalisti c humou r i n i t merel y states exactly what situatio n ethic s call s for ! With Dietric h Bonhoeffe r w e say, 'Principles ar e only tools in God's hands, soo n to be thrown awa y as unserviceable' (Ethics, p . 51) . 2.6 One competent situationist , speakin g to students , explaine d the position thi s way. Rules are 'like "Punt on fourt h down" , or "Take a pitch when the count i s three balls". These rules are part o f the wis e player's know-how , an d distinguis h him fro m th e novice . But they are not unbreakable . The best player s are those who know when to ignor e them. I n the game of bridge, fo r example, ther e is a useful rul e which says "Second hand low" . Bu t have you eve r played wit h anyon e who followe d the rul e slavishly? Yo u say to hi m (i n exasperation), "Partner, wh y didn't yo u play your ace? We could have set the hand." And he replies , unperturbed , "Secon d han d low! " Wha t i s wrong? The sam e thin g tha t wa s wrong when Kant gave information to the murderer. He forgot th e purpose of the game ... H e n o longe r though t o f winning the hand , bu t o f being abl e t o justif y himsel f by invoking the rule.' 2.7

This practical temper of the activist or verb-minded decision maker, versus contemplative noun-mindedness, i s a major Biblica l rather tha n Hellenisti c trait . I n Abraham Heschel' s view, 'The insistence upon generalisation at the price of a total disregar d of the particular and concret e is something which would be alien to propheti c thinking. Prophetic words are never detached fro m th e concrete, historic situation. Theirs is not a timeless, abstract message; it always refers t o a n actual situation. Th e general is given in the particula r and the verificatio n o f the abstrac t is in th e concrete ' (God in Search o f Man: A Philosophy of Judaism, p. 204). A 'leap of faith' i s an action decision rathe r than a leap of thought, for a man's fait h i s a hypothesis tha t h e takes seriousl y enough t o ac t o n an d liv e by. 2.8 There ar e various name s fo r this approach : situationism, contextualism , occasionalism , circumstantialism, eve n actualism. Thes e label s indicate , o f course, tha t th e cor e o f th e ethic they describe is a healthy and primary awareness that 'circumstance s alter cases' i.e., tha t i n actua l problems o f conscience th e situationa l variable s are to b e weighed as heavily a s the normativ e o r 'general ' constants . 77

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

2.9

The situational factors are so primary that we may even say 'circumstances alter rules and principles'. It i s said tha t whe n Gertrud e Stein lay dying she declared, 'I t i s better t o ask questions than to give answers, even good answers. ' This is the temper of situation ethics . It i s empirical , fact-minded , dat a conscious , inquiring . I t i s antimoralisti c a s wel l a s antilegalistic, fo r i t i s sensitiv e t o variet y an d complexity . I t i s neithe r simplisti c no r perfectionist. I t i s casuistry (case-based) in a constructive and nonpejorativ e sense of the word. We should perhaps call i t 'neocasuistry'. Like classical casuistry , i t is case-focuse d and concrete , concerne d t o brin g Christia n imperative s int o practica l operation . Bu t unlike classica l casuistry , thi s neocasuistr y repudiate s an y attemp t t o anticipat e o r prescribe real-lif e decision s i n their existential particularity . It works with two guidelines from Paul : 'The writte n cod e kills , bu t th e Spiri t give s life' ( 2 Cor . 3.6) , an d 'Fo r th e whole la w is fulfille d i n on e word , "Yo u shal l lov e you r neighbou r a s yourself' (Gal . 5.14) .. .

2.10 Christian situatio n ethic s ha s onl y on e nor m o r principl e o r la w (call i t wha t yo u will ) that i s bindin g an d unexceptionable , alway s goo d an d righ t regardles s o f th e circumstances. That i s 'love' - th e agape o f the summary commandmen t t o lov e God and th e neighbour . Everythin g else without exception , al l laws and rule s an d principle s and ideal s and norms , ar e only contingent, only valid i f they happen t o serv e love in an y situation. Christia n situatio n ethic s i s not a system or progra m o f living according t o a code, but a n effort t o relat e love to a world of relativities through a casuistry obedient t o love. I t i s the strateg y of love. Thi s strateg y denies tha t ther e are , a s Sophocles thought , any unwritten immutabl e law s of heaven, agreein g with Bultman n that al l such notion s are idolatrous and a demonic pretension. 2.11 In non-Christia n situatio n ethic s som e othe r highes t goo d o r summum bonum will, of course, tak e love' s place a s the one and only standar d - suc h a s self-realisation i n the ethics of Aristotle. But the Christian is neighbour-centred first and last. Love is for people, not fo r principles ; i.e . i t i s persona l - an d therefor e whe n th e impersona l universa l conflicts with the personal particular , the latter prevail s in situation ethics. Because of its mediating position, prepare d t o ac t on mora l law s or i n spite o f them, th e antinomian s will cal l situationist s sof t legalists , an d legalist s wil l call them cryptoantinomians . 2.12 It i s necessary to insis t tha t situatio n ethic s i s willing t o mak e ful l an d respectfu l us e of principles, t o b e treate d a s maxim s bu t no t a s law s o r precepts . W e migh t cal l i t 'principled relativism' . T o repea t th e ter m use d above , principle s or maxim s o r general rules ar e illuminators. But they ar e not directors. The classi c rul e of moral theolog y ha s been t o follo w law s but t o d o i t a s much as possible according t o lov e and accordin g t o reason (secundum caritatem e t secundum rationem). Situation ethics, on th e othe r hand , calls upon u s to keep law in a subservient place, so that only love and reaso n really count when th e chip s are down ! 78

METHODOLOGY

2.13

Situationists have no invariable obligatio n to what are sometimes called 'middl e axioms', logically derived as normative propositions based on love. An example of what is meant is the propositio n tha t lov e o f th e neighbou r i n practic e usually mean s puttin g huma n rights befor e propert y rights . Th e ter m 'middl e axiom' , first used b y J.H. Oldha m an d William Temple , an d notabl y b y Joh n C . Bennet t i n America , i s wel l mean t bu t unfortunate, sinc e an axio m is a self-validating, nonderivativ e proposition an d i t cannot stand i n the 'middle' between something logically prior to it and a subsequent derivative. Middle-axiom theorist s mus t bewar e les t they , too , sli p int o th e erro r o f derivin g universals fro m universals .

2.14 There are usually two rules of reason used in moral inquiry. One is 'internal consistency', and nobod y ha s any quarrel with i t - a proposition ough t no t to contradic t itself . The other i s 'externa l consistence ' (analogy) , th e principl e tha t wha t applie s i n on e cas e should appl y in all similar cases. It is around thi s second cano n that the difference s arise . Antinomians rejec t analog y altogether , wit h thei r doctrin e o f radica l particularity . Situationists ask, very seriously, if there ever are enough case s enough alik e to validate a law or to suppor t anythin g mor e tha n a cautiou s generalisation . In Edmon d Cahn' s puckish phrase , 'Ever y case is like every other case , and n o tw o case s are alike. ' 2.15 There is no rea l quarrel here between situationis m an d a n ethic of principles, unless the principles ar e hardened int o laws . Bisho p Robinso n says : 'Such a n ethi c [situationism ] cannot but rely , in deep humility, upon guiding rules, upon the cumulative experience of one's own and othe r people' s obedience . I t is this bank of experience which gives us ou r working rule s o f "right" an d "wrong" , an d withou t the m w e could no t bu t flounder ' (Honest t o God, pp . 119-20) . Nevertheless , i n situatio n ethic s eve n th e mos t revere d principles ma y be thrown aside if they conflict i n an y concrete cas e with love. Eve n Kar l Earth, who writes vehemently of 'absolutely wrong' actions , allow s fo r what he calls the ultima ratio, th e outsid e chanc e tha t lov e i n a particula r situatio n migh t overrid e th e absolute. Th e instance he gives is abortion. 2.16 Using terms mad e popular b y Tillich an d others, we may say that Christia n situationis m is a method tha t proceeds, so to speak, from (1 ) its one and only law, agape (love) , to (2 ) the sophia (wisdom ) of the church and culture , containing many 'general rules' o f more or less reliability, to (3 ) the kairos (moment o f decision, the fullnes s of time) in which the responsible self i n the situation decides whether the sophia can serve love there, or not. This is th e situationa l strateg y i n capsul e form . T o legalist s i t wil l see m t o trea t th e sophia without enoug h reverenc e and obedience ; t o antinomian s i t wil l appear befuddle d an d 'inhibited' b y the sophia. 2.17 Legalists make a n ido l o f the sophia, antinomian s repudiat e it , Situationists use it. They cannot giv e to an y principle les s tha n lov e mor e tha n tentativ e consideration , fo r the y know, with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 'Th e question o f the good is posed and i s decided in the 79

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

midst of each definite, yet unconcluded, uniqu e and transient situation of our lives, in the midst o f ou r livin g relationship s wit h men , things , institution s an d powers , i n othe r words i n thei r mids t o f ou r historica l existence ' (Ethics, p . 185) . An d Bonhoeffer , o f course, i s a modern Christia n ethicist who wa s himself executed fo r tryin g to kill , even murder, Adolf Hitle r - s o far did he go as a situationist ... Abortion - a situation 2.18 In 196 2 a patient i n a state mental hospital rape d a fello w patient , a n unmarrie d girl ill with a radical schizophrenic psychosis. The victim's father , learnin g what had happened , charged th e hospital with culpable negligence and requeste d tha t a n abortion t o end th e unwanted pregnancy be performed at once, in an early stage of the embryo. The staff an d administrators o f th e hospita l refuse d t o d o so , o n th e groun d tha t th e crimina l law forbids al l abortion excep t 'therapeutic' ones when the mother's life is at stake - becaus e the moral law , i t i s supposed , hold s tha t an y interferenc e wit h a n embry o afte r fertilisation i s murder, i.e . th e takin g of an innocen t huma n being' s life .

2.19 Let's relat e the thre e ethical approaches to thi s situation . The rape has occurred and the decisional questio n is: May we rightly (licitly ) terminat e this pregnancy, begun in act of force and violence by a mentally unbalanced rapist upon a frightened, mentall y sick girl? Mother and embryo are apparently healthy on all the usual counts. 2.20 The legalists would sa y NO. Their positio n i s that killin g is absolutely wrong, inherentl y evil. I t i s permissibl e onl y a s self-defenc e an d i n militar y service , whic h i s hel d t o b e presumptive self-defenc e o r justifiabl e homicide . I f th e mother' s lif e i s threatened , abortion i s therefore justified, but fo r n o othe r reasons . (Man y doctors tak e a n elasti c view o f 'life ' an d thereb y justif y abortion s t o sav e a patient' s mental lif e a s wel l a s physical.) Eve n i n case s wher e the y justif y it , i t i s onl y excused — it i s stil l hel d t o b e inherently evil. Many Protestants hol d thi s view, an d som e humanists . 2.21 Catholic mora l theolog y goe s fa r beyon d eve n th e rigi d legalis m o f th e crimina l law , absolutising their prohibition o f abortion absolutely, by denying all exceptions and calling even therapeutic abortion wrong . (They allow killing in self-defence agains t malicious, i.e. deliberate, aggressor s bu t no t i n self-defenc e agains t innocent , i.e . unintentional , aggressors.) Thus, if it i s a tragic choice of the mother' s lif e o r th e baby's , as can happen in rar e cases, neither ca n be saved . 2.22 To this ethica l nightmare legalism replies: 'It i s here that th e Churc h appear s merciless, but sh e i s not . I t i s her logi c whic h i s merciless ; an d sh e promise s tha t i f the logi c i s followed th e woma n wil l receiv e a rewar d fa r greate r tha n a numbe r o f year s o f life. ' Inexplicably, shockingly , Dietric h Bonhoeffe r says the same thing: 'The life of the mother is i n th e han d o f God , but th e lif e o f the chil d i s arbitrarily extinguished . Th e questio n 80

METHODOLOGY

whether the lif e o f the mothe r o r th e lif e o f the chil d i s of greater value can hardl y be a matter fo r huma n decision ' (Ethics, p . 150) .

2.23 The antinomians - bu t who can predict wha t they would say ? Their ethi c is by its nature and definitio n outsid e th e reac h o f eve n generalities . W e ca n onl y guess , no t unreasonably, tha t i f th e antinomia n live s b y a lov e norm , h e wil l b e ap t t o favou r abortion i n thi s case . 2.24 The situationists , i f their nor m i s the Christia n commandmen t t o lov e the neighbour , would almost certainly in this case, favour abortion an d support the girl's father's request. (Many purely humanistic decision makers are of the same mind about abortio n following rape, and afte r inces t too.) The y would i n al l likelihood favou r abortio n fo r th e sak e of the patient' s physica l and menta l health , no t onl y i f it were needed t o sav e her life . I t is even likel y the y woul d favou r abortio n fo r th e sak e o f th e victim' s self-respec t o r reputation or happiness or simply on the ground that no unwanted and unintended baby should eve r be born . 2.25 They would, on e hopes, reaso n tha t it is not killing because ther e i s no person or huma n life i n a n embry o a t a n earl y stag e o f pregnanc y (Aristotl e an d S t Thoma s hel d tha t opinion), o r eve n i f i t were killing , i t woul d no t b e murde r becaus e i t i s self-defenc e against, in this case, not one but tw o aggressors. Firs t there is the rapist, who being insan e was morall y an d legall y innocent , an d the n ther e i s th e 'innocent ' embry o whic h i s continuing th e ravisher' s origina l aggression ! Eve n self-defenc e legalis m woul d hav e allowed th e gir l t o kil l he r attacker , n o matte r tha t h e wa s innocent i n th e foru m o f conscience because of his madness. The embryo is no more innocent, no less an aggressor or unwelcome invader! Is not th e most loving thing possible (the right thing) in this case a responsibl e decisio n t o terminat e th e pregnancy? 2.26 What thin k ye?

EXTRACT 3 COPLESTON Objections to natural law

3.1 Aquinas' theor y o f th e natura l mora l la w give s ris e t o a numbe r o f questions . I ca n comment, however , only very briefly o n a fe w selected questions . An d I begin wit h th e one which i s perhaps most likel y to presen t itsel f to th e reader' s mind .

81

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S 3.2

Aquinas believed that action s which are contrary to th e natural moral law are not wron g simply because God prohibits them ; they are prohibited b y God because they are wrong. Suicide is wrong and eating meat on Friday when one is bound by the ecclesiastical law of abstinence i s als o wrong . Bu t whil e there i s nothing wron g i n itsel f i n eatin g mea t o n Friday, s o tha t t o d o s o i s wron g onl y whe n an d becaus e i t i s forbidden , suicid e i s contrary to the natural moral law and s o is wrong in itself. Ecclesiastical precepts like the law of abstinence on Friday s can be suspended or changed, but th e natural moral law is unalterable. I t i s tru e tha t Aquina s distinguishe s betwee n primar y an d secondar y precepts, derive d from th e first, and say s that th e last can be 'changed' for special reason s in a fe w particula r cases . Bu t wha t h e mean s i s tha t i n som e particula r case s th e circumstances o f a n ac t ma y b e suc h tha t i t n o longe r fall s unde r th e clas s o f action s prohibited by the precept. For instance, we can say in general that if someone entrust s his property t o u s for safe keeping and ask s for it back we ought t o retur n it . But no sensibl e man would sa y that i f someone entrusts us with a knife or a revolver an d asks for it back when he is in a state of homicidal mani a we are obliged t o retur n it . In its general form , however, the precept remain s valid. And we can say with truth that Aquinas believed i n a set of unalterable moral precepts . 3.3 The questio n arises , however , whether thi s theor y i s compatible wit h th e empirica l fac t that differen t peopl e an d differen t socia l groups hav e held divergen t mora l convictions . Do not th e empirica l fact s sugges t that th e mora l la w is not unalterabl e bu t changeable ? Or, t o us e th e value-language , d o no t th e empirica l fact s sugges t tha t value s ar e historically relativ e an d tha t ther e ar e n o universa l an d absolut e values ? Believin g in a human natur e which i s constant Aquina s wa s led to postulat e a n unchangeabl e moral law; but som e o f the precepts which he regarded a s forming par t o f its content hav e no t been regarde d b y many people i n the past an d ar e not no w regarded b y many people as moral precepts at all. Is it not reasonabl e to conclude that Aquinas simply canonized, a s it were, the moral conviction s an d standard s o f his time or a t least o f the society t o which he belonged ? 3.4 This i s a far-reachin g problem , an d I mus t conten t mysel f with makin g th e followin g relevant point , namel y tha t difference s i n mora l conviction s d o no t b y themselve s constitute a disproo f o f th e theor y tha t ther e i s an unchangeabl e mora l law . Fo r ther e might be an unchangeable moral law and at the same time varying degrees of insight int o the conten t o f this law, these difference s bein g explicable in term s o f the influenc e o f a variety o f empirica l factors . T o us e th e value-language , ther e migh t b e objectiv e an d absolute value s and a t th e sam e tim e differen t degree s o f insight int o thes e values . I d o not mea n to imply either that the existence of an unchanging moral la w was for Aquinas an uncertain hypothesis or that the explicability o f differences i n moral conviction on the theory tha t ther e i s such a la w proves o f itsel f that th e theor y i s true. M y point i s that differences o f opinion abou t moral precepts and moral values do not constitute a proof of the relativis t position . An d thi s poin t i s one tha t shoul d b e taken int o consideratio n i n any discussio n o f the problem .

82

METHODOLOGY 3.5

Aquinas himsel f wa s not ignoran t o f th e fac t tha t differen t group s hav e hel d differen t moral convictions . Accordin g t o hi m al l me n ar e awar e o f th e mos t fundamenta l principles in their most genera l form. All men would agree that in some sense good i s to be pursued and evil avoided. If a man denies this principle he is probably denying not th e principle itself but tha t what another ma n or a given society calls good is good. But when we come to les s general and mor e particular conclusions, derive d fro m th e fundamental principles, ignoranc e i s certainly possible . 'I n th e cas e of some th e reaso n i s blinded b y passion o r b y ba d habit s o r b y physica l conditions . Fo r example , accordin g t o Juliu s Caesar robber y use d no t t o b e considere d wron g amon g th e Germans , althoug h i t i s expressly agains t th e natura l law ' [i.e . II. 6 above}. A fortiori ther e ca n b e difference s o f opinion abou t th e applicatio n o f precept s t o particula r cases . Conscienc e ma y b e erroneous, whether throug h our ow n fault o r through some caus e fo r which we are no t responsible. An d if our conscienc e tells us that we ought to perfor m a particular act, it is our mora l dut y to perfor m it. 'Every conscience, whether it is right or wrong, whether it concerns things evil in themselves or things morally indifferent, obliges us to act in such a way that he who acts against his conscience sins' (Quodlibetum, 3,27). This does not mean that ther e i s no suc h thin g a s right reaso n an d n o suc h thin g a s an objectivel y correct moral conscience ; bu t ignoranc e an d mistake s ar e possibl e i n mora l matters , an d th e nearer we come to particular s the greate r is the field for error . 3.6 But though the reader may be prepared t o admit that differences in moral convictions do not by themselves alone constitute a disproof of Aquinas' theory of an unalterable moral law, he may easily feel that the latter's whole approach to the subject of moral precept s is extremely artificial and excessively rationalistic. Fo r Aquinas talks as though peopl e derive or deduce less general from mor e general moral precepts and then procee d to apply these precepts to particula r actions. Bu t surely, it may be said, this picture does not represen t the facts . Mora l precepts seem to be ultimately reducible to th e expressio n o f feelings of approval o r disapprova l o f certai n action s o r o f certai n type s o f action . True , w e d o enunciate genera l moral precepts ; and mora l philosopher s hav e not unnaturall y tried t o rationalize their ow n mora l conviction s o r thos e o f the grou p o r societ y to whic h they belonged. But feeling comes first: it is the whole basis of ethics. It may indeed appear that ethical dispute s ca n b e settle d b y rationa l argument , an d i n a certai n sens e the y ca n sometimes b e s o settled . Fo r example , i f two me n ca n agre e on a definition of murde r they can discuss in a rational manner whether the action of killing someone who is dying from a painful an d incurabl e diseas e falls unde r th e definitio n or not . Eac h ma n point s out t o th e othe r feature s o f the actio n i n questio n whic h h e think s tha t th e othe r ha s overlooked, an d i t i s at an y rate possible that i n the en d on e will succeed i n convincin g the other. Bu t rational argument is possible onl y when there is already a certain measure of mora l agreement . I s i t no t a notoriou s fac t tha t i f tw o peopl e disagre e abou t fundamental mora l issue s o r defen d sharpl y oppose d set s o f values , neithe r ca n b e convinced simpl y by the arguments advance d b y the other? They will either agree to diffe r or they will end in anger and even abuse. Moreover, the function o f any arguments which may be advanced by one of them seems to be that of facilitating a change of feeling o r of emotional attitude . An d perhap s th e sam e ca n b e sai d o f discussion s concernin g th e moral qualit y of particular actions o r type s of action whe n thes e discussions canno t b e

83

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

reduced t o a quasi-logica l proble m o f classification . I f tw o me n discus s th e questio n whether so-called 'mercy killing' is right or wrong, the one maintaining that it is right, the other that it is wrong, the function o f drawing attention to aspects of the action which the one man believe s to hav e been overlooke d b y the other seem s to be that o f facilitating a change of emotive reactio n i n the other. Th e one man desire s to substitut e in the othe r man a feeling of approval for a feeling of disapproval o r vice versa, as the case may be; and the arguments and appeals to reason which are employed ar e techniques used to facilitat e this change of emotive response. In fine, morality i s 'more properly felt than judged of, to use Hume's word s (Treatise, 3,1,2) . 3.7 It ca n hardly be denied tha t Aquinas' languag e sometimes seem s to impl y an extremel y rationalistic interpretation o f the wa y in which people for m thei r mora l judgments. But we have to loo k a t what he means by the statement s whic h he makes. H e compares, for example, th e precep t tha t goo d i s to b e pursued and evi l avoide d wit h th e propositio n that th e whol e i s greate r tha n an y on e o f it s parts . An d whil e h e though t tha t thi s proposition i s known t o al l human being s onc e the y hav e ha d experienc e o f materia l things he did not mea n to sa y that ever y human bein g explicitly enunciates it to himself in so many words, even though he would certainly assent to it if it were proposed t o him. 'In the cognitive powers there can be inchoate habits ... And the understanding of [first ] principles is termed a natural habit. For it i s owing to th e very nature of the intellectua l soul that once a man knows what is a whole and what is a part he knows that ever y whole is greater than any one of its parts, though he cannot know what is a whole and what is a part excep t throug h idea s derived fro m images ' (S.T., la , Ilae, 51,1). Directly a huma n being ha s experience of material wholes he recognizes immediately the relatio n between whole and part, and that he knows this can be seen by the fac t tha t he never assumes that any part i s greater than th e whole of which it is a part. Bu t it does not necessaril y follow that he ever says to himsel f i n so many words that a whole is greater than any one o f its parts. Similarly , a huma n bein g obtain s th e ide a o f good , o f a thin g considere d a s perfecting o r a s satisfyin g hi s natur e i n som e way , onl y throug h experienc e o f actua l objects of desire and sources of satisfaction. Bu t because of his innate inclinations to th e good i n thi s sens e h e immediatel y apprehends i t a s something t o b e pursued, whil e h e apprehends evil , considere d a s tha t whic h i s oppose d t o hi s natur e an d natura l inclinations, as something to be avoided. The fact that he does apprehend the good or the perfection a s something to be pursued an d th e evil , that which is opposed t o o r thwart s his natural inclinations , a s something t o be shunned an d avoide d i s shown by the whol e of hi s conduct . Fo r ever y huma n bein g naturall y shun s whateve r appear s t o hi m a s opposed to his nature. But it does not necessaril y follow that he ever explicitly enunciate s to himsel f th e propositio n tha t goo d i s t o b e pursue d an d evi l avoided . On e ma y b e tempted t o sa y that al l this belongs t o th e instinctiv e level and th e level of feeling rathe r than th e leve l of rationa l apprehension . Bu t Aquinas would doubtles s commen t tha t a man does not shun death, for example, simply in the same way that an animal can be said to do so. For he shuns it not only instinctively but because and in so far as he apprehend s it with his reason a s destructive of his nature. And since he shuns it and avoid s it as evil, knowledge tha t evil is to be shunned and avoide d i s implicitly presupposed. Though we could hav e no ide a o f evil except throug h experienc e o f things opposed t o ou r natura l inclinations, apprehensio n o f th e principl e tha t evi l i s t o b e avoide d i s logicall y 84

METHODOLOGY

presupposed by recognition o f the fac t tha t thi s particular thing is to be avoided because it i s evil. 3.8 As regards deduction, Aquinas did not think that we can deduce th e proposition that t o have sexual intercourse with someone else' s wife i s wrong from th e precep t tha t goo d is to b e pursue d an d evi l avoided simpl y by contemplating, a s it were, this latte r precept. We can no more do this than we can deduce from th e principle of non-contradiction th e proposition tha t a thing which is white all over cannot a t the sam e time be red al l over. We obtain our idea s of whiteness and rednes s from othe r source s than a n analysis of the principle o f non-contradiction. A t the sam e time we reject th e proposition tha t a thing can b e simultaneousl y whit e al l ove r an d re d al l ove r precisel y becaus e i t involve s a contradiction. Similarly, we do not obtai n our idea s of other people and of wives and of sexual intercours e simpl y by analysin g the precep t tha t goo d i s to b e pursue d an d evi l avoided. Bu t once we have obtained thos e idea s we reject, if we do reject, the propositio n that i t is right to have sexual intercourse wit h someone else's wife because we apprehend actions of this sort as being evil. The word 'deduction', therefore, can be very misleading; and what Aquinas actually says is that other precept s of the natural law are 'founded on ' or 'based on' the precept that goo d is to be done and evil avoided. The concrete good for man ca n be known onl y by reflection o n huma n natur e as known i n experience. 3.9 It has been sai d abov e that w e reject, 'i f we do reject' , th e propositio n tha t i t i s right t o have sexua l intercours e with someon e else's wife becaus e w e apprehend action s of this sort a s bein g evil . A s w e hav e seen , Aquina s though t tha t th e neare r w e com e t o particulars th e more possibl e becomes ignoranc e o r error concerning the objectiv e good for man , an d s o concerning th e particula r precept s o f the natura l moral law . But some particular types of action ar e practically always apprehended a s evil, as opposed i n som e way or other t o human nature. Fo r example, even at the lowest level of civilization some acts will be immediatel y 'felt ' t o b e destructiv e o f socia l cohesio n i n th e grou p and s o opposed t o huma n natur e considere d unde r it s socia l aspect . An d the y wil l awake n disapprobation i n a quasi-instinctiv e manner . I hav e pu t th e wor d 'felt ' i n inverte d commas an d I hav e spoke n o f a 'quasi-instinctive ' manne r becaus e I thin k tha t whil e Aquinas might agree that th e term 'feel ' ha s a use in drawing attention t o th e differenc e between, say , a primitive man' s apprehension of an act as evil and a moral philosopher' s reflective appreciation of its moral quality he would still maintain that the primitive man mentally apprehends the ac t as evil and tha t the term 'feel ' i s inappropriate in so far as it suggests the absenc e o f any mental activity .

3.10 One ca n put th e matte r i n thi s way perhaps. Aquina s thought tha t al l men shar e som e very vagu e ideas abou t th e goo d fo r man , precisel y becaus e the y ar e me n an d posses s certain natura l tendencie s an d inclination s i n common . Fo r instance , me n se e tha t knowledge of the truths required for life should b e sought for. And if one wishes to draw attention t o the immediac y of the perceptio n one might perhaps say that they 'feel' this . But Aquinas woul d doubtles s insist that mental activity is involved an d that some wor d like 'apprehend' o r 'understand ' i s more appropriate . 85

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

3.11

But when it comes to apprehendin g what are the truths necessary for life and, in general, to determinin g i n a concret e wa y what i s th e goo d fo r ma n an d t o formin g mora l judgments which are less general than wha t Aquinas calls the primar y principles of th e natural la w in their wides t form , ther e i s room for prolonged reflectio n an d discussion . There i s roo m als o fo r th e interventio n o f a variet y o f factor s othe r tha n rationa l reflection, whic h ca n exercis e a n importan t influenc e i n th e formatio n o f man's mora l outlook an d se t of determinat e values . And thes e factor s ca n b e internal , physiologica l and psychological , as well as external, lik e upbringing and socia l environment .

3.12 Finally, when there is the questio n o f applying principles to individual cases , of deciding whether a given action belongs t o thi s class or tha t class , and i s right or wrong, Aquinas recognizes (cf . hi s commentar y o n Ethics, 2 , c.2 , lectio 2 ) tha t thoug h th e mora l philosopher ca n provid e som e help , b y drawin g attention , fo r example , t o differen t features o f the action, he cannot settl e a person's perplexity b y a process o f sheer logica l deduction. Ultimatel y a man has to make his own decision. And Aquinas observes that a man's actual decisio n ma y be perfectly correct even though th e abstract proble m has not been satisfactorily settled. Perhaps we might say that in such cases the man 'feels ' that th e action is right or wrong, as the case may be, in order to emphasize the difference betwee n the immediac y of the judgmen t and a piece o f logical or mathematica l deduction . Bu t Aquinas would doubtless say that the virtue of 'prudence' often enable s a man t o discern the objective moral quality of an action eve n when he is unable to giv e adequate reasons, which would satisf y a moral philosopher, fo r saying that the action is right or wrong. An action is right or wrong for Aquinas in virtue of its relation to the good fo r man, and this relation i s discerned b y the mind , even though the immediac y of the discernin g may be such a s to inclin e on e t o us e th e wor d 'feeling' . An d th e (o r a t leas t a ) fundamenta l difference betwee n Aquinas' theory and a purely emotive moral theory is that the forme r asserts an objective and determinabl e relationshi p i n virtue of which action s ar e good or bad, righ t o r wrong, whereas the latter doe s not . 3.13 In this section I have mentioned idea s suggested by the relativist and emotive theories of ethics. My purpose i n doing so, however, was clarificatory rathe r than polemical , an d t o avoid misunderstandin g I want t o explai n thi s point . I t wa s no t m y intentio n t o 'expound' these theories; an d therefor e I have carefully avoide d mentioning th e name of any philosopher sav e that o f Hume, who was mentioned a s the autho r o f a propositio n which i t i s usua l t o quot e o n thes e occasions . No r wa s i t m y intentio n t o refut e th e theories b y means of Aquinas' philosophy . M y purpose wa s simply that o f using some ideas suggested by these theories to clarify th e latter's position, The chief plank on which the relativisti c theory of morals rest s is probably th e empirica l fac t tha t differen t peopl e have hel d divergen t view s abou t mora l matters . An d a s fact s ar e fact s whateve r conclusions ma y be drawn fro m them , i t i s important t o as k whether Aquinas had an y idea of these fact s and whether hi s ethical theor y i s capable o f accounting fo r them o r of allowing fo r them . Similarly , in th e mora l lif e o f ordinar y peopl e deduction , a s thi s i s understood i n logic an d mathematics, doe s no t see m t o pla y any very conspicuous role , whereas somethin g tha t migh t plausibl y b e describe d a s 'feeling ' appear s t o b e a n 86

METHODOLOGY

important factor . It is therefore a pertinent questio n t o ask whether Aquinas thought that everyone form s hi s o r he r mora l conviction s b y a proces s o f logica l deductio n an d whether his theory can account fo r the factor o f immediacy in our mora l and valuational judgments. In other words, my purpose was simply that of making a brief contribution t o the clarificatio n o f Aquinas ' positio n wit h th e ai d o f idea s suggeste d b y late r ethica l theories.

EXTRACT 4 JOHN PAU L I I The crisis of moral truth 'You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free' (Jn. 8.32)

4.1 The huma n issue s mos t frequentl y debate d an d differentl y resolve d i n contemporar y moral reflectio n are al l closely related , albei t i n various ways , to a crucial issue: human freedom. 4.2 Certainly peopl e toda y hav e a particularl y strong sens e of freedom . As the [Vatica n II] Council's Declaration o n Religiou s Freedo m Dignitatis Humanae had alread y observed , 'the dignity of the human perso n i s a concern o f which people of our tim e are becoming increasingly more aware'. Hence the insistent demand tha t peopl e be permitted to 'enjo y the use of their ow n responsible judgment an d freedom , an d decid e o n their action s o n grounds of duty and conscience, without external pressure or coercion'. In particular, the right to religiou s freedom an d to respec t fo r conscience on it s journey towards the truth is increasingly perceived as the foundatio n of the cumulativ e rights of the person . 4.3 This heightened sens e of the dignit y of the huma n perso n an d o f his or he r uniqueness , and o f th e respec t du e t o th e journe y o f conscience , certainl y represent s on e o f th e positive achievement s o f modern culture . Thi s perception , authenti c a s i t is , has bee n expressed i n a numbe r o f more o r les s adequat e ways , some o f which howeve r diverge from th e trut h abou t ma n a s a creatur e an d th e imag e o f God , an d thu s nee d t o b e corrected an d purifie d in the ligh t o f faith . 4.4 Certain current s o f moder n though t hav e gon e s o fa r a s to exal t freedo m t o suc h a n extent tha t i t becomes an absolute, which would then be the sourc e of values. This is the direction taken b y doctrines which hav e lost the sens e o f the transcendent or which ar e explicitly atheist. The individual conscienc e i s accorded th e statu s of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one's conscience is unduly added th e affirmation tha t one' s moral judgmen t i s true merel y by the fac t tha t i t ha s its origin i n 87

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

the conscience . Bu t in this way the inescapabl e claim s o f truth disappear , yieldin g thei r place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and 'bein g at peace with oneself, so much so that som e hav e come t o adop t a radically subjectivisti c conceptio n of moral judgment . 4.5 As is immediately evident, the crisi s of truth i s not unconnecte d wit h this development. Once th e ide a o f a universal truth abou t th e good , knowable by human reason , i s lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person's intelligence, the function o f which is to apply the universal knowledg e of the goo d i n a specifi c situatio n an d thu s to expres s a judgment about th e righ t conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individua l conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good an d evi l an d the n actin g accordingly . Suc h a n outloo k i s quit e congenia l t o a n individualist ethic , wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different fro m th e truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea o f human nature . 4.6 These differen t notion s ar e a t th e origi n o f current s o f though t whic h posi t a radica l opposition between mora l law and conscience , and betwee n natur e an d freedom . 4.7 Side by side with its exaltation of freedom, ye t oddly in contrast with it, modern cultur e radically questions th e ver y existence of this freedom. A number o f disciplines, grouped under th e nam e of the 'behavioura l sciences' , have rightly drawn attention t o th e man y kinds o f psychologica l an d socia l conditionin g whic h influenc e th e exercis e o f huma n freedom. Knowledg e of these conditioning s an d th e stud y the y have received represen t important achievement s which hav e found applicatio n i n variou s areas, fo r exampl e i n pedagogy o r th e administratio n o f justice . Bu t som e people , goin g beyon d th e conclusions whic h ca n b e legitimatel y draw n fro m thes e observations , hav e com e t o question or eve n deny the ver y reality o f human freedom . 4.8 Mention shoul d also be made here of theories which misuse scientific researc h about th e human person . Arguin g fro m th e grea t variet y o f customs , behaviou r pattern s an d institutions present i n humanity, these theories en d up, i f not wit h an outrigh t denial of universal huma n values, at least with a relativistic conception o f morality . 4.9 'Teacher, what good mus t I do t o hav e eternal life?' Th e questio n of morality, to which Christ provide s th e answer , canno t prescin d fro m th e issu e o f freedom . Indeed , i t considers tha t issu e central, for there ca n be no moralit y without freedom : 'It is only in freedom tha t ma n ca n tur n t o wha t i s good'. Bu t what sor t o f freedom ? Th e Council , considering our contemporaries who 'highly regard' freedom and 'assiduously pursue' it, but wh o 'ofte n cultivat e it i n wron g ways a s a licence t o d o anythin g they please, even evil', speaks o f 'genuine' freedom: 'Genuin e freedom i s an outstandin g manifestation o f the divine image in man. For God willed to leave man "i n the power of his own counsel" , 88

METHODOLOGY

so that h e would see k his Creato r o f his ow n accor d an d woul d freel y arriv e at ful l an d blessed perfectio n b y cleaving to God ' (Dignitatis Humanae). Althoug h eac h individua l has a right to b e respected i n his own journey in search o f the truth, ther e exists a prior moral obligation, and a grave one at that, to see k the truth and to adhere to it once it is known. A s Cardina l Joh n Henr y Newman , tha t outstandin g defende r o f th e right s o f conscience, forcefull y pu t it : 'Conscience ha s right s because i t ha s duties'.

4.10 Certain tendencie s in contemporary moral theology , under the influence of the current s of subjectivis m an d individualis m jus t mentioned , involv e nove l interpretation s o f th e relationship o f freedo m t o th e mora l law , human natur e an d conscience , an d propos e novel criteri a fo r the mora l evaluatio n o f acts. Despite thei r variety , these tendencie s are at on e i n lessening or eve n denying th e dependenc e o f freedom o n truth . 4.11 If we wish to undertake a critical discernment o f these tendencies - discernmen t capable of acknowledging what is legitimate, usefu l an d o f value in them, whil e at the sam e time pointing out their ambiguities, dangers and errors - w e must examine them in the light of the fundamenta l dependence o f freedom upo n truth , a dependence whic h has found it s clearest an d mos t authoritativ e expressio n i n th e word s o f Christ : 'Yo u wil l know th e truth, an d th e trut h wil l set you free ' (Jn . 8.32). Freedom and law 'Of the tre e of the knowledg e o f good an d evi l you shal l not eat ' (Gen. 2.17)

4.12 In the Book of Genesis we read: 'The Lord God commanded th e man, saying, "You may eat freely of every tree of the garden; but o f the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall no t eat , for i n th e da y that yo u ea t of it you shal l die"' (Gen . 2.16-17). 4.13 With this imagery, Revelation teaches that the powe r to decid e what is good an d what is evil does not belon g to man, but t o God alone. The man i s certainly free, inasmuc h as he can understand an d accept God's commands. And he possesses a n extremely far-reaching freedom, since he can eat 'of every tree of the garden'. But his freedom i s not unlimited : it must hal t before the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil', for it is called t o accept th e moral la w give n b y God . I n fact , huma n freedo m find s it s authenti c an d complet e fulfilment precisel y i n th e acceptanc e o f tha t law . God , wh o alon e i s good , know s perfectly what is good fo r man, and by virtue of his very love proposes this good t o ma n in th e commandments . 4.14 God's la w does no t reduce , muc h les s do awa y with human freedom ; rather , i t protect s and promote s tha t freedom . I n contrast, however , some present-day cultura l tendencie s have give n ris e t o severa l current s o f though t i n ethic s whic h centr e upo n a n allege d conflict betwee n freedo m an d law. These doctrine s would gran t to individual s or socia l 89

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

groups the right to determine what is good or evil. Human freedom would thus be able to 'create values' and would enjoy a primacy over truth, to the point that truth itself would be considered a creation of freedom. Freedom would thus lay claim to a moral autonomy which would actuall y amount t o a n absolut e sovereignty.

4.15 The modern concer n for th e claim s of autonomy has not faile d t o exercis e an influenc e also i n th e spher e o f Catholi c mora l theology . Whil e th e latte r ha s certainl y neve r attempted t o set human freedom against the divine law or to question the existence of an ultimate religious foundation for moral norms, it has, nonetheless, been led to undertake a profoun d rethinkin g abou t th e rol e of reason an d o f faith i n identifyin g mora l norm s with referenc e t o specifi c 'innerworldly ' kinds of behaviour involving oneself, other s and the material world. 4.16 It mus t b e acknowledge d tha t underlyin g thi s wor k o f rethinkin g ther e ar e certai n positive concerns which to a great extent belong to the best tradition of Catholic thought. In response to the encouragement of the Second Vatican Council, there has been a desire to foster dialogu e with modern culture , emphasising the rational - an d thus universally understandable and communicable - characte r of moral norm s belonging to the sphere of the natural moral law. There has also been an attempt to reaffirm th e interior character of th e ethica l requirement s derivin g fro m tha t law , requirement s whic h creat e a n obligation fo r the wil l only because such an obligatio n wa s previously acknowledged b y human reaso n and, concretely, by personal conscience . 4.17 Some people, however, disregarding the dependence of human reason on Divine Wisdom and th e need, given the present state of fallen nature, for Divine Revelation as an effectiv e means for knowing moral truths, eve n those of the natura l order, have actually posited a complete sovereignt y o f reaso n i n th e domai n o f mora l norm s regardin g th e righ t ordering o f life i n this world. Suc h norms would constitut e th e boundaries fo r a merely 'human' morality; they would be the expressio n of a law which man i n a n autonomou s manner lay s down fo r himself and which has its source exclusivel y in human reason . In no way could Go d be considered th e Author of this law, except in the sens e that huma n reason exercise s it s autonomy in setting down laws by virtue o f a primordial and tota l mandate give n t o ma n b y God . Thes e trend s o f though t hav e le d t o a denial , i n opposition to Sacre d Scriptur e (cf . Mt. 15.3-6 ) an d th e Church' s constant teaching , o f the fac t tha t th e natura l mora l la w has Go d a s its author, an d tha t man , by the us e of reason, participate s i n the eterna l law , which it i s not fo r him t o establish . 4.18 In thei r desire , however , t o kee p th e mora l lif e i n a Christia n context , certai n mora l theologians have introduced a sharp distinction , contrary to Catholic doctrine, betwee n an ethical order, which would be human in origin and o f value for this world alone, and an orde r of salvation, fo r which onl y certai n intention s and interio r attitudes regardin g God and neighbour would be significant. Thi s has then led to an actual denial that there exists, i n Divin e Revelation , a specifi c an d determine d mora l content , universall y vali d 90

METHODOLOGY

and permanent . Th e wor d o f Go d woul d b e limite d t o proposin g a n exhortation , a generic paraenesis, whic h th e autonomou s reaso n alon e woul d the n hav e th e tas k o f completing with normativ e directive s which are truly 'objective', tha t is , adapted t o th e concrete historica l situation . Naturally , an autonomy conceived i n this way also involves the denia l o f a specifi c doctrina l competenc e o n th e par t o f th e Churc h an d he r Magisterium with regard to particular moral norms which deal with the so-called 'huma n good'. Such norms would not be part of the proper content o f Revelation, and would no t in themselve s be relevan t fo r salvation .

4.19 No on e ca n fai l t o se e that suc h a n interpretatio n o f th e autonom y o f huma n reaso n involves positions incompatibl e wit h Catholi c teaching . 4.20 In such a context i t is absolutely necessary to clarify , i n the ligh t of the word of God an d the livin g Tradition o f the Church , th e fundamenta l notions o f human freedo m an d o f the mora l law, a s well as their profoun d an d intimat e relationship . Only thu s wil l it be possible t o respon d t o th e rightfu l claim s of human reaso n i n a way which accepts th e valid element s presen t i n certai n current s o f contemporar y mora l theolog y withou t compromising th e Church' s heritag e o f mora l teachin g wit h idea s derive d fro m a n erroneous concep t o f autonomy .

EXTRACT 5 FIORENZA Ethics and feminist theology 5.1 Feminist theolog y seek s to unmas k th e oppressiv e function [of ] patriarchal theology . I t explores women's experienc e of oppression an d discriminatio n i n society and religio n as well a s our experience s o f hope , love , an d fait h i n th e struggl e fo r liberatio n an d well being. Feminis t theolog y ha s a dua l parentage : th e women' s liberatio n movemen t i n society and churc h a s well a s the academ y and theologica l institutions .

5.2 Feminist studies and theology are proud t o be the daughters of the women's movemen t and at the same time ambivalent about thei r origin and setting in the academy. Whereas in the last century the women's movemen t sough t access for women to the academy and the ministr y by pointing t o women' s specia l 'feminine' contributions , i n thi s century it did s o by claiming women's ful l personhoo d an d 'equa l rights.' However, women began to realize that it does not suffic e t o argue for a special sphere or domain fo r women or t o integrate wome n int o male-dominate d societ y an d church . Wha t i s necessar y i s th e transformation o f the patriarchal state and church into institution s tha t allow for the ful l participation o f women a s well a s men i n societ y and church .

91

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS 5.3

In the last century women gained access to academic work and theological studies at first through specia l course s o r seminarie s fo r women . The n wome n wer e admitte d t o ful l academic an d theologica l studie s i f they coul d prov e tha t the y wer e a s good as , if no t better than , thei r mal e colleagues . Althoug h wome n scholar s hav e fulfille d al l th e standards of academic excellence, only a very few have achieved faculty status or scholarly influence. Today feminist theologians no longer seek merely to become incorporated int o the androcentri c academ y an d theologica l institutions . Rather , wome n scholar s hav e come to realiz e more and more that all intellectual institution s and academic discipline s need t o b e redefine d an d transforme d if they are to allo w women t o participat e full y a s subjects o f academi c researc h an d theologica l scholarship . Feminis t studies , therefore , seek to engender, in the words of Thomas Kuhn, a paradigm shift fro m th e male-centere d scholarship tha t i s produce d b y th e patriarcha l academ y an d churc h t o a feminis t comprehension o f the world , huma n life , an d Christia n faith . 5.4 Just a s feminis t studie s i n genera l hav e affecte d al l area s o f academi c inquiry , s o als o feminist theolog y has worked for the transformation of theology. I t seeks to integrat e the emancipatory struggle s fo r ending societa l and ecclesia l patriarch y wit h religiou s vision , Christian faith , an d theologica l reflection . I f theolog y i s 'fait h seekin g understanding ' [Anselm] the n feminis t theolog y is best understoo d a s the reflectio n o n Christia n faith experiences in the struggle against patriarchal oppression. I f theology, as Karl Rahner puts it, has the vocatio n t o engag e the whole church i n self-criticism, then feminis t theolog y has the tas k t o engende r ecclesia l self-criticism , no t jus t o f the church' s androcentris m but als o of its historical patriarchal structures. 5.5 Feminist theolog y thu s begin s wit h th e experienc e o f wome n strugglin g agains t patriarchal exclusio n an d fo r liberatio n an d huma n dignity . Jus t a s othe r liberatio n theologies s o a critica l feminis t theolog y o f liberatio n understand s itsel f a s a systemi c exploration an d 'secon d order ' reflectio n o n thi s experience . It s method s ar e therefore critical analysis , constructiv e exploration , an d conceptua l transformation . A s a critica l theology feminist theology identifies no t onl y the androcentric dynamics and misogynist elements of Christian Scriptures , traditions , and theologie s but als o those structures of the church that perpetuate patriarchal sexism as well as racism, classism, and colonialis m in an d outsid e th e church . As a constructiv e theology feminis t theologica l studie s seek both t o recove r and reconstruc t all those theological symbol s and expression s that reflec t the liberative faith experiences of the church as the discipleship community of equals, the experiences o f the peopl e o f God who are women . 5.6 However, i t mus t b e note d tha t feminis t studie s articulat e emancipator y struggles and liberatory perspective s i n differen t way s and wit h th e hel p o f varyin g philosophical o r sociological-political analyses . Whil e libera l feminisms , fo r example , emphasiz e th e autonomy an d equa l right s o f th e individual , socialis t o r Marxis t feminism s se e th e relationship between socia l class and gende r within Western capitalis m as determinative of women' s societa l oppression . Thir d Worl d feminism s i n tur n insis t tha t th e

92

METHODOLOGY

interactions o f racism , colonialism , an d sexis m ar e definin g women' s oppressio n an d struggle fo r liberation . Suc h a variety of analyse s and theoretica l perspective s result s i n different conception s o f feminism , o f women's liberation , an d o f being huma n i n th e world. 5.7 A diversit y i n approac h an d polyphon y i n feminis t intellectua l articulation s ar e als o found i n feminist theology and in feminist studies in religion. It is therefore misleading to speak of feminist theolog y in the singular or of the feminist theolog y without recognizing many differen t articulation s an d analyse s o f feminist theologies. Thes e articulation s no t only share in the diverse presuppositions an d theoretical analyses of women's experienc e but als o wor k withi n divers e theologica l frameworks , e.g . neo-orthodoxy , libera l theology, proces s theology , evangelica l theology , o r liberatio n theology . A s theologica l articulations the y are rooted i n diverse ecclesial visions and plurifor m political-religious contexts. I hav e define d m y ow n approac h a s a critica l theolog y o f liberatio n tha t i s indebted to historical-critical , critical-political , and liberation-theological analyse s and is rooted i n experience and engagemen t as a Catholic Christian woman. 5.8 Insofar a s feminist theology does not begi n with doctrines abou t Go d and revelatio n bu t with th e experienc e of women strugglin g for liberation fro m patriarcha l oppression, it s pluriform visio n i s articulate d b y th e voice s o f wome n fro m differen t races , classes , cultures, an d nations. These theological voices challeng e androcentric forms of liberatio n theology t o articulat e th e preferential 'option' for the poor an d oppresse d a s the optio n for poo r an d oppressed women, because the majority of the poor an d exploited today are women and children dependent o n women fo r survival. As the African theologia n Mercy Amba Oduyoy e has pointed out :

[Feminist theology] is not simpl y a challenge to the dominant theolog y of the capitalist West. I t is a challenge to th e malenes s of Christian theolog y worldwide, togethe r with the patriarcha l presupposition s tha t gover n al l ou r relationship s a s wel l a s th e tradition; a situation i n which men (mal e human beings) reflecte d upo n th e whole of life o n behal f o f the whol e community of women an d men , youn g an d old . 5.9 If the primar y theological questio n fo r liberation theolog y is not 'Ho w can we believe in God?' bu t 'Ho w ca n th e poo r achiev e dignity? ' the n a critica l feminis t theolog y o f liberation mus t articulat e the quest fo r women's dignit y and liberation ultimatel y as the quest fo r God . Th e hermeneutica l privileg e o f th e poo r mus t b e articulate d a s th e hermeneutical privileg e o f poor women. Liberatio n theologie s of all colors must addres s the patriarcha l dominatio n an d sexua l exploitation o f women.

5.10 In short , feminis t theologian s d o not limi t themselves either to studie s about wome n o r to th e academy . The y d o no t see k to articulat e a theology o f woman no r restric t thei r questions t o women . Rather , they understand themselve s as charting a different metho d and a n alternativ e perspective for doing theology . Therefore, a critical feminist theolog y 93

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

of liberatio n construct s theolog y neithe r i n term s o f th e traditiona l taxonomie s an d dogmatic topoi o f theolog y suc h a s God , Christ , creation , church , sacraments , o r eschatology, nor i n terms of an academic religious studies approach. Both approaches are valuable and necessary; but the y attempt t o chart new visions and roads with the help of the ol d maps of doctrinal or academi c theology.

5.11 Instead, a critica l feminis t liberatio n theolog y seek s t o adop t a n interdisciplinar y approach an d framewor k tha t doe s no t reinscrib e professiona l division s amon g th e various theological discipline s but use s their method s a s tools for investigating women's theological questions. I t does not envisio n theology as a doctrinal system but a s an active theological reflection on liberation struggles, as an emancipatory way of 'doing' theology. Hence feminist theological studie s seek dialogic, participatory, non-hierarchical processe s of doing researc h an d teachin g that cultivat e the gift s an d talent s of everyone. I n short , feminist studie s deman d no t jus t th e admittanc e o f wome n t o th e academ y an d th e recognition o f women's intellectua l contributions i n the pas t an d th e present . The y also require a reconceptualizatio n an d revisio n o f accepte d theoretica l assumption s an d frameworks tha t unti l ver y recentl y hav e bee n base d entirel y o n th e experience s an d studies o f 'educated' men . 5.12 A critical theolog y o f liberation calls for a paradigm shif t i n theological and ecclesia l self understanding. I t insist s tha t th e androcentric-clerica l theolog y produce d i n Wester n universities an d seminarie s no longer ca n claim to b e a Catholic Christia n theolog y i f it does no t see k to becom e a theology inclusiv e of the experience s o f al l members o f th e church, women an d men , lay and clergy . Dominant theolog y canno t eve n claim to be a Christian theology proclaiming the 'goo d news ' o f salvation i f it does not tak e seriously its call to b e a theology subversive of every form o f sexist-racist-capitalist patriarchy. 5.13 As a critical theology of liberation feminis t theolog y conceives of feminism no t jus t as a theoretical worldview and analysis but as a women's liberation movement fo r societal and ecclesial change. Patriarchy in this view is not jus t a 'dualistic ideology ' o r androcentri c world-construction i n language, not just the domination o f all men over all women, but a sociocultural politica l syste m o f grade d subjugation s and dominations . Sexism , racism, and militaristic colonialism are the roots and pillars of patriarchy. Sinc e the silence and invisibility o f Catholi c wome n ar e generate d b y patriarcha l law s an d structure s o f th e church an d maintaine d b y androcentric, i.e. , male-defined , theology, a critical feminis t liberation theolog y seeks to investigat e in wha t way s androcentric language , theoretica l frameworks, an d theologica l scholarship sustain and perpetuat e patriarchal structures i n society an d church . 5.14 The ter m 'patriarchy ' i s ofte n use d interchangeabl y with 'sexism ' an d 'androcentrism. ' However, thes e feminis t analytica l categorie s mus t b e distinguished . Androcentris m o r androcentric dualis m i s t o b e understoo d a s a world-constructio n i n language . I t indicates a framework , mindset , o r ideolog y tha t legitimate s patriarchy . Patriarch y i n

94

METHODOLOGY

turn i s a societa l syste m o f dominatio n an d exploitatio n tha t i s structure d b y heterosexism, racism , nationalism, an d classism .

5.15 Patriarchal sexism is enforced by female 'sexua l slavery' that cut s across all lines of race, class, an d culture . Wherea s patriarcha l racis m define s certai n peopl e a s subhuma n i n order t o exploi t thei r labor , patriarcha l sexis m seek s t o contro l women' s procreativ e powers an d labor . Violenc e against wome n an d childre n i s increasin g a t a tim e when women clai m the ful l huma n right s and dignit y accorded t o mal e citizens. The political Right's attac k o n feminism , it s battl e fo r th e recriminalizatio n o f wome n an d thei r doctors, an d it s rhetori c fo r th e 'protectio n o f th e Christia n family ' see k t o reinforc e women's economi c dependency ; t o strengthe n th e patriarcha l control s o f women' s procreative powers , an d t o maintai n th e patriarcha l famil y a s th e mainsta y o f th e patriarchal state . Sexua l violence agains t women an d childre n i n an d outsid e th e hom e sustains the patriarcha l orde r o f male dominance : Anonymous verbal and bodily assault: rape - rap e in general, racia l rape, marital rape , wartime rape , gan g rape, chil d rap e - wif e an d women battering ; abortio n an d birth control laws ; involuntar y sterilizations ; unnecessar y hysterectomies ; clitoridectomie s and genita l mutilations ; prostitutio n an d femal e slavery ; sexua l harassmen t i n employment; aggressiv e pornography. [Rut h Bleier's Science an d Gender]

5.16 All thes e an d mor e ar e form s o f sanctione d violenc e agains t women . Wherea s sociobiologists vie w rap e a s a natural , biologica l tendenc y i n males , a s a biological imperative, feminis t studie s hav e documented tha t rap e an d othe r form s o f institutionalized violence agains t women ar e a social imperative necessary to uphol d patriarch y by force. 5.17 The struggle against the violence and dehumanization of societal and religious patriarchy in Western societie s i s at the hear t o f all liberation struggle s against racism, colonialism , militarism, an d poverty . Feminis t theolog y doe s no t jus t reflec t o n thes e struggles ; it is also shaped by them and i n turn inspire s them. Androcentric legitimations of patriarchal domination and victimization become more pronounced an d forceful wheneve r claims to equality and self-determinatio n gai n public recognition an d broad acceptance . Feminist thought i s labelled extremist , subversive , irrational, o r abnorma l because i t seeks to pu t forward a n alternativ e t o patriarch y a s the basis of Euro-American societ y o r church . It demystifies an d reject s cultura l o r religiou s value s o f mal e dominatio n an d subordin ation, which are the very standard o f reasonableness, veracity , and knowledge .

95

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

EXTRACT 6 CUPITT Post-Realist Ethics 6.1 'Solar ethics' will be an attempt t o mak e a fresh star t i n moral philosophy; an d i t should not b e difficul t t o establis h th e clai m tha t a fresh star t i s needed .

6.2 For consider: modern societ y is repeatedly swept by waves of moral anxiety - abou t crime and socia l disorder , abou t 'standards ' i n th e medi a an d i n publi c life , abou t perceive d decline of moral institution s such as marriage and family , about the intractable and ofte n violent moral disagreements that nowadays surround almos t al l matters of life and death , about ou r treatmen t o f animals o r th e environment , an d s o on an d on . When a moral panic i s at it s height ther e i s much handwringin g an d muc h nostalgi a fo r a supposedl y simpler pas t whe n th e rule s wer e cleare r an d fol k fo r th e mos t par t abided b y them . People seize gratefully upo n the suggestion that all would be well with us if we would bu t return t o Tradition . The y may forge t tha t th e value of Tradition ca n easily be tested b y looking a t the many small communities of people in our cities who haven't yet lost touc h with it. These communities mostl y come from th e Middle East and fro m Asia . They cling determinedly to their ancestral languages, their social structure, their customs, beliefs and values. But many or mos t o f them lac k the technica l an d socia l skill s that woul d enabl e them t o pla y a full par t i n modern life , s o that they are caught in a sad circle. They cling to Traditio n an d it s values , becaus e i t alon e ca n consol e the m fo r th e povert y an d exclusion - tha t thei r clingin g t o i t i s also , sadly , causin g them . I f w e ar e thinkin g seriously of going back to Tradition , w e should loo k a t the ghetto s an d coun t th e cost . 6.3 Tradition is now way beyond an y possibility of revival or recovery; but (yo u may suggest) there is one obvious alternative to it. Moral philosophy, founde d by Socrates, is arguably the oldest and grandest 'academic ' subject (it s only serious riva l being cosmology , which much concerne d th e philosopher s wh o precede d Socrates) . Th e literatur e o f mora l philosophy an d ethics is huge, and to this day hundreds - mayb e thousands - o f people are employe d i n teachin g it . Ye t thi s grea t traditio n remain s curiousl y di m an d ineffectual, unconsulte d b y journalists and unknow n t o the public. It is felt t o be boring: it makes little or no impact . Onl y a handful o f writers from th e great tradition ar e still of any rea l interes t t o us , and onl y no w an d agai n doe s a modern write r suc h a s Alasdair Maclntyre write about the m i n a way that briefl y succeed s in attracting public attention . 6.4 Why has moral philosophy faile d - or , why is it failing? Why aren't people interested i n it? Because, we will reply, it has been too protective of the received moral order, and in its own curiou s wa y almos t a s traditionalis t a s Traditio n itself . I t ha s sough t t o justify morality, clingin g t o mora l realis m o r objectivis m lon g afte r tha t belie f ha d becom e manifestly untenable . Mora l philosopher s hav e bee n th e dogmati c theologian s o f morality, endlessl y tryin g t o postpon e a long-overdu e revolutio n withi n thei r ow n

96

METHODOLOGY

subject. Too often, i n ethics as in theology, the tradition is studied and commented upo n not because it is interesting but merel y because it is there, as the syllabus is studied merely because i t i s th e syllabus . Amazingly , moral philosoph y wa s th e las t subjec t o f al l t o become truly critical, in the work of writers like Nietzsche and Foucault. That is very late; and it is arguable that much of English-language moral philosophy has still not absorbe d their legacy. 6.5 What went wrong ? At the beginnin g of this century, reacting against Idealism, Bertran d Russell an d G. E. Moore attempte d t o reviv e Realism - a realism o f sense-data and , in Moore's case, also a form o f moral realism: in moral experience one directly intuited th e presence of non-natural mora l qualities. Thi s bizarre doctrine someho w appeale d to th e popular feelin g that realis m i s 'commonsense' and occupie s the hig h ground ; and s o it has remained influentia l for generations. Peopl e felt tha t yo u had a moral dut y to tr y t o find arguments for moral objectivism or realism; and as for emotivism, it was regarded as the last refug e t o which you might find yourself being reluctantly driven, but i t was not a position that anyone in their right min d would embrac e gladly and i n good conscience. Even otherwis e robus t character s like Russel l and Aye r fel t the y must pu t o n a show of being rather apologetic about being unable to do much better than endorse some form of emotivism i n ethics . Sola r ethic s i s quite different . I t make s n o bone s abou t bein g (i n traditional terms) a form of emotivism o r expressivism. But in order t o escape from tha t wretched high-ground problem we shall be turning many things upside-down and insideout - an d not making any apology at all for doing so. Like theologians, philosophers have got to giv e up bein g lackeys of the establishe d order . 6.6 So, if you agre e that Traditio n ha s failed , an d tha t mora l philosoph y a s we have been doing it has been addressing itself to all the wrong questions; and if you further agre e that we need a moral philosoph y bette r fitted to our cosmology and our culture - the n you may be ready for solar ethics. The Sun sees no reason at all to apologize fo r making suc h an exhibition o f itself all the time; it simply is its own outpouring self-expression. It puts on a good show . I t ha s no 'inwardness' ; that is , it i s not inwardl y subject to somethin g unseen tha t i s authoritativ e ove r it . I t doe s no t experienc e th e mora l orde r a s bein g something distinct fro m itsel f and its own activity. It is not driven, either by anxiety or by resentment: it is purely and only affirmative. I t coincides completely with its own joyous, headlong proces s of self-exteriorization - an d what's wrong with that? A powerful mora l need nowaday s drive s peopl e t o see k just suc h a n ethi c o f self-declaration . They want publicity, they want t o demonstrate ; the y want t o com e ou t o f the close t an d int o th e open. I think they are right. The public realm is the only real world, and public-ization is real-ization, both for our value s and fo r our selves . Yes, why shouldn't we go on a moral spending-spree, burning u p no t merel y our mone y but ou r selves ? 6.7 The olde r tradition , th e grea t traditio n tha t prevaile d a t leas t fro m Augustin e t o Kierkegaard, use d t o see k mora l an d religiou s Trut h b y a fligh t t o th e interior . Th e movement wa s always inwards, from societ y to solitude, fro m expressio n to recollection , and from oute r appearanc e to inne r reality. Perhaps such a turn inwards made sense in a

97

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

period whe n people believed tha t anothe r worl d was more rea l than thi s world. Bu t not now: s o here we reverse the movement , settin g out instea d a solar ethi c of uninhibite d self-publication. I say flatly that ther e is no inne r space within the sel f through which we have access to another world mor e real than this one, an d indeed there simply isn' t any other world than this one, the common publi c world that is generated by our expression s and ou r symboli c exchanges. We do, w e must, come out to live. 6.8 Do you se e what i s emerging? Everythin g i s immanent, everything come s dow n t o on e level. There i s no transcenden t mora l order , ther e is no inne r world withi n the self , an d there is no othe r spher e o f action bu t thi s common worl d o f ours. Ther e i s nothing lef t for ethic s t o b e bu t tha t w e should lov e lif e an d pou r ou t ou r heart s - an d tha t i s emotivism, o r sola r ethics . A s the ma n says , 'Yo u ar e the ligh t o f the world ' (Matthew 5.14). Fo r solar ethics i s a version o f Christian ethics, if one may say so .. . 6.9 By solar ethics I mean an ethic or lifestyle o f all-out religiou s expression, th e best kind o f life tha t on e coul d hop e t o live.

6.10 I hav e describe d th e expressionis t visio n o f th e worl d elsewhere . I t i s a ver y thoroughgoing for m o f naturalism . Th e worl d i s see n a s a continuousl y outpouring , self-renewing strea m o f dancin g energies-read-as-signs , i n whic h ou r lif e i s wholl y immersed. Metaphorically, i t is a broadcast world, like a firework display. Everything is so evenly transient a s to creat e an effec t almos t o f stillness, a very strongly aesthetic effect . Hence the image s of the fountain , the Sun , and th e slow-motio n explosion . 6.11 Against such a background, we can see why people's most deeply-felt ethical desire today is fo r pur e expressiv e freedom . The y see k a styl e o f livin g tha t completel y escape s o r disregards, or goes beyond, the traditional binar y contrasts i n terms of which our culture and ou r world-view have been constructe d i n the past ... 6.12 We liv e at a time whe n ou r outloo k i s becoming completel y immanen t o r naturalistic . Everybody is beginning t o suspec t th e truth, whic h is that th e suppose d 'inne r space' of subjectivity was only ever a cultural construct, a manner o f speaking. There i s no more real privat e worl d insid e us . There i s no objectiv e moral order . Ther e i s no more-Rea l world above , an d no objective orde r of Reason. Outsidelessly, ther e is only the solar flux of creatio n an d destruction , th e outpourin g self-renewin g strea m o f dancin g an d scattering energies-read-as-signs. And i n thi s context, sola r ethics i s a religious ethic fo r the world an d fo r life a s we now know it to be. If you wish to live not b y Tradition bu t simply i n th e truth , sola r ethics is for you. 6.13 Solar living replaces traditional idea s of Transcendence an d self-transcendence , and I am also suggestin g tha t i t doe s mor e tha n that . I t consummate s them . Beyon d th e 98

METHODOLOGY

distinctions ther e i s a furiou s sola r jo y that fulfil s olde r idea s o f Transcendence; an d i n purely expressive living , by sola r self-outing , there i s a new for m o f self-transcendence. So, burnl ...

6.14 Solar living, then, starts after th e end o f metaphysics and afte r th e Deat h of God, and i t is therefore relativel y unconcerne d abou t th e theism/atheis m issue . On e need no t thin k in such ways . And similarly , thos e wh o hav e learnt ho w t o fin d eterna l happines s i n th e purely contingent an d outsideles s flux of life ar e delivere d fro m th e fea r o f death. I t n o longer seem s i n the leas t unnatura l o r disgusting . 6.15 Happily, peopl e ar e already changing. In th e Anglica n poet Joh n Betjema n on e see s the old realistic type of religious belief decaying, and producing a phobia abou t th e flesh and death. Maggot s chew eyeballs, mouths ar e filled with clay , and finger bones stic k out o f finger-ends. Suc h i s the patholog y o f the 'ol d moth-eate n brocade' , the typ e of religion that i s now passin g away. 6.16 A more recent and healthier response to death is illustrated by a very-frequently recurrent dream o f 1993 . ' I a m i n a slender an d heavily-insulate d spacecraft, travellin g across th e orbits of Venus and Mercury , and then , plunging straight down int o th e Sun . I am lying down becaus e of the gravit y problem, bu t I can se e out a little. The whit e fur y outsid e grows stronger. Soo n it will break in - an d I will welcome it. I feel grea t jubilation at the thought o f 'being utterly consumed, ver y soon.' 6.17 Why the jubilation; and is this a traditionally religious dream? Perhaps it is, for one of the strongest impulse s in religio n is the desir e to becom e securel y lodged i n or unite d with the cosmic Centre. This Centre is always seen as the sourc e of all 'light', or intelligibility. It i s an intens e concentratio n o f energy and i t i s the give r of al l life. S o in th e Bible , i n ancient Egyp t and i n Greece there ar e very strong traditions o f solar symbolism , an d i n both th e Ol d and th e Ne w Testaments Go d is pictured a s a consuming fire. 6.18 Admittedly, the Su n is only a creature. An encounter with God would be infinitely mor e terrible tha n droppin g int o a mer e twenty-million-degre e furnace . Bu t i n term s o f th e history o f religiou s symbolis m deat h b y plunging into th e Su n doe s see m t o b e a clear metaphor fo r unio n wit h God . Th e mystic s have indeed spoke n o f being consumed b y fire and of'dissolving in God' (a Russian phrase). And the metaphor is made all the mor e attractive by the fac t tha t th e Sun' s dail y course across the sk y from sunris e to sunse t is everywhere seen also a s a metaphor fo r human lif e ... 6.19 A traditio n goin g bac k throug h Kan t t o S t Pau l represent s old-styl e mora l realis m a s picturing the univers e as a school, the Moral Law as the school rules , and huma n beings as scruffy schoolboys . But this metaphor i s somewhat tendentious, fo r it reminds us that 99

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

eventually w e will leave school , an d s o implie s tha t mora l realis m i s only a temporar y arrangement. I t woul d b e faire r t o se e moral realis m a s claiming that huma n socia l lif e will always need a fixed moral framework to giv e it stability and dignity . Without suc h a framework, societ y in th e en d break s down .

6.20 Our ethica l emotivism-expressivis m i s rathe r different . W e say : moral realis m jus t ha s died. Sorr y about that ; but i t simply has happened. The entire vocabulary of the rationa l soul, conscience , th e will , th e mora l la w and s o o n i s dead. Th e word s ar e fallin g int o disuse. I t now appears that we humans are animals, social animals who must co-operate , but wh o find ourselve s to b e bundles o f discordant impulses . To get ourselves together, and t o procur e enoug h co-operatio n fo r survival , w e mus t g o ou t int o symboli c expression. S o w e mus t togethe r generat e th e Symboli c Order , th e so-calle d 'Idea l Culture' o f language , religion , moralit y an d art . Th e communally-generate d Symboli c Order supplie s each an d al l of u s wit h form s o f expressio n throug h whic h w e ca n ge t ourselves togethe r individuall y an d socially , an d conjur e u p ou r variou s vision s o f redemption. I n ar t an d religio n w e expres s ou r longin g fo r satisfaction , wholeness , holiness, idea l beauty . Bu t i n thes e 'post-realist ' time s ou r expressio n ha s t o b e solar — which, b e i t understood , her e mean s 'full y disintereste d an d objective' . On e mus t b e content to have produced a n art-image, or a religious image, of a holiness and integratio n that will never become a finalized achievement. Solarity is a queer kind of post-sainthood , achieved onl y i n passing, only in loss .

EXTRACT 7 PORTER Virtue ethics 7.1 There i s a .. . seriou s difficult y i n Aquinas ' treatmen t o f justice seen i n relatio n t o th e other virtues ... In developing his distinction between the virtues of the passions, that is, temperance and fortitude, an d justice considered as a virtue of the will, Aquinas treats the former a s being primaril y self-regarding, wherea s justice is seen a s being wholl y other regarding. This division makes sense in terms of his account of the passions and the will, and understoo d i n thos e term s i t i s cogent. Bu t i t create s difficultie s fo r hi m whe n h e attempts t o deal with those virtues (and vices) which are clearly other-regarding, and yet also hav e a stron g passiona l component , suc h a s mercy and mildnes s (whic h h e treat s together; see II-II 157 , especially II-II 157.1,3) , ange r (II-I I 158 , especially II-II 158.1,2) , or patienc e (II-I I 136) . 7.2 This difficulty is particularly apparent when Aquinas considers the virtues of self-restrain t and appropriatenes s in sexual matters, together with the associated vices (II-II 151-154) . He treats the virtue of chastity as if it were primarily a capacity to moderat e one's desire and enjoymen t o f physica l pleasure , rathe r tha n seein g i t a s a capacity for appropriat e feeling an d actio n with respect to othe r people (II-II I 151 ; especially see II-II 151.3) . As a 100

METHODOLOGY

result, th e centrall y importan t persona l dimension s o f sexua l desir e an d pleasure , th e complex ways in which sexuality mediates relation s between persons , ar e almost entirel y hidden fro m hi s view. Thi s help s t o explai n hi s notoriou s rankin g o f th e sin s o f lust , according to which homosexual intercours e i s a graver sin than adultery or rape (at least, considered qu a sins of lust; II-I I 154.12) . 7.3 The margina l positio n o f other-regardin g virtue s suc h a s kindnes s withi n Aquinas ' analysis i s partiall y a reflectio n o f th e stricture s o f hi s fault y psychology . H e find s i t difficult t o kno w ho w t o interpre t o r classif y virtue s such a s mercy or mildness , which appear to straddl e a double line , between will and passions , an d between what concern s another, an d wha t concerns oneself . 7.4 It i s also the cas e that, fo r Aquinas, the warmer , less determinate capacitie s for care an d responsiveness do not hav e a central role to play either in the agent's pursui t of her own aims, or in her life in society. Rather, what is central, on Aquinas' view , is the formatio n of her fundamental capacitie s for desire and aversion, in such a way that her passions and her wil l ar e i n accordanc e wit h he r overal l conceptio n o f th e huma n good . I t i s no t essential t o thi s proces s tha t th e perso n attai n som e capacitie s fo r empath y an d fel t concern fo r others, althoug h i t woul d obviousl y be a good thin g i f she did. Considere d from th e standpoin t o f someon e wh o pursue s he r ow n individua l aims , th e virtuou s individual must attain some degree of self-restraint and courage, but a capacity to care for others is not essential to this process. Similarly, considered a s a person in community, the individual mus t orien t hersel f i n suc h a wa y as to desire , an d consistentl y t o seek , th e common good ; moreover, sh e must be committed t o respecting the general or particular claims of others. Here again, however, it is not necessar y that she feel particularl y kind o r merciful o r lovin g o r benevolent . I t i s enough tha t sh e consistentl y choose the correc t other-regarding cours e o f action . 7.5 However, th e affectiv e other-regardin g capacitie s fo r empathy , care , an d concer n fo r others cannot be separated s o neatly either from the virtues of self-restraint and courage, or fro m a commitment t o justic e ... some degre e o f empathy fo r others i s a necessary condition fo r understandin g th e basi c mora l notions . Moreover , a s Mea d argues , th e emergence o f th e individua l a s a huma n person , possesse d o f distinctiv e capacitie s for rational actio n an d speech , presuppose s som e capacitie s fo r internalizin g the behavio r and the reactions of other people. Someon e who is incapable of even this minimal degree of empath y fo r other s (a s a seriousl y handicappe d chil d migh t be ) woul d als o b e incapable o f functioning a s a rational agen t a t all . 7.6 It doe s no t follo w tha t a n individua l mus t acquir e a genuin e concer n for , and fellow feeling with, others in order to be capable of action. Unfortunately, we are all too familia r with Functioning , rational individual s who are insensitive, boorish, rude , callous, or just plain mean . Furthermore , ther e d o see m t o b e persons , fortunatel y not ver y man y of them, who combine a considerable abilit y to predict others ' behavio r an d reactions , and 101

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

to control them based on those predictions, with a near-total lack of concern for others as human beings. The so-called psychopath, who combines a capacity for manipulation with murderous indifferenc e t o huma n life , ma y represen t a n extrem e cas e o f thi s phenomenon. 7.7 None th e less , even th e boor , th e bastard , o r th e psychopat h need s som e capacitie s for empathy fo r other s t o functio n a s a human perso n a t all . Jus t a s the individua l who i s altogether deprived o f the capacitie s for self-restrain t and courag e crosses th e lin e fro m vice (o r addiction ) t o outrigh t insanity , s o th e perso n wh o ha s n o capacitie s at al l for fellow-feeling wil l be incapable of any but th e mos t rudimentar y kinds o f actions. Thus, while it is not necessar y to posses s the virtues of concern for others, sympathy , kindness, and th e lik e in orde r t o functio n as an agent , none th e less , this famil y o f virtues draw s upon, an d perfects , qualitie s whic h ar e essentia l t o th e functionin g of th e agent , qu a agent. It would be reasonable to assum e that these sorts of virtues are desirable, are, in a broad sense , beneficial, t o th e agen t herself , a s well as to thos e aroun d her . 7.8 Does ou r experienc e bear ou t thi s assumption ? That is , do w e find that th e callou s o r cruel o r indifferen t individua l i s in som e wa y worse of f than th e perso n wh o i s caring about others? The answer to this question i s complex, becaus e the virtues of care, like all other virtues , involv e intellectua l a s wel l a s affectiv e components . Tha t is , th e carin g individual describe s th e worl d differently , an d desire s differen t things , tha n doe s th e callous individual. Someone who is really indifferent t o the well-being of others may well be perfectly content with her life. She will probably not notic e the suffering o f others, and, if she does, i t will not caus e her muc h distress. S o long as her lif e i s filled with he r ow n interests an d pursuits , sh e may not fee l th e lac k of genuine human connections . Lik e a cat, self-sufficient an d complete , sh e lives her own life , neve r deliberately injuring others , but neve r seekin g dee p involvemen t i n th e live s o f others , either . I f sh e i s missin g something, which many of us feel t o be profoundly important, sh e does not fee l th e lack or suffe r o n it s account. W e may not lik e such a person, bu t ca n we honestly pit y her? 7.9 At thi s point , th e compassionat e individua l may be driven back to a version o f the ol d rhetorical question: i s it better to be Socrates unsatisfied, or a pig satisfied? I s it better t o be a caring person, engage d i n th e joy s and sorrow s o f others, eve n i f that engagemen t brings some sorrow along with it, or i s it better to be self-satisfied, callous , and content? The forc e o f this sort o f appeal is not likel y to b e felt b y those who reall y are thoroughly callous and content , who cannot conceiv e of what they are missing and therefor e d o no t regret their lack. Rather, this sort of rhetorical appeal depends for its force on the fact that most peopl e are not quit e pigs; most people do retain some desire for a dignified huma n life, whic h include s som e opennes s t o learnin g an d aestheti c experienc e fo r thei r ow n sakes, and, similarly, most people do care, at least a little, about some other persons, and want t o b e open t o th e presenc e of others i n their lives . If someone reall y does no t car e about thes e sorts of goods at all, there is no way to prove to her that sh e is wrong, but i t does seem to be the case that mos t o f us would find such a person repugnan t or pitiable , and would do what we could to avoid becoming like her. The completely callous person, 102

METHODOLOGY

in particular , woul d see m t o b e deprive d o f an y capacit y t o for m bond s o f intimat e closeness with other persons. And, since intimacy with others seems to be a basic human need, which almost all persons experience to some degree, this fact alone would suffic e t o give most person s som e repugnanc e for callousnes s and relate d vices.

7.10 If it is the case that the virtues of care for others are internally connected i n some ways to the goo d o f th e agen t herself , a s well as being o f benefit t o others , the n w e would no t expect t o fin d man y people wh o ar e reall y indifferent t o others ' feeling s an d needs . Yet surely, i t will be said, tha t i s not th e case ; there are more callou s and unfeelin g person s than the other kind. Perhaps this is true. Certainly, there are many uncaring people in the world, and even the best of us are subject to fal l into callousness or unkindness from tim e to time. The question that mus t b e asked, however , i s why this shoul d be the case . I t is impossible to answer this question with any certainty, but it seems at least likely that most persons ar e no t jus t indifferen t t o othe r persons , withou t qualificatio n o r remainder . When w e encounter someon e wh o genuinel y has no feelin g fo r others, w e tend t o loo k back int o he r childhood , o r int o he r histor y a s a n adult , o r he r circumstance s i n th e present, in search of some trauma, some history of dehumanization inflicted by others, by which we can account fo r thi s deformity. 7.11 More often, callousnes s (lik e other similar vices) i s grounded i n a failure o f the intellect , rather tha n i n a complet e lac k o f feeling s fo r others . I n othe r words , th e failin g i n question i s likely to b e a failin g o f th e min d an d imagination , rathe r tha n a defec t i n sensibility; once again, we find that we cannot fully account for a class of virtues except in terms o f their interconnection s wit h prudence . It i s all too possibl e fo r someon e t o b e kindly and thoughtful in her relations with her family, friends , an d colleagues, and yet to be unaware, and therefore unfeeling, about the lives of persons who do not come into her direct experience. This unawareness may well extend beyond an indifference t o those who are suffering far , far away, to include persons whom she sees every day, but does not think of as each having his o r he r ow n inne r world o f feeling s an d concerns . I t i s part o f th e pathos o f the huma n conditio n tha t non e o f us could functio n withou t som e degre e of this unawareness , to insulat e u s fro m th e enormou s pai n an d nee d tha t i s a part o f the human condition . I t i s difficul t t o preserv e this psychi c skin withou t fallin g int o som e degree of blameworthy callousness sometimes, s o difficult tha t probably only the greatest saints manag e to d o s o while still retaining their sanit y and integrity . 7.12 If i t i s true tha t th e virtue s of caring are internall y connected t o th e goo d o f the agen t herself, on e consequenc e i s tha t w e canno t dra w a shar p distinctio n betwee n self regarding and other-regardin g virtues. This distinction ha s some merit, in that there are some virtues that do seem to have the agent's own immediate needs and situation as their primary reference, whereas others are intrinsically directed to the good of others. But this distinction shoul d no t be interpreted a s an absolute line among different sort s of virtues. Even th e mos t basi c virtues, without whic h no on e coul d functio n a t all , are practically inseparable fro m other-regardin g concerns , particularl y a t th e stag e o f thei r firs t inculcation ("Don' t b e greedy ! Shar e wit h you r sister. " "Wha t d o yo u mean , you'r e 103

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

scared? Do you want to let down the team?") Similarly, the other-regarding virtues have a self-regarding dimension . I t i s perfectly reasonabl e to attemp t t o b e more giving , mor e attentive to others , mor e open , becaus e one want s to b e a caring person, an d want s t o avoid becomin g calloused.

7.13 Someone who i s concerned t o be a person of this sort ma y well build thi s self-regardin g concern int o he r action s an d allo w i t t o mov e he r i n a directio n tha t sh e migh t no t otherwise take. For example, a woman migh t have serious misgivings about th e value of giving money to panhandlers , o n th e grounds , perhaps, that sh e is thereby participating in their own self-destructive actions. Yet she may still reasonably choose to give to them, because sh e judges that otherwis e she risks becoming a callous person, an d tha t dange r seems to her to be more immediat e and serious - fo r her, anywa y - tha n th e possible danger that sh e is enabling someone else' s addictions an d vices by supporting them. This sort o f judgemen t i s no t withou t it s ow n problems , an d on e coul d easil y imagin e someone els e comin g t o a n opposit e decisio n o f policy , withou t thereb y becomin g callous. But, whatever may be said about this woman's choice, surely it would be unfair t o charge he r wit h simpl e indifferenc e t o th e need s o f others , o r t o a narcissisti c preoccupation with herself. It is true that she is concerned abou t herself , in that she does not wan t he r hear t t o becom e hardene d b y th e experienc e o f continually ignorin g th e needs of others, bu t tha t i s not quit e like a desire t o b e rich o r beautiful , o r eve n to b e noble o r good i n the abstract. Someone who really does not wan t to be calloused wants , in part, to be the sort of person who cares for other persons , and, if this desire cannot b e separated neatly from ou r desires to behave and to respond i n certain ways to others, this is surely because our concept s o f self an d other s ar e inextricabl y bound together . CRITIQUEE An internal comparison o f the Extracts will generate a number of important criticism s e.g. b y comparing Copleston' s and Fletcher' s theories o f exceptions (th e last sentenc e in 2.2 i s clearly an oversimplification) . In addition , a numbe r o f specifi c criticism s can b e isolated: Bonhoeffer's Extrac t must fac e crucia l questions: (1 ) I f we have no prio r knowledge of God or of morality, how do we accept the truth of Christianity in the first place? (2) Does Bonhoeffer altogethe r avoi d genera l ethica l categories ? At variou s point s i n hi s lif e h e appeared to hold deontological views on such issues as pacifism an d abortion. Further he shared thes e view s wit h som e non-Christian s over-and-agains t othe r Christian s (see, particularly, Ethics, ch . 3) . (3 ) I n thei r stan d agains t Hitler , doe s h e sometime s allo w secular moralists some relative value? A parallel point will arise in relation to Augustine's Text I V and al l these questions mus t be addresse d i n relatio n t o Earth' s Extract 8. Most exponents of Christian ethics might agree that agape is a central concept, but few might agre e wit h Fletche r tha t i t i s a sufficien t concep t (see below, pp . 431-2) . Empirically, i t ca n be aske d whether man y o f u s are sufficientl y fre e o r stron g t o mak e continuous mora l decisions , withou t knowing , i n advance , an y o f th e requirement s o f agape. A similar criticis m ca n be mad e of Cupitt's 'sola r ethics' . And, at th e theoretica l level, it would seem that Fletcher himself does, at times, assume criteria other than agape in hi s example s o f moral decision-making . Fo r example, i n 2.2 4 he suggests the groun d that 'n o unwante d an d unintende d bab y shoul d eve r b e born' : but , clearly , man y 104

METHODOLOGY

'unwanted an d unintended ' babie s ar e stil l loved , s o som e othe r facto r seem s t o b e contributing t o thi s ground . And , in 2.25 , the forc e o f his argument depend s upo n th e prior belie f tha t 'murder ' i s wrong an d tha t 'insanity ' relieve s the individua l o f mora l responsibility. Copleston's Extract does not answe r some of the most seriou s problems already raised in relation t o Aquinas' Text II. So, even allowing for human error, custom o r sin, he does not specify the positive evidence needed to suggest that there are moral precepts common to al l human beings . Whil e evidenc e o f empirica l difference s o n mora l issue s betwee n people ma y no t actuall y disprov e Aquinas ' theory , unles s ther e i s als o som e positiv e evidence in its favour i t must undermine ou r confidenc e in it. Even Porter is quite vague, at times , i n her claims about 'whe n we encounter someon e ... ' (7.10) . It has already been observe d that , despite their stron g deontological claims , John Paul II, Fiorenza , Porte r an d eve n perhap s Cupitt , mayb e unwittingly , provid e strikin g examples of the pluralism of present-day theology. There are hints i n Fiorenza that there are division s withi n feminis t theolog y itsel f (5.6-7 ) an d th e polemica l ton e o f part s o f Veritatis Splendor indicate s tha t ther e ar e eviden t division s withi n present-da y Catholi c theology (4.10-11 an d 15-18) . However, the characteristi c mode of these theologians in dealing with suc h division s tend s t o b e simpl y that o f assertion . In contrast , Catholi c mora l theologian s suc h as Joh n Mahone y argu e for a muc h franker admissio n of diversity within Catholicism. He maintains that 'there cannot be any doubt .. . that th e Roma n Catholi c Church' s teachin g ove r th e centurie s an d i n recen t decades has changed markedly in many respects - a s in the field of biblical studies; in the possibility of salvation for unbelievers outside the Catholic Church; in ecumenism; in the matter an d for m o f th e Sacramen t o f Orders ; i n recognizin g th e mora l possibilit y i n marriage of birth-control throug h periodi c abstinenc e fro m intercourse ' ( The Making of Moral Theology, 1987 , pp. 325-6) .

105

This page intentionally left blank

SECTION 2

Politics, Economics and Justice

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction t o Politics , Economics and Justic e

Within recen t Christia n ethic s th e cluste r o f issue s surrounding th e overal l theme s o f politics, economics and justice have proved particularl y important. Th e rise of liberation and political theology, especially, have made apparent some o f the difference s withi n the discipline, just as the inter-war political crisis revealed crucial theological differences fo r a previous generation . Th e proble m o f th e relationshi p o f Christianit y t o th e politica l order, an d t o th e issue s o f socia l an d economi c justice , i s no t simpl y o f theoretica l interest, bu t o f considerable practica l importance . A t the individua l level , the Christia n attempts t o arriv e a t a n understandin g o f th e implication s o f her/hi s fait h fo r involvement i n political realities. At the corporate level, ecclesiastical institutions attemp t to decid e ho w fa r the y ar e t o b e involve d i n specificall y politica l institution s an d i n detailed politica l decision-making . Th e focu s o f thi s Sectio n wil l sometime s b e o n th e individual level and sometime s o n th e corporate one . I n some o f the Texts and Extracts attention i s given to overal l political structures, whereas in others i t is the specifi c issue s of economi c o r socia l justic e tha t ar e o f primar y concern . However , i t shoul d b e emphasized at the outset that eac h of the Texts or Extract s must be set in its own sociopolitical contex t befor e i t i s (anachronistically ) relate d t o other s withi n th e Section . I t must not be assumed to o readil y that the various authors all attach the same meaning to their socia l or politica l terms . One way of demonstrating th e variety of positions i n Christian ethics in this area is to compare possibl e answer s to th e followin g questions: (1) Ca n specific political structures, ideals or programmes be derived unambiguously from th e gospel? (2) Ho w fa r ca n th e Churc h b e identifie d wit h specifi c politica l regimes , ideals o r programmes? (3) Shoul d th e individua l Christia n b e totally obedien t t o specifi c politica l regimes, ideals o r programmes? If a positiv e respons e i s give n t o (1) , th e tw o othe r question s ma y appea r relativel y unproblematic: th e Churc h ca n identif y full y wit h suc h politica l regimes , ideal s o r programmes and, likewise , th e individua l Christian clearl y should b e obedient t o them . But, of course, even for those who would accept (1), most might acknowledge that actual politicians o r politica l regime s seldom adopt unsullie d Christia n ideal s o r programmes . Even i f they disagree with th e dichotom y tha t Niebuh r advanced i n Extrac t 10 , between individual Christia n ethic s an d politica l mora l practice , the y migh t stil l agre e tha t Christian ethics makes demands upon politicians and political regimes that are frequently ignored. If , however , a negativ e respons e i s give n t o (1) , eithe r becaus e th e gospe l i s 109

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

thought t o b e to o ambiguou s o n man y politica l issues , o r becaus e i t i s thought t o b e uninterested i n them , an y clos e identificatio n o f th e Churc h wit h specifi c politica l regimes, ideals or programmes would seem to be precluded. Fo r many, total obedience of the individual Christian to specifi c politica l regimes, ideals or programmes would also be thereby precluded. Bu t to some, as will be seen, it would still be required, on the grounds that politica l regime s ar e alway s divinel y appointed , eve n whe n the y conflict wit h Christian ideal s and principles . Within this broad framewor k i t is possible to locate the overall positions o f the authors of th e Text s an d Extract s in thi s Section . A very broad acceptanc e o f (1 ) i s evident i n Aquinas and Joh n XXIII. In very different ways , it is also evident in Miranda. A rejection of (1) , on th e ground s of the lack of interest of the gospe l in specific politica l matters , is evident a t times in Augustine and Berdyaev . And a n extreme wariness o f (1), combined with a rejectio n of (2) , but a n insistenc e o n (3) , is evident i n Luthe r and Earth . Thes e three clusters of possibilities must each be examined separately: like all such clusters, they may reveal similarities, but blu r rea l differences . Aquinas' us e o f natura l la w is very eviden t here : 'i t woul d see m bes t t o deduc e th e duties of a king from th e examples of government in nature' (V.I). He believed that fro m nature h e could both justif y an d understan d monarchical , hierarchica l government. But, as always, the Bibl e was thought to accor d with this justification an d understanding ; th e latter could be derived fro m direc t analogical argument from Genesi s 1.3. I f this positio n is accepted , i t migh t see m t o follo w tha t th e Churc h ca n b e identifie d wit h specifi c political regimes , ideal s and programmes , an d tha t th e individua l Christian does hav e a general duty to be obedient to them. Naturally, this position is further reinforce d by the peculiarities of the Church/State relationship in thirteenth-century Europe. It has already been note d (see above, p. 28 ) that thi s consisted o f boundaries o f power an d authority , rather than of opposing aims, values and social orders. Indeed , only in the Extracts is the concept o f the secula r Stat e assumed . Aquinas' derivatio n o f politica l monarch y fro m natura l la w and fro m biblica l base s compares interestingl y with Calvin' s justificatio n of democrac y (albei t i n th e change d context o f sixteenth-centur y middl e Europe) . Calvin' s Institutes declared emphaticall y that som e for m o f government wa s essential an d h e was sharply critical of any for m o f Christian anarchism : 'som e fanatic s wh o are pleased wit h nothing bu t liberty , o r rathe r licentiousness withou t an y restraint , d o indee d boas t an d vociferate , that sinc e w e are dead with Christ to the elements of this world and , being translated int o the kingdom of God, si t among the celestials , i t is a degradation t o u s and fa r beneath ou r dignit y to be occupied with those secular and pure cares which relate to things altogether uninterestin g to a Christian man' (Institutes III.2) . In contrast, he maintained that political government and the reign of Christ 'are in no respec t at variance with each other'. He even admitte d that, i f on e compare s differin g type s o f governmen t - monarchy , aristocrac y o r democracy - 'thei r advantages are so nearly equal that i t will not be easy to discover of which th e utilit y preponderates' . Nonetheless , onc e h e ha d analyse d the m i n term s of their dysfunctions , he did decid e for democracy : It is true that the transition i s easy from monarch y to despotism ; i t is not muc h mor e difficult fro m aristocrac y to oligarchy , or th e factio n o f a few; but i t is most eas y of all from democrac y t o sedition . Indeed , i f these thre e form s o f governmen t whic h ar e stated b y philosopher s b e considere d i n themselves , I shal l b y n o mean s den y tha t 110

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AN D JUSTIC E

either aristocrac y or a mixture o f aristocracy and democrac y fa r excels all others; an d that indee d no t o f itsel f bu t becaus e i t ver y rarel y happen s tha t king s regulat e themselves so that their will is never at variance with justice and rectitud e ... The vice or imperfectio n o f me n therefor e render s i t safe r an d mor e tolerabl e fo r th e government t o b e i n th e hand s o f many , tha t the y ma y affor d eac h othe r mutua l assistance and admonition , and tha t i f anyone arrogat e t o himsel f more than i s right, the many may act as censors and masters to restrain his ambition. This has always been proved by experience, and the Lord confirmed it by his authority when he established a government o f this kind amon g th e peopl e o f Israel, wit h a view to preserv e them i n the most desirable condition til l he exhibited i n David a type of Christ. (Institutes III.8) The difference s betwee n Calvi n an d Aquina s (separate d b y differin g culture s an d centuries) ar e instructive . O n fac e value , Aquinas migh t hav e agree d wit h th e openin g sentence o f thi s quotation , bu t fro m i t h e woul d hav e derive d th e convictio n tha t monarchy accords mos t closel y with natural law. He might als o have agreed with the last sentence: natura l experience accords with biblical revelation. However , the central sectio n of th e quotatio n clearl y differentiate s thei r positions . Calvin' s suppor t fo r democrac y appears here as a negative support: i t i s the least dysfunctional for m o f government an d offers th e greatest hope of checking sin. Nonetheless, from thi s position h e did then go on to insist that a properly functioning government doe s require the obedient suppor t o f the individual Christian . Variants o f Aquinas ' positio n ca n b e see n i n Joh n XXIII' s Extrac t 1 2 and Temple' s Extract 11 . Both are written from the modern perspectiv e of the secular State and, in this sense, diffe r radicall y from Aquinas . Yet, both also contai n a mixture o f natural law and biblically base d arguments ; bot h believ e tha t th e gospe l doe s impl y specifi c politica l structures, ideal s and programme s an d that , a s a result, the Churc h shoul d b e identifie d with them ; an d bot h believ e tha t thi s confront s th e individua l Christia n wit h specifi c duties. Pop e John's Pacem i n Terris is a detailed expositio n o f the right s and dutie s bot h of the individual and of the State on the major issue s threatening the peace of the world . Unlike Niebuhr , h e apparentl y see s n o difficult y i n movin g fro m th e individua l t o th e social leve l o n ethica l issues . Th e fascinatin g and importan t challeng e o f Joh n XXIII' s Extract is that i t enlarges categories usually used i n theological debate , i n order to justif y the righ t o f individual nation s t o surviva l and self-determinatio n an d i n orde r t o argue for th e necessit y of some for m o f world government . Temple' s canvas is smaller and les s directly dependen t o n Aquinas , seekin g t o distinguis h betwee n genera l politica l principles, whic h ca n an d ough t t o b e adopted , bot h b y th e Churc h an d b y th e individual Christian , and particular politica l policies, which will be more divisive and are more subjec t to specialis t judgement . The positions o f Luther and Earth, in relation to these central political questions, diffe r sharply from thos e alread y mentioned. Luther' s T o The Christian Nobility o f 152 0 was a passionate attac k on the medieval concep t o f the relationship betwee n Churc h an d Stat e and specificall y o n th e contro l o f the forme r ove r th e latter . I n advancin g hi s positiv e theory of the relative autonomy o f the political order (thoug h not, of course, the concept of the secular State), he frequently insisted tha t i t is the individual Christian wh o shoul d be obedien t t o th e Stat e an d no t th e Stat e tha t shoul d b e obedien t t o th e individua l Christian o r to the Church. In the next Sectio n i t will be seen that, fo r Luther, obedience to th e appointe d rule r wa s crucial , eve n i f th e latte r wa s a tyran t an d thoroughl y 111

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

unchristian (se e IX.llf). Luthe r was resigned to the belief that there would sometimes be a very considerable ga p between th e moral behaviou r of the Christia n an d tha t o f either the rule r o r o f th e majorit y o f peopl e i n societ y (se e VI.23f) . Hi s notio n o f th e Tw o Kingdoms - th e spiritual and the temporal Kingdom s of God - sometime s accentuate d this ga p stil l further . Nonetheless , th e obedienc e o f the individua l Christia n wa s always required - a s indeed i t seems to be in Earth's early writings. Here again there i s a crucial difference fro m Calvin . Th e latter' s overal l position wa s similar t o tha t o f Luthe r and Earth' s Extrac t 8 : governmen t i s essentia l t o society , i s appointed b y God, and should be obeyed by the individual. So, in his exegesis of Romans 13, Calvin argued: 'The reason why we ought to be subject to magistrates is because they are constituted by God's ordination. Fo r since it pleases God thus to govern the world, he who attempt s t o inver t th e orde r o f God , an d thu s t o resis t Go d himself , despises hi s power; since to despise the providence of him who is the founder of civil power is to carry on wa r wit h him ' (Commentary o n th e Epistle t o th e Romans 13.1) . Thi s differ s fro m Earth's analysis of the same passage only in its reference to sixteenth-century magistrates. But, crucially, Calvin believed that there were circumstances when authorities shoul d b e resisted, particularly when what they were doing was inimical to the gospel. For example, in commentin g o n Daniel' s civil disobedience, h e wrote : We must remember tha t passag e of Peter, 'Fear God, honour th e king' [ 1 Peter 2.17]. The tw o command s ar e connecte d together , an d canno t b e separate d fro m on e another. The fear of God ought to precede, that kings may obtain their authority. For if anyone begins hi s reverenc e of an earthl y prince by rejectin g that o f God, h e will act preposterously, since this is a complete perversion of the order of nature ... For earthly princes la y aside all their power when they rise up agains t God, an d ar e unworth y of being reckone d i n th e numbe r o f mankind. W e ought rathe r utterl y t o def y tha n t o obey them whenever they are so restive and wis h to spoi l Go d of his rights, and, a s it were, t o seiz e upo n hi s thron e an d dra w hi m dow n fro m heaven . (Commentary on Daniel, Lecture 30) In the Institutes the emphasis is somewhat different: privat e individuals must be obedient and suffe r unjus t rulers , but magistrate s hav e a positiv e dut y t o oppos e them . Indeed , there, Calvi n insiste d tha t i f magistrates 'conniv e a t king s i n thei r oppressio n o f their people, suc h forbearanc e involves th e mos t nefariou s perfidy becaus e they fraudulentl y betray th e libert y o f th e people , o f whic h the y kno w tha t the y hav e bee n appointe d protectors b y the ordinatio n o f God' (Institutes 111.31) . Ironically, despite this crucial difference betwee n Calvin and Luther , the latter was not particularly obedient, i n practice, to civil authorities. Luther spent a life of constant strif e with a numbe r o f civi l an d ecclesiastica l authorities : hi s civi l obedienc e wa s a t bes t selective. Interestingly , too, th e growt h of Nazism presented Eart h wit h both a personal and a theological crisis: the shar p contrasts o f Romans became more ambivalen t a s th e 1930s proceeded . Here , pa r excellence, th e influenc e o f socio-politica l realitie s upo n theological positions is evident. Many o f thes e issue s an d position s ca n b e foun d i n th e ver y varie d writing s o f Augustine. Mor e tha n mos t othe r theologian s Augustin e wa s forced , i n a n ag e o f immense transitio n i n th e socia l statu s o f Christianity , t o agoniz e over th e positio n o f Christianity i n relatio n t o politica l realities . Confronte d b y th e confusio n create d b y 112

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

Christianity, o n th e on e hand havin g been adopte d i n the previou s centur y as the Stat e religion and, o n the other, by it being attacked a s the cause of the State's present demise , Augustine's views were highly ambivalent. O n th e issue of war, he came to accept (albeit reluctantly) a defence of the State's position (see Text VII): on tha t of sexuality, his views usually diverge d sharpl y fro m th e dominan t etho s o f Roma n cultur e (see Section 5) . Within Th e City o f God, his understanding of the relationship between the two cities - th e earthly an d th e heavenl y - ofte n appear s strained . H e was always emphati c tha t th e heavenly city is by far and awa y the mos t important , but h e appears to oscillat e between regarding th e earthl y cit y a s a sourc e o f relativ e good an d seein g i t simpl y as a painfu l necessity. Neo-Platoni c and Manichaea n tendencie s were never entirel y eliminated fro m his writings. An emphati c stres s upo n th e primac y o f th e spiritua l an d th e consequen t relativ e unimportance o f the political, is also found (i n a somewhat differen t form ) i n Berdyaev's Extract 9 . Despit e livin g through momentou s politica l upheavals , firs t i n revolutionar y Russia and then in German-occupied Paris , his writings were often remarkabl y apolitical. Even whe n h e considere d explicitl y Marxis t theme s (whic h ha d bee n particularl y important t o hi m as a young man), this generall y remained th e case . Describing himself as a 'Christian theosophist' an d eve n as a gnostic, th e spiritua l always takes considerabl e precedence ove r th e tempora l and , i n thi s respect , h e appears eve n mor e Platoni c tha n Augustine. Quite apar t fro m difference s i n socio-politica l contex t (which , obviously , mus t b e given especial attention i n this Section), a number o f theological factor s appea r to affec t the response o f particular theologians to political issues . The relative balance given to th e spiritual and the temporal (o r however this is to be expressed i n less Hellenistic terms) is clearly crucial . Th e acceptanc e o r rejectio n o f som e notio n o f 'natura l law ' o r 'natura l order' is also crucial. The extent t o which political realities are seen as inherently sinful is also a factor. Biblica l exegesis is also very important an d ha s become considerabl y mor e complex i n th e ligh t o f recent critica l scholarship. Fo r man y i t ha s become increasingl y difficult t o deriv e detailed an d unambiguou s structures , ideal s o r programme s fro m th e New Testament . Late r Section s shoul d serv e t o reinforc e thi s point . However , i t i s perhaps in liberation theology , an d i n recent response s t o liberation theology , tha t thes e differences hav e becom e mos t crucial . A s an approac h t o theolog y i t i s unifie d i n it s attempt t o adop t a positio n alongsid e al l those deeme d t o b e oppressed , bu t i t i s less unified i n the actual methods o r policies that it adopts. In addition, i t is an approach that interestingly cut s acros s division s betwee n churches , a s Extrac t 1 9 from th e Methodis t Bonino i n th e nex t Section , an d Extrac t 1 3 from the Roma n Catholi c Mirand a i n thi s Section demonstrate . Hollenbach's Extrac t 1 4 suggests another , increasingl y popular , wa y fo r theologian s across differen t churche s t o fin d commo n caus e i n th e politica l domain . I n a n ag e of increasing globalization , th e notio n o f th e 'commo n good ' i s developed a s one wa y of achieving this .

113

TEXT I V AUGUSTINE The earthly and heavenly cities 1. BACKGROUND This Tex t come s fro m Th e City o f Go d XIX . 14-17 (Pelica n Classics , trans . Henr y Bettenson an d ed . David Knowles , Penguin, 1972, pp. 872-9) . Book XIX opens th e fifth and fina l sectio n o f Th e City o f Go d and wa s thus writte n i n th e perio d o f C E 420-6 (see above, p. 4) - wel l over 20 years after Tex t VII . At last Augustine could se t out wha t he saw a s th e destinie s o f th e earthl y an d heavenl y cities . Agains t 'pagan ' critic s o f Christianity, suc h a s Porphyry, Augustine insisted tha t hi s was not a narrow, parochia l religion whic h was incapable of making sens e of world history . T o th e culture d Roma n 'pagan', Christianity appeared to be just that: it lacked any serious historical an d cultural roots and , sinc e it s adoptio n a centur y befor e b y Constantine , ha d demonstrabl y contributed t o the demise of Rome. However, Augustine saw the concept o f the two cities as on e whic h coul d no t onl y mak e sens e o f history , bu t als o giv e clarit y t o th e extraordinarily difficul t relationshi p o f Churc h t o State . Fo r bot h persona l an d intellectual reasons , h e coul d neithe r totall y identif y Churc h wit h Stat e no r totall y separate them. Th e concept o f the tw o citie s was used t o clarif y thi s relationship , bu t i t was no t identica l wit h i t — it wa s much broade r an d mor e far-reaching : Although ther e ar e man y grea t people s throughou t th e world , livin g unde r differen t customs in religion and moralit y and distinguished b y a complex variety of languages, arms, and dress, it is still true that ther e have come into being only two main divisions , as we may call them, i n human society: and we are justified i n following the lead of our Scriptures and calling them tw o cities. There is, in fact, one city of men who choose t o live by the standard o f the flesh, another of those who choose to live by the standard of the spirit . The citizens of each of these desire their ow n kind o f peace, an d whe n they achieve their aim , tha t i s the kin d o f peac e in whic h the y live. (City o f Go d XIV. 1) Here, th e concep t o f th e 'cities ' (civitates) represent s no t particula r institution s o r locations but, rather, basic human divisions and differentiating loyalties . Whatever point s of contact undoubtedl y exis t between th e tw o cities, their ultimat e aim s and aspiration s are thoroughly distinct: the one concerned wit h the temporal an d even demonic an d the other wit h th e divine . 2. KEY ISSUES This passag e expresse s ver y clearl y the quit e differen t aspiration s an d aim s o f th e tw o cities. The end of the earthly city is earthly peace, consisting of concord between body and 114

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AN D JUSTIC E

soul an d a n ordere d lif e an d health , wherea s that o f th e heavenl y cit y i s eternal peac e (IV. 1). Insofar a s they have rational souls, mortal human s are in need of divine direction and assistance (IV.2). The latter is evident i n the two chief precepts, love of God and love of neighbour. Specifically , earthl y peace and ordere d harmon y involv e obeying th e rule s of no t harmin g anyon e an d helpin g everyon e wheneve r possibl e (IV.3) . Ordere d harmony at the domestic level , however, is not t o be confused with domination. Human dominion applie s t o a dominio n ove r th e natura l worl d an d no t ove r fello w humans : slavery, fo r example , result s mainl y fro m si n o r i s a punishmen t fo r si n (IV. 4 an d 5) . Domestic harmon y o r peac e - betwee n member s o f a famil y an d between maste r and slave - ough t to contribute t o the peace of the city (IV.7). Yet all these versions of peace, domestic or social, appear in the context o f faith as relative to heavenly peace. The person of fait h i s lik e a pilgri m i n a foreig n land : earthl y peac e ha s som e use , bu t i s stil l a temporary an d passin g phenomeno n (IV.8) . Indeed , ther e ar e polytheisti c an d paga n elements i n th e earthl y city that ar e antithetical t o th e heavenl y city, so that th e law s of religion, particularly, cannot b e the sam e in the two cities (IV.9). The heavenly city does not annu l earthl y laws , bu t follow s the m insofa r a s the y d o no t hinde r th e Christia n religion. The pilgrim of the heavenly city makes use of earthly peace and laws, but regard s heavenly peace as the onl y for m o f peace that reall y deserves the nam e o f peace (IV . 10). 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS Augustine's understandin g o f th e valu e o f earthl y peac e seem s t o oscillat e betwee n consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialis m i s particularly evident in IV.8. Here, Augustine maintains tha t th e heavenly city 'must needs make use of earthl y peace 'until this mortal state, for which this kind of peace is essential, passes away', not onl y because it provides for an ordered society , but als o because it provides fo r a 'harmony' between th e two cities . O n thi s understanding , earthl y peace is not accorde d an y merit i n itself , bu t only i n it s usefulnes s t o th e heavenl y city. Othe r paragraphs , however, see m t o impl y a more deontological or natural law understanding o f earthly peace - particularl y IV. 1 and 2 and explicitl y in the first sentence o f IV.4. And ther e doe s appea r t o b e a relationshi p between th e dominical command s o r precepts at the beginning of IV.3 and the two rules for socia l orde r give n i n th e middl e o f th e sam e paragraph . Se t against this , ther e i s a typical Augustinian emphasis upon sin in his understanding of slavery in IV.4 and 5 . This emphasis makes it difficult simpl y to interpret Augustine in terms of a natural law theory: the more wholly corrupt peopl e are thought t o be, the less one can identify thei r natural propensities o r ends . 4. BASES O F CHRISTIAN ETHICS The Bible is used here more frequentl y an d pivotall y than i n Text I , with two direct Ol d Testament quotations , thre e direc t Ne w Testamen t quotation s an d severa l indirec t allusions. Further , the us e of the Bibl e in IV.3 , 4 and 5 is prescriptive and crucia l to th e argument. Th e issu e of slavery, particularly, presents Augustin e with a dilemma an d hi s uneasiness with it is apparent in his discussion in IV.4 and 5. His derivation of servus is in fact mistaken - althoug h it was widely accepted by his contemporaries. An d he avoids the obvious poin t tha t nowher e i n th e Bibl e i s slaver y actuall y condemned. However , hi s overall ai m o f attempting to sho w that hi s understanding o f the tw o cities accords with the Bibl e and make s sense of human histor y i s clear. 115

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

5. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS The influenc e o f the transitio n o f Christianit y from a sectaria n t o a mor e church-typ e position i n society is evident (see further, o n Text VII). Given the radically changed sociopolitical statu s o f Christianit y sinc e Constantine , an d give n th e criticism s fro m traditionalist non-Christians , Augustine fel t constraine d t o articulat e a n understandin g of th e relationshi p betwee n Churc h an d State . However , a s a resul t o f bot h hi s neo Platonic mode s o f thought an d hi s indebtedness t o th e Bibl e (see above, p. 42) he made his articulation i n the somewha t ethereal terms o f the concep t o f the tw o cities . So , the earthly city cannot be identified with 'secular' society or with the Stat e and th e heavenly city certainly cannot be equated with the extant institutional Church. The overall concept of th e tw o citie s als o reflect s Augustine' s backgroun d i n Africa n Christianity . I n tha t context, i t wa s alread y so commonplac e tha t h e coul d refe r t o i t a t on e poin t a s that 'which everyone brought up i n the traditions o f the holy church should know ' (Enarr. i n Ps. 136.1) . 6. SOCIAL S SIGNIFICANCE It would be difficul t t o exaggerat e the importanc e o f Augustine's position here . Hi s Th e City o f God, written i n ol d age , represented a majo r achievemen t an d presente d th e lat e classical world with it s most sustaine d an d culture d Christian apologetic. I n view of the precarious positio n o f Christianit y i n th e earl y fifth-centur y Roma n world , th e socia l significance o f suc h a n apologeti c i s evident . Eve n i f hi s particula r understandin g o f political realitie s (i t canno t b e claime d tha t h e actuall y advance d a politica l theory ) proved to be too firmly located in the social context of the late Roman Empire, his overall conception o f th e tensio n betwee n th e Christia n visio n an d politica l actualitie s ha s remained importan t i n much contemporar y theology. Th e ways he resolved thi s tensio n varied considerabl y i n hi s writings, but i t i s always apparent. FURTHER READING Important discussion s of Th e City o f Go d will be foun d i n Davi d Knowles' Introductio n to th e Pelica n translation o f Th e City o f Go d (1972), in Peter Brown's Augustine of Hippo (1967) an d i n R . W . Barrow' s Introduction t o S t Augustine: 'The City o f God' (1950) . Augustine's discussions of the concept of the two cities occur particularly in Books XIVXV an d XVIII-XI X o f Th e City o f God.

TEXT I V AUGUSTINE The earthly and heavenly cities IV. 1 We see, then, that al l man's us e of temporal things is related to th e enjoyment of earthly peace i n th e earthl y city; whereas in th e Heavenl y City it i s related t o th e enjoymen t o f eternal peace. Thus, if we were irrational animals, our onl y aim would b e the adjustment of the parts of the body i n due proportion, an d the quieting of appetites - only , that is, the repos e o f the flesh, and a n adequat e supply of pleasures, so that bodil y peac e might promote th e peac e of the soul . Fo r if bodily peac e is lacking, the peac e of the irrationa l

116

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

soul is also hindered, becaus e it cannot achiev e the quietin g of its appetites. Bu t the tw o together promote that peace which is a mutual concord betwee n soul and body, the peace of an ordere d lif e an d o f health. Fo r living creatures show their lov e of bodily peac e by their avoidanc e of pain, an d b y their pursui t o f pleasure t o satisf y th e demand s o f their appetites the y demonstrat e thei r lov e o f peac e an d soul . I n jus t th e sam e way , b y shunning deat h the y indicate quit e clearl y ho w grea t i s their lov e of the peac e in which soul an d bod y ar e harmoniously united .

IV.2 But because ther e i s in man a rational soul, h e subordinates t o th e peac e of the rationa l soul all that par t o f his nature which he shares with the beasts, so that h e may engage in deliberate though t an d ac t in accordanc e wit h this thought, s o that h e may thus exhibit that ordered agreement o f cognition and action whic h we called the peac e of the rationa l soul. For with this end in view he ought to wish to be spared the distress of pain and grief , the disturbance s o f desire , th e dissolutio n o f death , s o tha t h e ma y com e t o som e profitable knowledg e an d ma y order hi s life an d hi s moral standard s i n accordance with this knowledge. Bu t he needs divin e direction, whic h h e ma y obey with resolution , an d divine assistance that he may obey it freely, to prevent him fro m falling , in his enthusiasm for knowledge , a victim t o som e fata l error , through th e weaknes s of the huma n mind . And so long as he is in this mortal body, he is a pilgrim in a foreign land, away from God ; therefore he walks by faith, not by sight. That is why he views all peace, of body or of soul, or of both, in relation to that peace which exists between mortal ma n and immortal God , so that he may exhibit an ordered obedience i n faith i n subjection to the everlasting God. IV.3 Now God, our master , teaches two chief precepts, love of God and love of neighbour; and in them man finds three objects for his love: God, himself, and his neighbour; and a man who love s Go d i s not wron g i n lovin g himself . I t follows , therefore , that h e should b e concerned als o that his neighbour shoul d lov e God, since he is told to love his neighbour as himself; and the sam e is true of his concern fo r his wife, hi s children, for the member s of his household, an d fo r al l other men , s o far a s is possible. And , for th e sam e end, h e will wish his neighbour t o be concerned fo r him, if he happens to need that concern. For this reaso n h e will be a t peace , a s far as lies i n him , wit h al l men, i n tha t peac e amon g men, tha t ordere d harmony ; an d th e basi s of this orde r i s the observanc e o f two rules : first, to d o n o har m t o anyone , and , secondly , t o hel p everyon e whenever possible . T o begin with, therefore, a man has a responsibility for his own household - obviously , both in th e orde r of nature an d i n the framewor k o f human society , h e has easier and mor e immediate contac t wit h them ; h e ca n exercis e hi s concer n fo r them . Tha t i s wh y th e Apostle says , 'Anyone who doe s no t tak e care of his own people , especiall y those i n hi s own household, is worse than an unbeliever - h e is a renegade' [ 1 Tim. 5.8]. This is where domestic peac e starts , th e ordere d harmon y abou t givin g an d obeyin g order s amon g those who live in the same house. For the orders are given by those who are concerned for the interest s o f others; thu s th e husban d give s order s t o th e wife , parent s t o children , masters t o servants . Whil e thos e wh o ar e th e object s o f thi s concer n obe y orders ; fo r example, wives obey husbands, the children obey their parents, the servants their masters. But i n the househol d o f the just man wh o 'lives on th e basis of faith' an d wh o i s still o n pilgrimage, fa r fro m tha t Heavenl y City, eve n those wh o giv e order s ar e th e servants of 117

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

those whom the y appear to command . Fo r they do no t giv e orders because of a lust for domination bu t fro m a dutifu l concer n fo r th e interest s o f others , no t wit h prid e i n taking precedence over others , bu t wit h compassion i n takin g care of others . Man's natural freedom; and the slavery caused by sin IV.4 This relationship is prescribed by the order of nature, and i t is in this situation tha t Go d created man. For he says, 'Let him hav e lordship ove r the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky ... an d al l the reptile s tha t craw l o n th e earth ' [Gen . 1.26] . H e di d no t wis h th e rational being , mad e i n hi s ow n image , t o hav e dominio n ove r an y bu t irrationa l creatures, not ma n over man, but ma n over the beasts. Hence the first just men were set up as shepherds of flocks, rathe r than as kings of men, so that in this way also God might convey the message of what was required by the order of nature, and what was demanded by the deserts of sinners - fo r it is understood, o f course, that the condition o f slavery is justly impose d o n th e sinner . Tha t i s why we d o no t hea r o f a slav e anywhere i n th e Scriptures until Noah, th e just man, punishe d hi s son's sin with thi s word; an d s o tha t son deserved thi s name because of his misdeed, no t becaus e of his nature. Th e origin of the Lati n word for slave, servus, is believed to be derived fro m th e fac t tha t those who by the law s of wa r coul d rightl y be pu t t o deat h b y the conquerors , becam e servi, slaves , when the y wer e preserved , receivin g thi s nam e fro m thei r preservation . Bu t eve n thi s enslavement could not hav e happened, if it were not fo r the deserts of sin. For even when a just war is fought i t is in defence of his sin that the other side is contending; an d victory, even when th e victor y fall s t o th e wicked , is a humiliation visite d o n th e conquere d b y divine judgment, either t o correc t o r t o punis h thei r sins . We have a witness to thi s i n Daniel, a man o f God, who in captivity confesses to Go d his own sins and th e sins of his people, and in devout grief testifies that they are the cause of that captivity. The first cause of slavery, then, is sin, whereby man wa s subjected to ma n i n the conditio n o f bondage; and thi s can only happen by the judgment of God, with whom ther e is no injustice , an d who knows how to allot differen t punishment s according to the deserts of the offenders .

IV.5 Now, a s our Lor d above says, 'Everyone who commit s si n i s sin's slave' [Jn . 8.34], an d that i s why, though man y devout me n are slaves to unrighteous masters, ye t the masters they serve are not themselve s fre e men ; 'fo r whe n a man i s conquered b y another h e is also bound as a slave to hi s conqueror' [ 2 Pet. 2.19]. And obviously it is a happier lot t o be slave to a human being than t o a lust; and, i n fact, th e most pitiles s domination tha t devastates th e heart s o f men , i s tha t exercise d b y thi s ver y lus t fo r domination , t o mention n o others . However , i n tha t orde r o f peace i n whic h me n ar e subordinate t o other men, humility is as salutary for the servants as pride is harmful t o the masters. And yet by nature, i n the conditio n i n which God created man , no ma n i s the slav e either of man o r o f sin. Bu t it remains true that slaver y as a punishment i s also ordained b y that law which enjoins the preservation of the order o f nature, and forbid s it s disturbance; in fact, i f nothing had been done t o contravene that law, there would have been nothin g t o require th e disciplin e o f slaver y a s a punishment . Tha t explain s als o th e Apostle' s admonition t o slaves, that they should be subject to their masters, and serve them loyally and willingl y [cf . Eph. 6.5] . Wha t h e mean s i s that i f they canno t b e se t fre e b y thei r masters, they themselves may thus make their slavery, in a sense, free, by serving not with 118

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

the slynes s of fear, bu t wit h the fidelity of affection, unti l al l injustice disappear s and al l human lordshi p an d powe r i s annihilated, and Go d i s all in all . Equity in the relation of master and slave IV.6 This being so, even though our righteou s fathers had slaves, they so managed the peace of their household s a s t o mak e a distinctio n betwee n th e situatio n o f childre n an d th e condition of slaves in respec t o f the tempora l good s o f this life; an d ye t in the matte r of the worship of God - i n whom we must place our hope of everlasting goods - the y were concerned, wit h equal affection, fo r all the member s of their household. This is what the order o f nature prescribes , s o tha t thi s i s the sourc e o f th e nam e paterfamilias, a name that ha s become s o generally used that eve n those who exercise unjust rul e rejoice t o be called by this title. On the other hand, those who are genuine 'father s of their household' are concerne d fo r th e welfar e o f al l i n thei r household s i n respec t o f th e worshi p an d service of God, as if they were all their children, longing and prayin g that they may come to the heavenly home, where it will not be a necessary duty to give order to men, because it wil l n o longe r b e a necessary dut y t o b e concerne d fo r th e welfar e o f those wh o ar e already in th e felicit y o f that immorta l state . Bu t until that hom e i s reached, the father s have an obligation t o exercis e the authority of masters greater than th e duty of slaves to put u p wit h their conditio n a s servants.

IV.7 However, i f anyon e i n th e househol d is , throug h hi s disobedience , a n enemy t o th e domestic peace, he is reproved by a word, or by a blow, or any other kind of punishment that i s just an d legitimate , t o th e exten t allowe d b y huma n society ; bu t thi s i s for th e benefit o f the offender , intende d t o readjus t hi m t o th e domesti c peac e fro m whic h h e had broken away. For just as it is not a n act of kindness to help a man, when the effec t o f the hel p is to mak e him los e a greater good, s o it i s not a blameless act to spar e a man, when by so doing you let him fal l into a greater sin. Hence the duty of anyone who would be blameless includes not onl y doing no harm to anyone but als o restraining a man fro m sin or punishing his sin, so that either the man wh o is chastised may be corrected by his experience, or others may be deterred by his example. Now a man's house ought to be the beginning, or rathe r a small component par t of the city , and ever y beginning is directed to some end of its own kind, and every component par t contributes to the completeness of the whol e of which it form s a part . Th e implicatio n i s quite apparent, that domesti c peace contributes to the peace of the city - tha t is, the ordered harmony of those who live together in a house in the matter of giving and obeying orders, contributes to the ordered harmony concernin g authorit y an d obedienc e obtainin g amon g th e citizens . Consequently i t i s fittin g tha t th e fathe r o f a househol d shoul d tak e his rule s fro m th e law of the city, and govern his household i n such a way that it fits in with the peace of the city. The origin of peace between the heavenly society and the earthly city, and of discord between them IV.8 But a househol d o f huma n being s whos e lif e i s no t base d o n fait h i s i n pursui t o f a n earthly peace based o n th e thing s belonging to thi s temporal life , an d o n it s advantages,

119

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

whereas a household o f human beings whose lif e i s based o n fait h look s forwar d to th e blessings which are promised a s eternal in the future, makin g use of earthly and tempora l things like a pilgrim in a foreign land , who doe s not le t himself be taken i n by them o r distracted fro m hi s course towards God , but rathe r treat s the m a s supports whic h hel p him more easil y to bear the burdens of 'the corruptible body which weighs heavy on the soul' [Wisdo m 9.15], they must on no account be allowed to increase the load. Thus both kinds of men an d both kind s of households alike make use of the things essential for this mortal life ; bu t eac h has it s ow n ver y different en d i n makin g us e of them. S o also th e earthly city , whose lif e i s not base d o n faith , aim s at a n earthl y peace , and i t limit s th e harmonious agreemen t o f citizen s concernin g th e givin g and obeyin g o f order s t o th e establishment of a kind of compromise between human wills about the things relevant to mortal life . I n contrast , th e Heavenl y Cit y - o r rathe r tha t par t o f i t whic h i s o n pilgrimage i n this conditio n o f mortality, an d which live s on the basis o f faith - mus t needs mak e use of this peace also, until this mortal state , fo r which this kind o f peace is essential, passes away. And therefore , it leads what we may cal l a lif e o f captivity in thi s earthly cit y a s i n a foreig n land , althoug h i t ha s alread y receive d th e promis e o f redemption, an d th e gif t o f the Spirit as a kind of pledge of it; and yet it does not hesitate to obe y th e law s of th e earthl y cit y by whic h thos e thing s whic h ar e designe d fo r th e support o f this mortal lif e ar e regulated; and th e purpos e o f this obedience i s that, sinc e this mortal condition i s shared by both cities, a harmony may be preserved between them in thing s that ar e relevant to thi s condition .

IV.9 But this earthly city has had some philosophers belonging to it whose theories are rejected by the teaching inspired by God. Either led astray by their own speculation o r deluded by demons, these thinkers reached the belief that there are many gods who must be won over to serv e huma n ends , an d als o tha t the y have , a s i t were , differen t department s wit h different responsibilitie s attached. Thus the body is the department of one god, the mind that o f another; an d withi n the bod y itself , on e go d i s in charge of the head , anothe r o f the neck and so on with each of the separate members. Similarly , within the mind, one is responsible fo r natural ability , anothe r fo r learning, another fo r anger, anothe r fo r lust ; and in the accessories of life there are separate gods over the departments of flocks, grain, wine, oil, forests , coinage, navigation , war an d victory , marriage , birth, fertility , an d s o on. Th e Heavenl y City, i n contrast , know s onl y one Go d a s the objec t o f worship, an d decrees, with faithfu l devotion , tha t h e onl y i s to b e serve d with tha t servic e which th e Greeks call latreia, which is due t o Go d alone . An d the resul t of this difference ha s been that the Heavenly City could not hav e laws of religion common with the earthly city, and in defenc e o f he r religiou s law s sh e wa s boun d t o dissen t fro m thos e wh o though t differently an d t o prov e a burdensome nuisanc e to them . Thu s sh e had t o endur e their anger and hatred , and th e assaults o f persecution; until at length that Cit y shattered th e morale o f he r adversarie s by th e terro r inspire d b y he r numbers , an d b y th e hel p sh e continually receive d fro m God . IV. 10 While this Heavenly City, therefore, is on pilgrimag e in this world, sh e calls out citizen s from al l nations an d s o collects a society of aliens, speakin g all languages. She takes n o account o f an y differenc e i n customs , laws , an d institutions , b y which earthl y peac e is 120

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AN D JUSTIC E

achieved an d preserve d - no t tha t sh e annuls o r abolishe s an y of those , rather , sh e maintains them an d follow s the m (fo r whatever divergences there are among the diverse nations, thos e institution s hav e on e singl e ai m - earthl y peace) , provide d tha t n o hindrance i s presented thereb y t o th e religio n whic h teache s tha t th e on e suprem e an d true Go d i s to b e worshipped . Thu s eve n th e Heavenl y City in he r pilgrimag e her e o n earth make s us e o f th e earthl y peac e an d defend s an d seek s th e compromis e betwee n human will s in respec t o f the provision s relevan t t o th e morta l natur e of man, s o far as may be permitted without detrimen t t o tru e religio n an d piety . In fact , tha t Cit y relates the earthl y peac e t o th e heavenl y peace , whic h i s s o trul y peacefu l tha t i t shoul d b e regarded a s the only peace deserving the name, at least in respect o f the rational creation ; for thi s peac e i s th e perfectl y ordere d an d completel y harmoniou s fellowshi p i n th e enjoyment o f God, and of each other i n God. When we arrive at that state of peace, there will be no longe r a lif e tha t end s i n death , bu t a lif e tha t i s life i n sur e and sobe r truth ; there will be no animal bod y to 'weig h down th e soul' in its process o f corruption; ther e will be a spiritual bod y with n o cravings , a body subdued i n every part t o th e will. This peace th e Heavenl y Cit y possesse s i n fait h whil e o n it s pilgrimage , an d i t live s a lif e o f righteousness, base d o n thi s faith , havin g the attainmen t o f that peac e i n view in every good action it performs in relation to God, and in relation t o a neighbour, since the life of a cit y is inevitably a social life . CRITIQUE One o f th e grea t strength s o f this Tex t an d o f Th e City o f Go d generally i s that i t take s seriously th e tensio n tha t Christian s shoul d alway s fee l betwee n a visio n o f th e transcendent an d th e expectation s o f th e world . Wherea s th e moder n Ne w Testament scholar woul d ten d t o expres s thi s tensio n i n term s o f th e Synopti c concep t o f th e Kingdom of God - wit h its relevance to, but distance from , th e temporal an d its present and future reference s - mos t migh t maintain tha t some degree of tension i s essential. On this understanding, i t would be equally as wrong to identif y th e Kingdom of God wholly with som e particula r political programme , a s to asser t tha t i t i s totally withou t politica l relevance. Withi n thes e parameters , ther e ar e man y varian t positions , eac h subjec t t o particular weaknesses . The weaknes s o f Augustine' s positio n i n thi s Tex t i s tha t th e heavenl y cit y i s s o marginally relate d t o th e earthl y cit y that i t appear s littl e intereste d i n effectin g change s within it . The pilgrim status of Christians effectivel y mean s that they may simply have to endure injustice rather than attempt t o change it. So, finally, his advice to slaves is that, 'if they cannot b e set free by their masters, they themselves may thus make their slavery, in a sense, free, by serving not wit h the slynes s of fear, but wit h the fidelity of affection, unti l all injustice disappears and all human lordship an d power is annihilated, and God is all in all' (IV. 5 -see also Text X). The individual Christia n i s not encourage d t o oppos e slavery or actively to combat injustice , but rathe r to endure it and wait for the time when 'God is all in all'. A radically different Christia n interpretatio n i s evident i n Miranda's Extrac t 13 and Bonino' s Extrac t 19 . In Augustine , th e marty r understandin g o f Christianity i s still apparent (se e the las t sentence s o f IV. 9 an d VII.8 ) and , indeed , i n hi s battle s wit h th e Donatists i n Nort h Afric a h e sometimes expecte d t o b e martyre d himsel f (while , at th e same time, rejecting the Donatist's own martyr-seeking attitude : cf . Text XIII). Augustine was always more kee n t o comba t wha t h e regarded a s Christian 'heresy ' than t o uphol d social justice.

121

TEXT V AQUINAS On princely government 1. BACKGROUND This Text comes from D e Regimine Principum, XII-XIV (O n Princel y Government, fro m A. P. D'Entreves (ed.), Aquinas: Selected Political Writings, Blackwell, Oxford, 1948, trans. J. G. Dawson, pp. 67-77). The authentic parts of De Regimine Principum (mainl y Book I from whic h thi s Tex t i s taken) wer e written durin g Aquinas' tim e o f teachin g i n Ital y (1259-69) as specific advice to the Kin g of Cyprus. Aquinas was not, of course, primarily a politica l theoris t an d hi s writing s o n politica l matter s ar e thoroughl y medieval , hierarchical and theocratic. H e followed Aristotle in arguing that a human is by nature a social an d politica l anima l an d tha t natura l la w requires rul e by kings. Accordingly , he opened D e Regimine Principum a s follows: Our firs t tas k mus t b e t o explai n ho w th e ter m kin g i s t o b e understood . No w whenever a certain end has been decide d upon , but th e means for arriving thereat are still open to choice, some one must provide direction i f that end is to be expeditiously attained. A ship , fo r instance , wil l sai l firs t o n on e cours e an d the n o n another , according to th e winds it encounters, and i t would neve r reach its destination bu t fo r the skil l of th e helmsma n wh o steer s i t t o port . I n th e sam e wa y man, who act s by intelligence, has a destiny to which all life and activities are directed; for it is clearly the nature o f intelligent beings to ac t with som e en d i n view. Yet the diversit y of human interests an d pursuit s makes i t equally clear that there ar e many courses ope n t o me n when seekin g th e en d the y desire. Man , then, need s guidanc e fo r attainin g hi s ends . (D'Entreves, p. 3) On thi s basis, princely government rightl y (according to natura l law) directs individua l lives, but it , in turn, is subordinate to divine law and to the ecclesiastical ministers of this law. Th e latte r crown s th e forme r a s grac e crown s natur e (see above, pp . 26-7) . I n contrast t o Luther' s Text IX , Aquinas maintained tha t th e tyran t nee d no t alway s b e obeyed: Tyrannical law, not bein g according to reason , i s not la w at al l in th e tru e and stric t sense, but i s rather a perversion o f law. It does, however , assume th e natur e o f law to the exten t tha t i t provide s fo r th e well-bein g o f th e citizens . Thu s i t bear s som e relationship to law in so far as it is the dictate to hi s subjects of some one in authority; and t o th e exten t tha t it s object i s the ful l obedienc e o f those subject s to th e law. For 122

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AN D JUSTICE

them suc h obedienc e i s good, no t unconditionally , bu t wit h respec t t o th e particula r regime unde r whic h the y live. (D'Entreves , p. 119 , fro m Summa Theologica 1/11.92 ) Insofar a s princely governmen t promote s th e well-bein g o f individuals, i t accord s wit h natural law and provide s th e basis on whic h grace can then act . 2. KE Y ISSUES Having attempte d t o establis h tha t monarch y accord s wit h natur e an d offer s th e bes t form o f government, Aquina s no w consider s th e dutie s o f a king. H e suggest s a stron g analogy between, o n th e on e hand , God' s control ove r th e universe , and , o n th e other, reason's control ove r the individua l an d a king's contro l over society . I f he is faithful t o this analogy , a kin g shoul d b e guide d b y reason , justice , mildnes s an d clemenc y (V.I) . Whereas Go d i s bot h creato r an d governo r o f th e universe , usuall y a kin g i s onl y governor o f a city or kingdom . Yet , in governing, h e ought t o b e aware of the purpose s for whic h the cit y or kingdo m wa s founded (V.2) . Unlike God, th e founde r of a city or kingdom doe s not create from nothing , bu t chooses, fro m a n existing place, a suitable site for hi s cit y o r kingdom , plan s th e position s fo r hi s buildings , order s th e peopl e an d provides for their needs - al l functions which resemble the work of God as creator (V.3). The king, as governor - agai n analogous with God's work - mus t see k to guide his people to thei r appointe d en d an d no t simpl y t o preserv e th e statu s qu o (V.4) . Th e en d o f humans is that final blessedness an d enjoyment of God to be known afte r death (V.5 ) and not merel y some huma n perfectio n which alread y exists (V.6). Since this en d canno t b e attained alon e b y natural huma n virtue , bu t onl y throug h divin e grace , i t ca n onl y be divine rule , rathe r tha n a human government , whic h can lead human s t o i t (V.7) . This divine rul e i s entrusted t o th e Papac y an d to th e Churc h - t o whic h al l subordinate , temporal ruler s must b e subjec t (V.8) . 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS Analogical arguments , base d upo n natura l law , ar e apparen t throughou t thi s Text . Natural law provides the deontological basis for the discussion (se e Text II). The world of nature reveal s how human societ y should b e ordered an d ho w the kin g should behave . Yet th e wor k o f Go d ca n b e use d a s th e basi c analog y fo r huma n mora l an d socia l behaviour. Fo r Aquinas , th e concep t o f a n analog y o f bein g (analogia entis) betwee n creator an d create d wa s crucial : indeed , precisel y becaus e th e creatur e wa s th e direc t product o f th e creator , th e forme r coul d b e use d t o infe r th e existenc e an d certai n attributes o f the latter , an d th e latte r coul d b e used t o discove r ho w the forme r shoul d live. In much Reforme d theology , si n is thought t o hav e so distorted the creator/create d relationship tha t such analogical argument is impossible. But , for Aquinas, it is the key to his argument . Th e Aristotelian emphasi s upo n th e end or telos of humans - see n here , though, i n term s o f th e beatifi c visio n (V.5 ) - give s th e argumen t a n eventua l consequentialist o r teleologica l bias . 4. BASES O F CHRISTIAN ETHICS The quotation fro m Genesi s (in V.3) plays an important rol e in this Text. Aquinas derives the principles for founding a city or kingdom analogicall y from it . This kind of analogical interpretation i s obviousl y dependen t o n hi s overal l understandin g o f theolog y an d exegesis. The quotations fro m Paul , however, (i n V.5 and V.7 ) are not use d analogically, 123

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

but rathe r t o substantiat e specificall y theologica l points . Aquinas ' assumptio n o f ecclesiastical traditio n an d papa l primac y i s apparen t i n V.8 : thi s traditio n i s simpl y presented prescriptively . 5. SOCIAL

DETERMINANTS

Aquinas' discussio n o f politica l realitie s is , perhaps inevitably , deepl y coloure d b y th e social contex t o f thirteenth-centur y Italy . Thi s i s see n mos t obviousl y i n hi s frequen t mention o f a king of 'a city or a kingdom': it reflects th e world of relatively autonomou s cities, o r autocrati c loca l leader s an d o f small-scale dynasties . I t i s als o apparen t i n hi s assumptions abou t ecclesiastica l traditio n (cf . Text VIII.7-12 ) an d abou t th e structura l unity of Church an d Stat e (see above, p. 28) . Indeed, thi s particular Text i s so evidently dependent o n a specifi c socia l contex t tha t i t ma y appea r toda y a s on e o f th e mos t anachronistic o f the Aquina s Texts. 6. SOCIAL

SIGNIFICANCE

It i s difficult t o kno w whether o r no t D e Regimine Prindpum ha d an y serious influence upon politics . A t the most , i t provide d a legitimation fo r th e statu s qu o o f thirteenth century Italy . Nonetheless , th e specifi c wa y in whic h Aquina s attempted t o deriv e th e duties o f political leaders , both fro m natura l la w and fro m th e concep t o f creation, ha s had a continuin g influenc e upon Catholi c politica l thought . Thi s influenc e i s clearl y present i n Joh n XXIH' s Extrac t 12 , in Joh n Pau l II' s Extrac t 4 , an d eve n i n Temple' s Extract 11 . FURTHER READING The introduction b y A. P. D'Entreves to his Aquinas: Selected Political Writing (1948 ) an d his Th e Notion o f th e State (1967) ar e bot h useful . However , referenc e should als o b e made t o book s concerne d wit h Aquinas ' understandin g o f wa r (se e Section 3 ) an d t o those concerne d wit h his notion o f natural law (see above, p. 51) . Fo r a recen t Catholi c perspective se e James P. Mackey' s Power and Christian Ethics (1994).

TEXT V AQUINAS On princely government The duties of a king; the similarity between royal power and the power of the soul over the body and of God over the universe V.I To complet e what we have so fa r said i t remain s onl y to conside r wha t is the dut y of a king an d ho w h e shoul d compor t himself . And sinc e ar t i s but a n imitatio n o f nature , from whic h w e com e t o lear n ho w t o ac t accordin g t o reason , i t woul d see m bes t t o deduce th e duties of a king from th e examples o f government in nature. Now in nature there is to be found bot h a universal and a particular form o f government. Th e universal is tha t b y whic h al l thing s fin d thei r plac e unde r th e directio n o f God , who , b y Hi s providence, governs the universe. The particular is very similar to this divine control, an d is foun d withi n ma n himself , who, fo r thi s reason , i s calle d a microcosm , becaus e h e

124

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AN D JUSTICE

provides an example of universal government. Just as the divine control i s exercised over all created bodies an d over all spiritual powers, so does the control o f reason extend over the members of the body and the other faculties of the soul: so, in a certain sense, reason is to ma n wha t God i s to th e universe . Bu t because, as we have shown above , man i s by nature a socia l anima l livin g i n community , thi s similarit y wit h divin e rul e i s foun d among men, not only in the sense that a man is directed by his reason, but als o in the fac t that a community is ruled by one man's intelligence; for this is essentially the king's duty. A simila r exampl e o f such contro l i s to b e foun d amon g certai n animal s which liv e in community, suc h as bees, which are said to hav e a king. But in their case, of course, th e control ha s no rationa l foundation , but spring s fro m a n instinc t o f their nature , given them by the supreme rule r who is the author of nature. A king, then, shoul d realis e that he has assumed th e duty of being to his kingdom what the soul is to the body and what God is to the universe . I f he thinks attentively upo n thi s point h e will, on the one hand , be fired with zea l fo r justice, seeing himself appointe d t o administe r justice throughout his real m i n th e nam e o f God , and , o n th e othe r hand , h e wil l gro w i n mildnes s an d clemency, looking upo n th e person s subjec t t o hi s government , a s the member s o f his own body . Further development of this analogy and of the conclusions to be drawn from it V.2 We must now consider what God does in the universe , and thus we shall see what a king should do. There are, in general, two aspects of the work of God in the world. The first is the act of creation; the secon d Hi s governance of it once He has created it. Similarly, the action o f the sou l upo n th e bod y present s tw o aspects . I n th e firs t plac e i t i s the sou l which gives form to the body and secondly it is by the soul that the body is controlled an d moved. I t is the secon d o f these two operations whic h pertains mor e particularl y to th e king's office; fo r all kings are bound t o govern, and i t is from thi s process of directing the government that the term king (rex) i s derived. The former task, however, does not fal l t o all kings; for not ever y king founds th e cit y or kingdom ove r which he rules; many fulfi l their duties in cities or kingdoms which are already flourishing. It must not , however, be forgotten tha t if there had been no one in the first place to establish a city or a kingdom, there would be nothing t o govern : so that th e kingly office mus t als o cover the foundin g of a cit y o r a kingdom . Som e king s have , i n fact , founde d th e citie s ove r whic h the y afterwards ruled , a s Ninus founded Nineveh , and Romulu s Rome. It i s furthermore the ruler's duty to protect what he governs and to make use of it for the ends for which it was intended: but h e canno t b e full y awar e of the dutie s of his offic e i f he fail s t o acquain t himself wit h th e reason s fo r government . No w th e reaso n fo r th e foundatio n o f a kingdom i s to be found i n the example provided by the creation o f the world: in this we must first consider th e creation o f things themselves, and then thei r orderly distributio n throughout th e universe . Then we see how things are distributed i n the various parts of the universe according to their different species ; the stars in the heavens, birds in the air, fishes in th e se a and animal s upo n th e earth . Finall y we note ho w abundantl y divin e providence furnishes eac h species with all that is necessary to it . Moses has described this orderliness show n i n creation wit h grea t car e and subtlety .

125

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S V.3

He firs t consider s th e creatio n o f thing s b y th e words : 'I n th e beginnin g Go d create d heaven an d earth' [Gen . 1.1] ; then he notes that all things became, by divine command, distinct accordin g to thei r appropriat e order , a s day fro m night , th e height s fro m th e depths, an d the waters from dr y land. The n he tells how the heaven s were adorned wit h stars, the ai r with birds, th e se a with fishes, and th e eart h wit h animals . Finally , he tells how dominion wa s given to me n ove r th e whol e earth an d th e animal s thereon. A s for plant life , h e say s that i t was given by providence fo r th e us e of both animal s an d men . Now the founde r o f a city or of a kingdom canno t creat e out o f nothing th e me n or th e dwelling places or al l the othe r thing s necessary to life ; h e must us e instead wha t natur e has already provided. Jus t as all other art s find their materials fro m natura l sources ; the smiths working with iron an d th e builder wit h wood an d stone . S o one who is about t o establish a city or a realm must, in the first place, choose a suitable site; healthy, to ensur e the healt h o f th e inhabitants ; fertile , t o provid e fo r thei r sustenance ; on e whic h wil l delight the ey e with it s loveliness an d giv e natural securit y against hostile attack . Where any of these advantages are lacking, the site chosen will be the more suitable to the extent that suc h conditions , o r a t leas t th e mor e indispensabl e o f them, ar e fulfilled . Havin g chosen the site, the next task which confronts the founder of a city or of a kingdom i s to plan the area to mee t all the requirements of a civic life. When foundin g a kingdom, fo r example, one mus t decid e where to buil d th e town s and where to leav e the countrysid e open, o r t o construc t fortifications : centre s o f study , ope n place s fo r militar y training, and markets, all have to be taken into consideration: and similarly for every other activity which goes to make up the life of a kingdom. I f it is a city which i s to be established, sites must be assigned to churches, to administrativ e offices, an d to the workshops o f various trades. Th e citizens then hav e to be grouped i n various quarters of the cit y according t o their calling. Finally, provision mus t be made so that n o person goe s in want, accordin g to hi s conditio n an d calling : otherwis e neithe r cit y no r kingdo m woul d lon g endure . Such, ver y briefly , ar e th e point s a kin g mus t conside r whe n establishin g a cit y o r a kingdom, an d the y can all be arrived a t by analogy with th e creatio n o f the world .

Comparison between the priestly power and that of a king V.4 Just as the creation of the world serve s as a convenient mode l for the establishment of a city o r a kingdom , s o doe s it s governmen t allo w u s t o deduc e th e principl e o f civi l government. We must first have in mind that to govern is to guide what is governed to its appointed end . So we say that a ship is under control when it is sailed on it s right course to por t b y the skil l o f a sailor . No w whe n somethin g i s ordered t o a n en d whic h lies outside itself, as a ship is to harbour, it is the ruler's duty not only to preserve its integrity, but als o t o se e that i t reache s its appointed destination . I f there were anything with n o end beyon d itself , the n th e ruler' s sol e tas k would b e t o preserv e it unharme d i n al l its perfection. Bu t though there is no such example to be found i n creation, apart from Go d who is the end of all things, care for higher aims is beset with many and varied difficulties . For it i s very clear tha t there may be one person employed abou t the preservatio n o f a thing in its present state, and another concerned wit h bringing it to higher perfection; as we see in the case of a ship, which we have used as an example of government. Jus t as it is the carpenter's task to repai r any damage which may occur an d th e sailor's tas k to steer the shi p to port, so also in man himsel f the same processes are at work. The doctor set s 126

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

himself to preserve man's life and bodily health; the economist's task is to see that there is no lack of material goods ; th e learned se e to i t that h e knows the truth; and the moralis t that h e should liv e according t o reason . Thus , i f man wer e not destine d t o som e higher end, thes e attention s woul d suffice . V.5 But ther e i s a furthe r destin y fo r ma n afte r thi s morta l life ; tha t fina l blessednes s an d enjoyment o f Go d whic h h e await s afte r death . For , a s the Apostl e say s [ 2 Corinthians 5.6]: 'While we are i n th e bod y we are absen t fro m God. ' S o it i s that th e Christian , fo r whom tha t blessedness was obtained b y the blood of Christ, and who is led to i t through the gift of the Holy Ghost, has need of another, spiritual, guide to lead him to the harbour of eterna l salvation ; suc h guidanc e i s provided fo r th e faithfu l b y th e minister s o f th e Church o f Christ . V.6 Our conclusio n mus t be the same, whether we consider th e destiny of one person or of a whole community. Consequently , i f the en d o f man wer e to b e found i n any perfection existing i n man himself , the final object o f government i n a community would li e in th e acquisition o f suc h perfectio n an d i n it s preservatio n onc e acquired . S o that i f such a n end, whethe r o f an individua l o r o f a community , were lif e an d bodil y health , doctor s would govern. If , on th e other hand, i t were abundance o f riches, the governmen t o f the community coul d safel y b e lef t i n th e hand s o f th e economist . I f it wer e knowledge of truth, th e king , whos e tas k i t i s t o guid e th e community , woul d hav e th e dutie s o f a professor. But the object for which a community i s gathered togethe r i s to liv e a virtuous life. For men consort togethe r that they may thus attain a fullness o f life which would no t be possible to eac h living singly: and th e ful l lif e is one which is lived according to virtue . Thus th e objec t o f human societ y i s a virtuous life . V.7 A proo f o f this lie s i n th e fac t tha t onl y thos e member s ma y be considere d par t o f th e community who contribute jointly to the fullnes s o f social life. If men consorted togethe r for bar e existence , bot h animal s an d slave s would hav e a part i n civi l society . I f for th e multiplication o f riches, all who had common commercia l ties would belong to one city. But i t i s those who obe y th e sam e laws , and ar e guide d b y a singl e government t o th e fullness o f life , wh o ca n b e sai d t o constitut e a socia l unit . No w th e ma n wh o live s virtuously i s destine d t o a highe r end , whic h consists , a s we hav e alread y said , i n th e enjoyment o f God: an d th e fina l objec t o f human associatio n ca n b e n o differen t fro m that o f the individua l man . Thu s the final aim o f social lif e wil l be, not merel y to liv e in virtue, bu t rathe r throug h virtuou s lif e t o attai n t o th e enjoymen t o f God. If , indeed, i t were possible to attai n this object by natural human virtue, it would, i n consequence, be the dut y of kings t o guid e men t o thi s end. W e believe, however, tha t i t i s the suprem e power in temporal affair s whic h is the business of a king. Now government i s of a higher order accordin g to the importanc e o f the ends it serves. For it is always the one who has the fina l orderin g o f affair s wh o direct s thos e wh o carr y ou t wha t pertain s t o th e attainment o f th e fina l aim : jus t a s th e sailo r wh o mus t navigat e the shi p advise s th e shipwright as to the type of ship which will suit his purpose; and the citizen who is to bear arms tells the smit h wha t weapons t o forge . Bu t the enjoymen t o f God i s an ai m which 127

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

cannot b e attained by human virtue alone, but onl y through divine grace, as the Apostle tells us [Roman s 6.23]: 'The grace of God is eternal life'. Only a divine rule, then, and no t human government, can lead u s to this end. Suc h government belongs onl y to that King who is both man, and also God: that is to Jesus Christ, our Lord , Who, making men to be Sons of God ha s led them t o th e glor y of heaven. V.8 This, then, is the government entrusted to Him: a dominion whic h shall never pass away, and in virtue of which He is called in the Holy Scriptures, not onl y a priest but a king; as Jeremias say s [23.5]: 'A king shall reign and shal l be wise'. It i s from Hi m tha t th e roya l priesthood derives; and, what is more, al l the Faithfu l o f Christ, being members o f Him, become thus , priest s an d kings . Th e ministr y o f thi s kingdo m i s entrusted no t t o th e rulers of this earth but to priests, so that temporal affair s ma y remain distinct from thos e spiritual: and, i n particular, it is delegated t o th e Hig h Priest, the successo r of Peter an d Vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontiff, t o whom all kings in Christendom shoul d be subjects, as to th e Lor d Jesus Chris t Himself . For those wh o ar e concerned wit h th e subordinat e ends o f lif e mus t b e subjec t t o hi m wh o i s concerne d wit h th e suprem e en d an d b e directed b y his command. An d because the paga n priesthood an d everythin g connecte d with th e cul t of pagan gods was directed t o th e attainmen t o f temporal benefits , which form par t o f th e commo n wea l o f th e community , an d whic h li e withi n th e king' s competence, i t was right that paga n priests should b e subject t o thei r kings. Similarly in the Ol d Testament , tempora l benefit s were promised t o th e peopl e i n rewar d fo r thei r faith, thoug h thes e promise s wer e mad e b y th e tru e Go d an d no t b y demons ; s o that under the Old Law we read that the priesthood wa s subject to kings. But under th e New Law there is a higher priesthood throug h which men ar e led to a heavenly reward: an d under Christ' s Law , kings must be subject to priests . V.9 For this reason it came about by the admirable dispensation o f divine providence, that in the cit y of Rom e which God chos e t o b e th e mai n centr e o f Christendom, i t gradually became th e custo m fo r the ruler s of the cit y to b e subject to th e pontiffs .

CRITIQUE The negativ e and dysfunctiona l side o f Aquinas ' understandin g (an d indee d medieva l understanding generally ) o f governmen t appear s elsewher e i n hi s writings . I t wa s theocratic an d thoroughl y intoleran t o f an y for m o f religiou s opposition . A . P . D'Entreves pointed out : The theory of St. Thomas i s the theor y of the orthodo x State . We are apt t o forge t it . We have grown s o accustomed t o th e threa t which comes fro m th e Stat e [D'Entreves was writing in 1948] , that we are only too read y to hail the Church as the champion of freedom. Medieva l intoleranc e ha d a t leas t on e grea t advantag e ove r moder n totalitarianism. It subtracte d entirel y the definitio n o f orthodoxy fro m th e hand s of the politician . I t pu t a ba r o n Erastianism . I t woul d neve r hav e allowe d tha t 'th e General Will is always right'. It was an intolerance of a different an d more noble brand. But i t wa s intoleranc e al l right , an d a thorough , totalitaria n intolerance . (Fro m hi s Introduction t o Aquinas: Selected Political Writings, p . xxii ) 128

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

As evidence o f Aquinas' intoleranc e h e cite d hi s advic e in D e Regimine Judaeorum tha t Jews mus t no t b e harme d bu t mus t nevertheles s remai n outcast s i n th e Christia n community and should b e forced t o earn their living in non-usurious ways : 'Jews of both sexes an d i n al l Christia n land s shoul d o n al l occasion s b e distinguishe d fro m othe r people b y some particula r dress ' (D'Entreves , p. 95: see further, Luther' s Text XV) . But, most of all, for Aquinas and his contemporaries, i t was the Christian apostate who was to be treated harshly: 'if it be just that forger s and other malefactors are put t o death without mercy by the secula r authority, wit h how much greate r reason ma y heretics not onl y be excommunicated, bu t als o pu t t o death , whe n onc e the y ar e convicte d o f heres y (S.T. 11.11. Q.ll . Art.3) . Thi s link , betwee n theocrati c an d religiousl y intolerant attitudes , is particularly strikin g i n someone , lik e Aquinas , wh o otherwis e appear s t o hav e bee n a gentle and equabl e perso n (see further, below, pp. 346-7) . More positively, his emphasis upon th e duties o f kings and hi s admission tha t tyrant s need not alway s be obeyed contrasts favourabl y with Luther. Even his ironic observation , that if the main aim of society is really thought to be the acquisition o f an 'abundance of riches, th e governmen t o f th e communit y coul d safel y b e lef t i n th e hand s o f th e economist'(V.6), provide s a n interestin g commentar y o n moder n natio n states !

129

TEXT VI LUTHER Trade and usury 1. BACKGROUND This Tex t come s fro m Trade an d Usury (fro m Luther's Works, Vol . 45 , Fortres s Press , Philadelphia, 1966 , trans. Charle s M. Jacobs and rev . Walther I. Brandt, pp. 245-6, 247 54 and 255-60). Luther published thi s treatise in 152 4 together wit h a reprint o f his Long Sermon o n Usury writte n earlie r i n 152 0 (see above, p. 57) . Both works demonstrat e hi s dislike o f what h e regarde d a s commercial gree d (h e was himself alway s uninterested i n personal wealth ) an d hi s basic ignorance of economic realities . Luthe r accepted man y of the medieva l presupposition s abou t financia l matters , notabl y Aristotle' s notio n tha t money doe s no t produc e mone y and the medieva l ecclesiastical condemnatio n o f usury. But he argued that contemporar y practic e failed t o liv e up t o thes e notions and , indeed , failed t o liv e u p t o biblica l norm s o n wealth . I n addition , h e wa s unhappy abou t th e failure of the diets of Niirnberg in 152 2 and 152 4 to deal effectively with the monopolisti c practices of the trading companies. Luthe r was also reacting, in 1524 , against the rigoris t positions of the evangelical preachers Jacob Strauss and Wolfgang Stein , who maintaine d that a debtor i s not eve n oblige d t o repa y his debt t o a usurer, fo r otherwis e h e woul d share in th e usurer' s guilt . The notio n o f surety or propert y insuranc e (VI . 14) was first developed i n the fourteenth century and was held to be non-usurious, excep t when it was used t o guarante e a loan. Despit e th e genera l advic e to trader s a t th e beginnin g o f this treatise, i t become s clea r (e.g . i n VI . 19) tha t Luther' s primar y concer n her e i s wit h Christians in their relation t o wealth and commercia l activity . At this level, the treatise is arguably still relevan t t o Christia n ethics . 2. KE Y ISSUES Even thoug h h e i s pessimisti c abou t hi s advic e being heeded , Luthe r set s ou t wha t h e considers t o b e th e prope r positio n o f th e Christia n merchan t (VI . 1-2). Th e trad e o f essential commoditie s i s necessary i n th e worl d (VLB) . Bu t there ar e abuses - tw o of which are outlined in this Text. Firstly, merchants can become greed y and try to sell their goods a s expensively as possible (VI.5-6) . Instead, the y should sel l them onl y a t a price that i s just an d i n a wa y that doe s n o injur y t o other s (VI.7) . Differing circumstance s render i t difficult t o make rules about just prices, but tempora l authoritie s could appoin t wise an d hones t me n t o d o thi s o r i t coul d b e lef t t o marke t force s (VI.8-9) . I n thi s Christians must ac t according to their conscience (VI . 10-11) and be prepared t o confes s any inadverten t sin s resultin g fro m tradin g (VI . 12-13). Th e secon d abus e arise s fro m merchants standin g suret y fo r individual s (VI . 14). Thi s practic e i s agains t Scriptur e (VI.14-15) and it puts a false trust in humans rather than in God (VI.16-18). In contrast ,

130

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

there ar e fou r specificall y Christia n way s o f exchangin g goods . First , Christian s ca n simply let others stea l their propert y (VI . 19). Secondly, they can give to anyon e i n nee d (VI.20). Thirdly, the y can lend expectin g nothing i n return (VI.21) . But, if followed in a sinful world, these three ways would lead to the breakdown o f trade: in such a world, laws for non-Christian s ar e essential (VI.23-4) . Fourthly, Christians can buy an d sel l i n cash alone, no t relyin g upon credi t o r upo n suret y (VI.26). 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS In contrast t o Text III , this Text contains a variety of explicit forms o f ethical argument. There i s an appea l t o natura l la w (VI.5 ) an d severa l to individua l conscience (VI. 7 and 10-11). Consequentialis m i s eviden t i n VI. 7 and th e argument s i n VI . 13 are distinctl y pragmatic. Bu t there i s an overall deontological basi s to th e position s maintaine d i n th e Text: 'avarice', 'greed', 'robbing' and, indeed , 'injustice' (VI.5 ) are all assumed t o be selfevidently wrong. Standing surety is also believed to be wrong primarily because it offend s against Scriptur e (VI . 14). Eve n popula r Germa n proverb s ar e use d deontologicall y t o reinforce hi s argumen t (VI. 9 and 15) . This Text i s particularly importan t i n illustratin g the clea r dichotom y tha t Luthe r ofte n fel t betwee n th e standard s appropriat e fo r th e Christian and thos e t o be require d o f the non-Christian . 4. BASES OF CHRISTIAN

ETHICS

Both Ol d an d Ne w Testament s ar e use d throughou t thi s Extract . Indeed , Scriptur e characteristically forms the basis and constant poin t o f reference for Luther's contentions (cf. Text III) . This i s particularly evident i n hi s us e o f Proverbs (VI . 14), Genesis (VI. 18) and Matthew (VI.19). But there is also a strong doctrinal basis to his argument in VI. 1617 and the concept of the counsel of perfection for the clergy (VI. 19) is heavily dependent upon Christia n traditio n rathe r tha n th e Bible . There i s also a n importan t referenc e t o 'Christian love' in VI.6. It might eve n be possible t o argu e that Luthe r was a situationist as far a s Christians wer e concerned : law s were considered necessar y onl y becaus e mos t people were not Christian : if the world consisted onl y of Christians, Christian love would be a sufficient guid e for proper action . Thi s position i s most eviden t in the treatise of the previous year, Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should B e Obeyed, tha t h e refer s t o in VI.23 , as the followin g excerpt demonstrates : If all the world were composed o f real Christians, that is , true believers, there would be no nee d fo r o r benefit s fro m prince , king , lord, sword , o r law . They would serv e n o purpose, sinc e Christian s hav e i n thei r hear t th e Hol y Spirit , wh o bot h teache s an d makes them to do injustice to no one, to love everyone, and to suffe r injustic e and even death willingl y and cheerfull y a t the hands of anyone. Wher e ther e i s nothing but th e unadulterated doin g o f righ t an d bearin g o f wrong , ther e i s no t nee d fo r an y suit , litigation, court, judge, penalty, law or sword ... because the righteous man of his own accord doe s al l and mor e than th e law demands. Bu t the unrighteou s do nothin g tha t the law demands; therefore , they need the law to instruct, constrain, an d compel them to do good ... All who are not Christians belong to the kingdom of the world an d are under the law. There are few true believers, and still fewer who live a Christian life, wh o do not resis t evi l and indee d themselve s d o no evil . For this reaso n Go d has provide d for the m a different governmen t beyon d th e Christian estat e and kingdo m o f God. He has subjecte d the m t o th e swor d s o that , eve n thoug h the y woul d lik e to , the y ar e 131

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

unable t o practic e thei r wickedness , an d i f the y d o practic e i t the y canno t d o s o without fea r o r wit h succes s and impunit y ... If this were not so , men would devou r one another , seein g that th e whol e world i s evil an d tha t amon g thousand s ther e i s scarcely a single true Christian. N o one could suppor t wif e and child, feed himself, and serve God . The world woul d b e reduced t o chaos . Fo r this reaso n Go d ha s ordaine d two governments : th e spiritual , b y whic h th e Hol y Spiri t produce s Christian s an d righteous people under Christ; and the temporal, which restrains the un-Christian and wicked so that - n o thanks to them - the y are obliged to keep still and to maintain an outward peace . (Luther's Works, Vol . 45, pp. 89-90 ) This i s one o f Luther's clearest expressions o f the notio n o f 'the two kingdoms' . 5. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS The extent to which Luther was dependent upo n medieval notions o f finance ha s already been indicate d an d i s particularl y eviden t i n hi s unworkabl e solutio n i n VI.26 . I n addition, i t might be argued that th e sharp dichotomy tha t h e made between th e ethical requirements fo r Christian s an d thos e fo r non-Christian s wa s exacerbate d b y hi s ow n particular social context. An accompaniment of the empirical phenomenon o f conversion (see above, pp. 21-2) ca n be a subsequent tendency to exaggerate the depravity of the preconversion stat e and those associated wit h it. Certainly, in this Text Luther's estimate of 'non-evangelical Christians ' appear s ver y low . Doubtless , th e excesse s o f part s o f th e sixteenth-century Catholic Churc h als o contributed t o th e dichotom y tha t Luthe r drew (see above, p . 59) . Luthe r attempte d t o maintai n a positio n mid-wa y betwee n th e Anabaptists' rejectio n of Christians participating in politica l and economi c matter s an d the Churc h of Rome's assumption o f all earthly authority within itself . 6. SOCIAL SSIGNIFICANCE It i s ironic that , whil e Luther upheld th e centra l convictions o f medieval Christendo m about the evils of usury, of unrestrained trade based upon maximum profit, and of unjust and unjustifiabl e prices , h e ma y hav e contribute d indirectl y t o thei r propagation . Returning t o Weber' s thesi s o f Th e Protestant Ethic an d th e 'Spirit' o f Capitalism (see above, p. 59) , the ver y success of Luther's challeng e to th e Churc h of Rome's authority , may have helped to remove the sanctions enforced by this authority. Thus, on the issue of usury, Luthe r clearly despised i t an d tragicall y associated th e Je w with i t (see Tex t XV) . Yet one of the social effects o f his theological challeng e may have been to promote a new individualism in Europe and th e structural demise of effective sanction s agains t usury. It would be false to claim either that this was the sole factor i n effecting economi c chang e in Europe or that Luther himself (or Calvin) was directly and consciously responsible for the rise of the spirit of rational capitalism (the so-called 'work ethic'). Weber's thesis depends on neithe r claim . But it is possible t o se e Luther's challenge contributing significantl y t o changes already present i n Europea n society . FURTHER READING Luther's writings of the 1520 s have been th e subjec t of a considerable numbe r o f books. Some of these have already been mentioned i n relation to Text III. They can be compared fruitfully wit h Calvin' s politica l writing s in Joh n T . McNeil l (ed.) , Calvin: O n Go d and

132

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AN D JUSTIC E

Political Duty (1950) . O n th e issu e of usury , J. T. Noonan , Jr , Th e Scholastic Analysis o f Usury (1957 ) is useful .

TEXT VI LUTHER Trade and usury VI. 1 The hol y gospel , no w tha t i t ha s com e t o light , rebuke s an d reveal s al l the 'work s o f darkness', a s S t Pau l call s the m i n Roman s 13[.12] . Fo r i t i s a brillian t light , whic h illumines the whole world and teaches how evil are the works of the world, and shows the true work s w e ought t o d o fo r Go d an d ou r neighbour . A s a resul t eve n som e o f th e merchants hav e been awakene d an d becom e awar e that i n thei r tradin g man y a wicked trick an d hurtfu l financia l practic e i s i n use . I t i s t o b e feare d tha t th e word s o f Ecclesiasticus appl y here , namely , tha t merchant s ca n hardl y b e withou t si n [Ecclus . 26.29]. Indeed, I think S t Paul's sayin g in the las t chapter of the first epistle to Timoth y fits the case , 'The love of money i s the roo t o f all evils' [ 1 Tim. 6.10] , an d again , 'Those who desire to be rich fall int o th e devil's snare and int o man y useless and hurtfu l desire s that plung e men int o rui n an d perdition ' [ 1 Tim. 6.9] .

VI.2 I suppose that m y writing will be quite in vain, because the mischief has gone so far and has completely gotten the upper hand in all lands; and because those who understand th e gospel are probably able in such easy, external things to judge for themselves what is fai r and wha t i s not, o n th e basi s of their own consciences . Nevertheless , I have been aske d and urge d t o touc h upo n thes e financia l evil s an d expos e som e o f the m s o that , eve n though th e majority may not wish to do right, at least some people - howeve r few they are - ma y be delivered fro m th e gaping jaws of avarice. For it mus t be that amon g the merchants, as among other people, there are some who belong to Christ and would rather be poo r wit h Go d tha n ric h wit h th e devil , a s Psal m 37[.16 ] says , 'It i s better fo r th e righteous to have a little than to have the great possessions of the wicked.' For their sake, then, w e must spea k out . VI.3 It cannot b e denied that buying and selling are necessary. They cannot be dispensed with, and ca n b e practise d i n a Christia n manner , especiall y when th e commoditie s serv e a necessary and honourable purpose . Fo r even the patriarchs bought an d sold cattle , wool, grain, butter, mil k and other goods i n this way. These are gifts o f God, which he bestows out o f the eart h an d distribute s amon g mankind . Bu t foreig n trade , whic h brings fro m Calcutta an d India and such place s wares lik e costly silks, articles of gold, and spices which minister only to ostentation bu t serve no useful purpose, and which drain away the money of land and people - woul d not be permitted if we had [proper] government and princes. Bu t o f thi s i t i s no t m y presen t purpos e t o write , fo r I expec t that , lik e overdressing and overeating , i t will have to sto p o f itself when we have no mor e money . 133

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

Until then, neither writing nor teachin g will do any good. We must first feel the pinch of want an d poverty ...

VI.4 It is our purpose here to speak of the abuses and sins of trade, insofa r as they concern the conscience. The matter of their detrimental effec t on the purse we leave to the princes and lords, tha t the y may do thei r dut y i n this regard . VI.5 First. Among themselves the merchants have a common rul e which is their chief maxim and th e basis of all their sharp practices, where they say: 'I may sell my goods as dear as I can.' They think this is their right. Thus occasion i s given for avarice, and ever y window and doo r t o hel l i s opened. What els e doe s i t mean bu t this : I car e nothin g abou t m y neighbour; so long as I have my profit an d satisf y m y greed, of what concern is it to me if it injure s m y neighbour i n ten ways at once? There you se e how shamelessly this maxi m flies squarely in the face not onl y of Christian love but als o of natural law. How can there be anything good then in trade? How can it be without sin when such injustice is the chief maxim and rule of the whole business? On such a basis trade can be nothing but robbin g and stealin g the propert y o f others . VI.6 When once the rogue's eye and greedy belly of a merchant find that people must have his wares, or that the buyer is poor and needs them, he takes advantage of him and raises the price. H e consider s no t th e valu e o f the goods , o r wha t hi s ow n effort s an d ris k hav e deserved, but onl y the other man' s want and need. He notes it not tha t he may relieve it but tha t h e may use it to hi s own advantage by raising the pric e of his goods, whic h he would no t hav e raised ha d i t no t bee n fo r hi s neighbour's need . Becaus e of his avarice, therefore, the goods must be priced as much higher as the greater need of the other fello w will allow , s o that th e neighbour' s nee d become s a s it wer e th e measur e o f th e goods ' worth and value. Tell me, isn't that an un-Christian and inhuman thin g to do? Isn't that equivalent to sellin g a poor man hi s own need i n the same transaction? When h e has to buy his wares at a higher price because of his need, that is the same as having to buy his own need; for what is sold t o him i s not simpl y the wares as they are, but th e wares plus the fac t tha t h e mus t hav e them . Observ e tha t thi s an d lik e abomination s ar e th e inevitable consequence whe n th e rul e i s that I may sell my goods a s dear a s I can. VI.7 The rule ought to be, not, 'I may sell my wares as dear as I can or will,' but, 'I may sell my wares as dear a s I ought, o r a s is right and fair. ' Fo r your sellin g ought no t t o b e an ac t that i s entirely within your ow n powe r an d discretion , withou t la w or limit , a s though you were a god and beholden to no one. Because your selling is an act performed toward your neighbour , i t shoul d rathe r be so governed by law and conscienc e that you d o i t without harm and injury to him, your concern being directed more toward doing him no injury than toward gaining profit fo r yourself. But where are there such merchants? How few merchant s there would be, and ho w trade would decline , i f they were to amen d thi s evil rul e and pu t thing s on a fai r an d Christia n basis! 134

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

VI.8

You ask, then, 'How dear may I sell? How am I to arriv e at what is fair an d righ t so I do not tak e increase from a neighbour or overcharg e him?' Answer: That i s something that will never be governed eithe r by writing or speaking ; nor ha s anyone ever undertaken t o fix the value of every commodity, an d t o rais e or lower prices accordingly. The reason is this: wares are not al l alike; one i s transported a greater distanc e tha n anothe r an d on e involves greate r outla y tha n another . I n thi s respect , therefore , everythin g i s and mus t remain uncertain , an d n o fixe d determinatio n ca n b e made , an y mor e tha n on e ca n designate a certain city as the place from whic h all wares are to be brought, or establish a definite cos t pric e for them. I t may happen that th e same wares, brought fro m th e same city by the same road, cost vastly more i n one year than they did the year before because the weather may be worse, or the road, or because something els e happens that increases the expens e a t on e tim e abov e tha t a t anothe r time . No w i t i s fai r an d righ t tha t a merchant tak e a s muc h profi t o n hi s ware s a s wil l reimburs e hi m fo r thei r cos t an d compensate him for his trouble, his labour, and his risk. Even a farmhand must have food and pa y fo r hi s labour . Wh o ca n serv e o r labou r fo r nothing ? Th e gospe l says , 'Th e labourer deserve s his wages' [Luk e 10.7] .

VI.9 But in order not to leave the question entirely unanswered, the best and safes t way would be t o hav e th e tempora l authoritie s appoin t i n thi s matte r wis e an d hones t me n t o compute the costs of all sorts of wares and accordingly set prices which would enable the merchant to get along and provide for him a n adequate living, as is being done at certain places wit h respec t t o wine , fish, bread, an d th e like . Bu t we Germans hav e too man y other thing s t o do ; w e ar e to o bus y drinkin g an d dancin g t o provid e fo r rule s an d regulations of this sort. Since this kind o f ordinance therefor e is not t o b e expected, th e next best thing is to let goods be valued at the price for which they are bought and sold in the common market , or i n the lan d generally. In this matter w e can accept the proverb , 'Follow the crowd and you won't get lost.' Any profit mad e in this way I consider hones t and proper, because here there is always the risk involved of having to suffe r los s in wares and outlay , and excessiv e profits ar e scarcely possible. VI. 10 Where th e pric e o f good s i s no t fixe d eithe r b y la w o r custom , an d yo u mus t fi x i t yourself, here one can truly give you no instructions but onl y lay it on your conscience to be careful no t to overcharge your neighbour, and to seek a modest living , not the goals of greed. Som e hav e wished t o plac e a ceilin g o n profits , with a limi t o f one-hal f o n al l wares; some sa y one-third; other s somethin g else . None of these measures is certain an d safe unles s i t b e s o decree d b y th e tempora l authoritie s an d commo n law . Wha t the y determine i n these matter s woul d b e safe . Therefore , you mus t mak e u p you r min d t o seek in your trading only an adequate living. Accordingly, you should compute and count your cost , trouble , labour , an d risk , and o n tha t basi s rais e or lowe r th e price s o f your wares so that yo u se t them wher e you will be repai d fo r your troubl e an d labour . VI. 11 I would not hav e anyone's conscienc e be so overly scrupulous or so closely bound i n this matter tha t he feels h e must strike exactly the righ t measure of profit t o the very heller. It 135

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

is impossibl e fo r yo u t o arriv e a t th e exac t amoun t tha t yo u hav e earne d wit h you r trouble and labour. It is enough that with a good conscience you make the effort t o arrive at wha t i s right, thoug h th e ver y nature o f trade make s i t impossibl e t o determin e thi s exactly. The sayin g of the Wis e Man wil l hold goo d i n you r cas e too: ' A merchant ca n hardly ac t withou t sin , an d a tradesma n wil l hardl y kee p hi s lip s fro m evil ' [Ecclus . 26.29]. If you tak e a trifle to o muc h profi t unwittingl y and unintentionally , dismis s the matter in the Lord' s Prayer where we pray, 'Forgive us our trespasses ' [Matt . 6.12]. Afte r all, no man's life is without sin; besides, the time will come in turn when you get too little for your trouble. Just throw the excess in the scale to counterbalance the losses you must similarly expec t t o take . VI. 12 For example, if you had a business amounting to a hundred gulden a year, and yo u were to tak e - ove r an d abov e al l the cos t an d reasonabl e profi t yo u had fo r your trouble , labour, and risk - a n excessive profit o f perhaps one or two or three gulden, that I would call a business error which could no t wel l be avoided, especially in the course of a whole year's trading. Therefore, you should no t burden your conscience with it, but brin g it to God in the Lord's Prayer as another o f those inevitabl e sins (which cling to all of us) an d leave th e matte r t o him . Fo r i t i s no t wickednes s o r greed , bu t th e ver y natur e an d necessity of your occupatio n whic h forces you int o thi s mistake. I am speakin g no w of good-hearted an d God-fearin g men, wh o woul d no t willingl y d o wrong . I t i s like th e marital obligation , whic h cannot b e performed without sin ; yet because o f its necessity, God winks at it , fo r i t canno t b e otherwise . VLB In determinin g ho w much profi t yo u ough t t o tak e o n you r busines s an d you r labour , there is no better way to reckon it than by computing the amount o f time and labour you have put int o it, and comparing that with the effort o f a day labourer who works at some other occupation an d seeing how much he earns in a day. On that basis figure how many days you have spent i n getting your wares and bringin g them t o you r plac e of business, and ho w muc h labou r an d ris k wa s involved; fo r a grea t amoun t o f labou r an d tim e ought t o hav e a correspondingly greate r return . That i s the most accurate , the best, an d the mos t definit e advic e an d directio n tha t ca n b e give n i n thi s matter . Le t him wh o dislikes it, better it himself. I base my case (as I have said) on the gospel that the labourer deserves his wages [Luke 10.7] ; and Pau l also says in 1 Corinthians 9[.7] , 'He who tends the flock should get some of the milk. Who can go to war at his own expense?' If you have a bette r groun d tha n that , you are welcome to it .

VI.14 Second. A common error , which has become a widespread custom no t onl y among th e merchants but throughou t th e world, i s the practic e of one perso n becomin g surety for another. Although this practice seems to be without sin, and looks like a virtue stemming from love , nevertheless it generally ruins a good man y people an d doe s them irreparable harm. Kin g Solomo n ofte n forbad e it , an d condemne d i t i n hi s proverbs . I n Proverb s 6[.l-5] he says, 'My son, i f you hav e become surety for your neighbour, you have given your hand o n it; you are snared in the utterance o f your lips, and caugh t in the words of your mouth . The n d o this , m y son , an d sav e yourself , fo r yo u hav e com e int o you r 136

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AN D JUSTIC E

neighbour's power: Go , hasten an d importun e you r neighbour. Giv e your eyes no sleep , and you r eyelid s no slumber . Sav e yourself like a gazelle from the hand , an d lik e a bird from the hand o f the fowler.' Agai n ... 'Take a man's garmen t whe n he has given surety for another , an d tak e a pledge fro m hi m fo r the stranger' s sake ' [Prov . 27.13] . VI. 15 See how strictly and vehemently the wise king in Holy Scripture forbids one' s becoming surety for another. Th e German proverb agree s with him, 'Guarantor s to the gallows'; as much as to say: It serves the surety right when he is seized and ha s to pay, for he is acting rashly and foolishl y in becoming surety . Hence, i t is decreed accordin g to Scriptur e that no on e shal l become suret y for another , unles s he is able and entirel y willing to assum e the debt an d pay it himself. Now it does see m strange that this practice should be wrong and be condemned, althoug h a good man y have learned b y experience that it is a foolis h thing to do , an d hav e had subsequen t misgiving s about it . Why, then, i s it condemned? Let u s see . VI. 16 Standing suret y i s a wor k tha t i s to o loft y fo r a man ; i t i s unseemly , fo r i t i s a presumptuous encroachmen t upo n th e wor k o f God . I n th e firs t place , Scriptur e commands us not to put our trust and reliance in any man, but i n God alone. For human nature i s false , vain , deceitful , an d unreliable , a s Scriptur e say s an d experienc e dail y teaches. He who becomes surety , however, i s putting hi s trust i n a man, and riskin g life and propert y o n a false an d insecur e foundation . I t serve s him righ t when h e fails , falls , and i s ruined . VI. 17 In th e secon d place , th e suret y i s trustin g i n himsel f an d makin g himsel f Go d (fo r whatever a man trust s i n an d relie s upo n i s his god). Bu t his own lif e an d propert y ar e never for a single moment any more secure or certain than those of the man for whom he becomes surety . Everythin g is in th e han d o f God alone . Go d wil l not allo w u s a hair' s breadth o f power o r righ t over the future , no r wil l he let us for a single moment b e sure or certai n o f it . Therefore , h e wh o become s suret y act s i n a n un-Christia n way ; h e deserves what h e gets , because h e pledge s an d promise s wha t i s not hi s an d no t i n hi s power, bu t solel y in God's hands . VI. 18 Thus we read in Genesis 43 and 44 , how the patriarch Judah became surety to hi s fathe r Jacob for hi s brother Benjamin , promising t o brin g him hom e agai n o r bear th e blam e forever [Gen . 43.8—9] . Go d nicel y punishe d thi s presumption , an d cause d hi m t o flounder an d fai l s o that h e could no t brin g Benjami n bac k until h e gave himself up fo r him [Gen . 44.14-34] an d the n wa s barely free d b y grace . Th e punishmen t serve d hi m right, for these sureties act as though the y didn't even have to consult Go d on the matter or giv e though t t o whethe r the y ar e eve n sur e o f a tomorro w fo r thei r ow n lif e an d property. The y act without fea r o f God, as though they were themselves the sourc e of lif e and property, an d these were in their own power as long as they themselves willed it. This is nothing bu t a fruit o f unbelief ... 137

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

VI.19

Perhaps yo u wil l say , 'Ho w the n ar e peopl e t o trad e wit h on e anothe r i f suret y i s improper? That wa y many would b e lef t behin d wh o migh t otherwis e ge t ahead.'

Answer: There are four Christian ways of exchanging external goods with others, as I have said elsewhere. The first way is to let them rob o r steal our property , as Christ says in Matthew 5 [.40], 'If anyone takes away your cloak , let him hav e your coa t a s well, and d o no t as k it o f hi m again.' This way of dealing counts fo r nothing amon g the merchants ; besides, i t has no t been held or preached as common teachin g for all Christians, but merely as a counsel or a good ide a fo r th e clerg y and th e perfect , thoug h the y observ e i t eve n les s tha n d o th e merchants. Bu t true Christians observe it, for they know that thei r Fathe r in heaven has assuredly promised i n Matthew 6[.l 1] to give them this day their daily bread. If men were to ac t accordingly, not onl y would countles s abuse s i n al l kinds o f business be avoided , but a great many people would not become merchants, because reason and human nature flee an d shu n t o th e uttermos t risk s and damage s of this sort . VI.20 The second wa y is to give freely t o anyone who need s it, as Christ also teaches in the sam e passage [Matt . 5.42; Luke 6.30]. This too i s a lofty Christian work, which is why it counts for littl e among th e people . Ther e would b e fewe r merchant s an d les s trade i f this were put int o practice. For he who does this must truly hold fas t t o heaven and look always to the hands of God, and not to his own resources or wealth, knowing that God will support him eve n though every cupboard were bare, because he knows to be true what God said to Joshua , ' I wil l no t forsak e yo u o r withdra w m y han d fro m you ' [Josh . 1.5] ; a s th e proverb ha s it , 'Go d stil l has mor e tha n wha t h e eve r gav e away. ' Bu t that take s a true Christian, and he is a rare animal on earth , to whom the world and natur e pa y no heed .

VI.21 The third wa y is lending. That is , I give away my property , an d tak e it back again if it is returned to me ; but I must do without i t if it is not returned . Chris t himself defines thi s kind o f transaction i n what h e says in Luk e 6[.35], 'Lend, expectin g nothing i n return. ' That is , yo u shoul d len d freely , an d tak e you r chance s o n gettin g i t bac k o r not . I f it comes back, take it ; if it does not , i t i s a gift. Accordin g to th e gospe l there is thus onl y one distinction between giving and lending, namely, a gift i s not take n back, while a loan is taken back - i f it is returned - bu t involves the risk that it may become a gift. H e who lends expecting to ge t back something more and somethin g better tha n h e has loaned i s nothing but a n open and condemned usurer , since even those who in lending demand or expect to get back exactly what they lend, and take no chances on whether they get it back or not , ar e not actin g in a Christian way. This third wa y too (i n m y opinion) i s a loft y Christian work ; and a rare one , judgin g by the wa y things are goin g i n th e world . I f it were t o b e practise d generally , trad e o f al l sort s woul d greatl y diminis h an d virtuall y cease. VI.22 These three ways of exchanging goods, then, observ e i n masterful fashion thi s matter o f not presuming upon the future, an d not trusting in any man or in oneself but clingin g to 138

POLITICS, ECONOMICS AND JUSTIC E

God alone . Her e al l transactions ar e i n cash , an d ar e accompanie d b y the wor d whic h James teaches , 'I f Go d wills , s o be it ' [Jas . 4.15]. Fo r her e we deal with peopl e a s with those who are unreliable and might fail; we give our money freely, or take our chance s on losing what we lend. VI.23 Now someone will say 'Who can then be saved? And where shall we find these Christians? Why, i n thi s wa y there woul d b e n o trad e lef t i n th e world ; everyon e woul d hav e hi s property take n o r borrowe d away , and th e doo r woul d b e thrown ope n fo r the wicked and idl e glutton s - o f whom th e world i s full - t o take everything with thei r lyin g and cheating.' Answer : I hav e already said tha t Christian s ar e rar e peopl e o n earth . Tha t i s why th e worl d need s a strict , hars h tempora l governmen t whic h wil l compe l an d constrain the wicked to refrai n from thef t an d robbery, and to retur n what they borrow (although a Christian ought neither to deman d no r expec t it). This is necessary in order that th e worl d ma y not becom e a desert, peac e vanish, and men' s trade an d societ y be utterly destroyed; all of which would happen if we were to rule the world according to the gospel, rather than driving and compelling the wicked by laws and the us e of force to d o and allow what is right. For this reason we must keep the roads safe, preserve peace in the towns, enforc e la w i n th e land , an d le t th e swor d he w briskl y an d boldl y agains t transgressors, as St Paul teaches in Romans 13[.4]. For it is God's will that people who are not Christia n b e hel d i n chec k and kep t fro m doin g wrong, at leas t fro m doin g i t with impunity. Let no one think that th e world can be ruled without bloodshed; th e temporal sword mus t an d shal l be re d an d bloody , fo r th e worl d wil l and mus t b e evil , and th e sword i s God's ro d an d vengeanc e upon it . Bu t o f this I have said enoug h i n m y little book o n Temporal Authority. VI.24 Borrowing woul d b e a fin e thin g i f i t wer e practise d betwee n Christians , fo r ever y borrower woul d the n willingl y retur n wha t ha d bee n len t him , an d th e lende r woul d willingly forg o repaymen t i f the borrowe r wer e unabl e t o pay . Christian s ar e brothers , and on e doe s no t forsak e another ; neithe r i s any of them s o lazy and shameles s that h e would no t wor k bu t depen d simpl y o n another' s wealt h an d labour , o r consum e i n idleness another' s goods . Bu t wher e me n ar e no t Christians , th e tempora l authoritie s ought to compel them to repay what they have borrowed. I f the temporal authorities are negligent an d d o no t compe l repayment , the Christia n ough t t o tolerat e the robbery , as Paul say s i n 1 Corinthians 6[.7] , 'Wh y no t rathe r suffe r wrong? ' Bu t you ma y exhort , insist, an d d o wha t yo u wil l t o th e ma n wh o i s not a Christian ; h e pay s n o attentio n because he i s not a Christian an d ha s no regar d fo r Christ' s doctrine . VI.25 You still have a grain of comfort too i n the fact tha t you are not obligate d to make a loan except out o f your surplus and what you can spare from your own needs, as Christ says of alms, 'What you have left over , that give in alms, and everything i s clean for you'. Now if someone wishe s to borro w fro m yo u a n amoun t s o large that yo u would b e ruined i f it were no t repaid , an d yo u coul d no t spar e i t fro m you r ow n needs , the n yo u ar e no t bound to mak e the loan. Your first and greates t obligation i s to provid e for the need s of your wife and children and servants; you must not diver t from the m what you owe them. 139

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

The best rule to follow is this: If the amount asked as a loan is too great, just go ahead and give something outright, or els e lend a s much a s you would b e willing to give , and tak e the ris k of having to los e it. John the Baptis t did no t say , 'He who has one coat, let him give it away,' but, 'He who has two coats, let him giv e one to him who has none; and he who ha s food , le t hi m d o likewise ' [Luk e 3.11] . VI.26 The fourth wa y of exchanging goods i s through buyin g o r selling , but fo r har d cas h o r payment i n kind. He who would use this method mus t make up his mind t o rel y not o n something i n the future bu t o n God alone; also, that he will have to be dealing with men , men who will certainly fail and lie. Therefore, the best advice is this: whoever sells should not giv e credit or accep t any security, but sel l only for cash. If he wishes to lend, let him lend to Christians, or else take the risk of loss, and lend no more than he would be willing to giv e outrigh t o r ca n spar e fro m hi s ow n needs . I f th e tempora l governmen t an d regulations wil l no t hel p hi m t o recove r hi s loan , le t hi m los e it . Le t hi m bewar e o f becoming securit y for anyone; let him muc h rathe r give what he can. Such a man woul d be a true Christian merchant ; God would no t forsak e hi m becaus e he trusts properly i n Him an d cheerfull y take s a chance i n dealin g with his untrustworthy neighbours . VI.27 If there was no suc h thing in this world as becoming surety, if the fre e lendin g portraye d in th e gospe l wer e th e genera l practice , an d i f only har d cas h o r ware s o n han d wer e exchanged in trade, then the greatest and most harmfu l danger s and fault s an d failings of trade and commerce would be well out o f the way. It would then be easy to engag e in all sorts of business enterprises, and the other sinful fault s of trade could the more readily be prevented. If there were none of this becoming surety and this lending without risk, many a ma n woul d hav e to maintai n hi s humble statu s an d b e conten t wit h a modest living who no w aspires day and nigh t to reac h a n exalte d position , relyin g on borrowin g an d standing surety. That is why everyone now wants to be a merchant and get rich. From this stem the countless dangerous, and wicked devices and dirty tricks that have today become a joke among the merchants . Ther e are so many of them tha t I have given up th e hop e that trade can be entirely corrected; it is so overburdened with all sorts of wickedness and deception that in the long run i t will not be able to sustain itself, but wil l have to collapse inwardly of it s own weight . VI. 2 8 In what has been said I wished to give a bit of warning and instructio n to everyone about this great, filthy, widespread busines s o f trade and commerce .

CRITIQUE The limitation s o f som e o f Luther' s medieva l economi c concept s hav e alread y bee n noted. Nonetheless, the central thrust of his treatise still has undoubted force . A t a time, in the West, when the division between Christian s and non-Christians, and between the churches an d societ y a t large , is often fel t t o b e increasing , his argumen t assume s fres h relevance. Religious people generally may feel a requirement to distinguish more carefull y than i n a numbe r o f previou s age s an d societie s betwee n wha t sor t o f behaviou r i s appropriate for them and what sort is to be enforced withi n society. In a number of areas 140

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

of social ethics this problem ma y not b e acute, but i n the areas of personal ethic s it ofte n is. So , injunction s agains t murde r an d stealing , onc e the y ar e sociall y denned , ar e expected to apply to all. But in areas of sexual morality any attempt at public enforcement has become increasingl y more controversial . I t wil l be see n late r i n Sectio n 5 that eve n this distinctio n (i.e . betwee n socia l an d persona l ethics ) i s difficul t t o maintai n consistently and that there are many issues that might claim to be both (e.g. marriage and abortion). Nonetheless , Luther' s dilemma remain s a real one. There is, indeed, a sense in which ther e woul d b e n o nee d o f laws , courts , prison s an d s o forth , i f everyone lived consistently by the rule of agape: al l would tell the truth, respect the property and person s of others, an d woul d b e self-les s and self-giving . Further , Luther is obviously and sadl y correct in asserting that society is just not constituted b y such agapeistic people - s o laws, courts, prison s ar e essentia l i f socia l chao s i s t o b e avoided . H e woul d hav e mad e a n excellent criti c o f Fletcher's attempt s i n Extrac t 2 to wor k ou t a system of ethics fo r all based solel y upon agape. Th e dilemm a fo r Christia n businesspeopl e remain s broadly as Luther depicted: the y are not workin g in a society composed solel y of sincere Christians and, i f they were to follo w the injunction s o f the Sermo n o n th e Moun t literally , their business would probabl y collaps e (a s it would i f they followed Luther' s advice literally). Some present-da y theologians , suc h a s Mirand a i n Extrac t 13 , would se e this a s goo d reason fo r Christia n businesspeopl e t o abando n Wester n capitalis m altogether . Bu t fo r those who cannot accep t this, tension seem s inescapable. It is a tension eviden t in several of the Extract s in thi s Section . Even i f it i s accepted tha t som e dichotom y betwee n Christia n ethic s an d th e ethica l standards t o b e require d o f societ y i s inevitable , Luther' s depictio n o f thi s ca n stil l b e criticized. Hi s vie w o f hi s contemporarie s wa s blea k an d h e seeme d t o believ e tha t i f people coul d no t b e converte d t o Christianit y they could onl y b e restraine d lik e beasts (see especially VI.23) . No t onl y doe s thi s presen t a highl y exclusiv e understandin g o f Christianity (see above, p. 63), but i t makes no allowanc e for transposed Christia n values having an effec t upo n societ y a t larg e (see above, pp. 7-8) .

141

This page intentionally left blank

EXTRACTS 8-1 4

EARTH, BERDYAEV , NIEBUHR, TEMPLE , JOHN XXIII, MIRANDA, AND HOLLENBAC H 1. BACKGROUND Karl Earth' s Extrac t 8 come s fro m hi s commentar y Th e Epistle t o th e Romans (Oxfor d University Press , 192 9 edition , o n Rom . 12.2 1 an d 13.1) ; Nicola s Berdyaev' s Extrac t 9 from hi s Freedom an d th e Spirit (Geoffre y Ble s Centenary Press, London, 1935 , pp. x-xiv and xvi-xviii) ; Reinhold Niebuhr' s Extrac t 1 0 from hi s Moral Ma n an d Immoral Society (Scribner's, Ne w York, 1960 re-issue, pp. 257- 9 and 268-75) ; William Temple' s Extrac t 11 fro m hi s Christianity an d Social Order (Shepheard-Walwy n and SPCK , London, 197 6 re-issue, pp . 58-9 , 60-2 , 67-8 , 69-71 , 72-4 , 7 5 and 77) ; Pope Joh n XXIII' s Extrac t 12 from hi s Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris (Catholi c Truth Society , London, trans. Henry Waterhouse SJ , 1980, paras 80-96, 130-4 6 and 161-71) ; Jose Porfirio Miranda' s Extract 13 from his Marx an d th e Bible (SCM Press, London, and Orbi s Books, New York, 1977, trans. Joh n Eagleson , pp . 14-22) ; an d Davi d Hollenbac h SJ' s Extract 1 4 from hi s Th e Common Good an d Christian Ethics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, pp. 56-60 and 229-31). Extracts 8 and 1 0 represent the views of authors in their radical youth, whereas 1 1 and 12 represent those of church statesmen at the end o f their lives. The Epistle t o the Romans represented Earth' s radica l brea k wit h Christia n liberalis m an d prove d t o b e th e foundation-stone of the neo-orthodo x movemen t i n theology. Bart h (1886-1968) wrot e Der Romerbriefin th e contex t o f the revolutionar y Europe of 1917-19 and, as a result of it, he was soon made a professor, first at Gottingen (1921) , then at Minister (1925) , then Bonn (1930 ) and, finally, on expulsio n b y Hitler, a t Base l (1935) . Niebuhr (1892-1971 ) published Moral Man an d Immoral Society in 1932 , four years after becoming Professor o f Applied Christianity at the Union Theological Seminary, New York, where he stayed until his retiremen t i n 1960 . He , too , wrot e thi s wor k i n th e contex t o f considerabl e socia l ferment, durin g th e America n Depression an d a s a resul t o f hi s pastora l experienc e in industrial Detroit , prio r t o hi s appointmen t a t UTS . Templ e (1881-1944 ) wrot e Christianity an d Social Order at the height of the Second World War, in 1941 , twelve years after becomin g Archbisho p o f York and a fe w months befor e becomin g Archbishop of Canterbury. Unlik e som e o f hi s mor e technica l works , it s styl e was designed fo r non theologians and, indeed, it sold some 150,00 0 copies when first published (re-issued 195 6 and 1976) . John XXIII (1881-1963) was Pope for five years, publishing Pacem in Terris in the yea r tha t h e die d an d onl y month s afte r convenin g th e highl y influentia l Secon d Vatican Council . Extrac t 1 2 clearly reflect s th e libera l concern s o f Joh n XXII I an d th e social change s that characterize d th e 1960s . Berdyaev (1874-1948 ) wrot e Freedom an d th e Spirit i n 1927 , in Paris , five years afte r his expulsion fro m hi s native Russia. Among his other important book s are Th e Meaning of History (1923 ) and Th e Destiny of Man (1931) . I n hi s autobiograph y he describe s hi s 143

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

position as a Russian Orthodox Christia n as follows: 'I confess a spiritual religion, I am a free Christian , who has not broke n awa y from th e church.' He died i n Paris as a Russian expatriate an d independen t scholar . Extrac t 13 , i n contrast , reflect s th e present-da y concerns o f Lati n America n liberation theology . Miranda , a Mexica n Roma n Catholic , was traine d i n bot h economic s an d biblica l studie s an d ha s written , i n addition , th e influential Marx Against th e Marxists (1980) . Davi d Hollenbac h i s a Jesui t pries t an d Margaret O'Brie n Flatle y Professor o f Catholic Theolog y a t Bosto n College . Amon g his books ar e Claims i n Conflict: Retrieving an d Renewing th e Catholic Human Rights Tradition (1979) , Nuclear Ethics (1983 ) an d Justice, Peace an d Human Rights (1990 ) influential work s upon th e U S Catholic Bishop s at th e tim e [see Extrac t 17] . 2. KE Y ISSUES Barth argue s that th e existin g order s i n the politica l realm , whethe r democrati c o r not , appear as orders of humanity against God. Rulers and government s seem to be claiming falsely t o posses s a higher righ t over others. Eve n a theocracy would appea r as supreme wrongdoing (8.1) . Political revolution i s born of the perception of the evil that lies in the very existenc e o f government s o f an y sort . Yet , i n th e proces s o f revolution , th e revolutionaries ar e overcome b y evil, since they too confron t other s (ofte n tyrannically ) with a supposed righ t ove r them (8.2) . True revolutio n involve s forgiveness o f sins an d resurrection of the dead, whereas political revolutionaries bring hatred and demolition mere reaction s t o th e presen t orde r rathe r tha n th e intende d ne w orde r (8.3) . Thus , revolutionaries simpl y replace one for m o f temporal powe r with anothe r an d ma y even make remainin g element s o f th e previou s orde r mor e dangerous . The y attemp t t o substitute themselves for God (8.4). But, since it is outside history, God's order cannot b e established i n this way (8.5-7). Indeed, God's orde r stand s i n permanent judgemen t o n human ecclesiastica l an d secula r orthodoxie s an d 'isms ' - includin g legitimis m (i.e . political theor y concerne d wit h establishin g th e legitimac y o f particula r regimes) . Judgement must be left t o Go d alone (8.8) . Powers are to be measured only by reference to God as God, who alone is judge, and the evil of the existing order is to be seen as really evil only in relation to God' s orde r (8.9) . Evi l gives witness to the good an d i t should b e left fo r God alone to judge - vengeanc e is not ours, but God' s (8.10) . Although bot h Bart h an d Berdyae v were, a t times , highl y active an d committe d i n political affair s a s individuals , a s theologian s the y wer e equall y apolitical . Berdyaev' s apoliticism stem s fro m hi s thoroughgoin g stres s o n spirituality . H e see s Christianity as undergoing a crisis in transition fro m a n objective/collective form t o a more subjective / individualistic on e (9.1) . Fo r him , th e collective/democrati c an d th e individualistic / aristocratic types ar e evident throughou t history . Socialist s belon g t o th e firs t typ e an d tend to claim that a privileged minority have exploited the majority, whereas, in fact, they themselves hav e alway s persecute d th e qualitativ e minority , favourin g th e 'average ' person (9.2) . Indeed, conservatives and monarchists also belong to this type, maintaining traditional institutions fo r the majority (9.3). As aristocrats o f the spirit, saints , prophet s and geniuse s d o no t nee d conventiona l politica l structure s (democrati c o r otherwise) . Yet, they still ought not to separate themselves fro m the world, even if they are persecuted by the world (9.4) . Democratic types may have greater talents than aristocrati c types but they ar e les s sensitiv e t o th e world' s uglines s an d barbarit y (9.5) . Th e Gnosti c belong s mainly to the aristocratic type, clashing with democratic orthodox Christianity, but is in a sense closer to the present-day spiritually sensitive person an d to the Russia n concept of 144

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

sobornost ( a mysti c concep t ofte n use d b y Russia n theologian s t o denot e th e ide a o f oneness i n togetherness ) (9.6) . Bu t Gnostic s tended , proudl y an d wrongly , t o separat e themselves fro m th e carna l worl d and , i n th e process , prove d unlovin g t o thei r fellows . Yet, th e Church , i n condemnin g Gnostics , elaborate d a n inflexibl e syste m o f theolog y (9.7). Nonetheless, ther e is still roo m i n Christianit y for peopl e wh o ca n reac h spiritual heights, without boastin g an d separating themselve s from th e carnal world - despit e the denial o f this, a t times , b y both th e Churc h an d particula r politica l regime s (9.8) . The problem o f th e Spiri t an d th e spiritua l lif e i s the mai n issu e confrontin g peopl e toda y (9.9). A distinction betwee n th e politica l an d th e religiou s appears, in a very different form , in Niebuhr's early Moral Man and Immoral Society. For Niebuhr, a sharp distinction mus t be mad e betwee n individua l an d socia l ethics , th e forme r requirin g unselfishnes s a s its ideal an d the latter justice (10.1) . They ar e not totally exclusive - fo r instance, insight s from individua l moral conscienc e are essential if society is fully to understan d justice and without the m justic e woul d soo n degenerat e - bu t the y canno t b e full y harmonize d (10.2). Wherea s unselfishnes s is essentia l t o individua l morality , self-assertio n may , a t times, b e essentia l fo r th e surviva l of a particula r societ y (10.3) . Individua l ethic s ha s usually been cultivate d b y religion and appear s thus as the antithesis of political morality (10.4). Attempts to apply such individual ethics to social groups have failed - whethe r in the cas e of the America n blacks , Italia n pacifis t socialists , o r pre-revolutionar y Russians (10.5-7). It would be better to admit a moral dualism than to attempt to harmonize these two form s o f morality. Jus t a s we distinguish between mora l judgement s applie d t o sel f and thos e w e appl y t o others , s o w e mus t distinguis h betwee n thos e w e apply t o th e individual an d thos e w e appl y t o societ y (10.8) . Th e socia l grou p doe s no t posses s sufficient imaginatio n fo r it to be amenable to pure love; particular groups are too selfis h to allow themselves to subject their own interests to some inconclusive social ideal (10.9). But individuals , eve n thos e wh o ar e politicall y involved , ough t stil l t o b e loya l t o th e highest canons of personal morality and, at times, may even have to dissociate themselves from thei r grou p (10.10) . An d individuals , suc h a s leader s o f groups , mus t practis e personal unselfishnes s if they ar e adequatel y t o fulfi l thei r socia l role s (10.11-12) . All of the nex t thre e author s believe that Christianit y ha s a directly politica l role. Fo r Temple, th e Church, as the Church , must be concerned wit h general principles, whereas the individual Christian must seek to particularize these principles (11.1) . Christian faith , by itself , canno t produc e detaile d politica l policie s independen t o f economic an d othe r factors, althoug h i t ca n point t o relevan t principle s (11.2-3) . Th e Churc h eve n ha s difficulties wit h th e notio n o f the 'perfec t socia l order ' - no t leas t becaus e o f huma n imperfection (11.4-5) . Politica l an d economi c system s mus t firs t provid e fo r huma n security eve n befor e providin g fo r justice o r expressin g lov e (11.6) . However , althoug h Christianity does not suggest an 'ideal state', it does supply a number of general principles (11.7-8). So, it supplies the principle of respect for every person a s a child of God and, as a result, people should be given priority over societies and societies should be arranged to maximize th e individual role s o f it s peopl e (11.9-10) . Again, Christianity contain s th e principle of freedom - understood , not simpl y a s an absence of constraint, but a s selfdetermination (11.11-12) . La w exists t o preserv e an d t o exten d thi s freedo m (11.13) . Freedom fo r th e individua l i s freedo m withi n th e contex t o f variou s socia l groups : humans ar e emphaticall y socia l i n th e sens e o f belongin g t o a variet y o f intermediat e groups (11.14-17). The state which values freedom should b e careful t o give such groups 145

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

freedom - and , indeed , Britai n ha s derived man y o f its democratic habit s fro m suc h groups as the Trade Unions , themselves owing much t o the Chapel s (11.18-20) . Finally, there i s a principl e o f fellowshi p leadin g t o service ; partl y voluntar y servic e b y th e individual and , partly , the individua l seeing paid occupatio n a s service (11.22^4) . John XXIII's discussion i s also concerned wit h general principles which can be applied to political realities, although he views them in terms of rights and duties (a right entails a duty an d a dut y presuppose s a right) . I n contras t t o Niebuhr , h e maintain s tha t th e natural la w notio n o f mutua l right s an d dutie s applie s a s muc h t o th e relationshi p between state s a s i t doe s t o tha t betwee n individual s (12.1-3) . Thi s perspectiv e recognizing the reality of the moral order and the objectivity of truth, both by individuals and b y states , i n seekin g t o promot e th e commo n goo d (12.5-6) . Grante d suc h recognition, racial and ethnic discrimination an d arrogance, based o n superior talent s or wealth, ca n play no par t eithe r i n individual o r i n communal behaviou r (12.7-10) . The truth als o requires fairness i n the use of mass communication (12.11) . States have a duty to see k justice and no t t o see k their own advantage a t the expens e of others (12.12-13) . When ther e i s a clas h o f interest s betwee n states , peacefu l an d considerat e mean s o f resolving it should b e sought, particularly when ethnic minorities ar e dealt with by states (12.14-17). States are becoming increasingl y interdependent an d i t is vital that attention should b e given to th e universa l common goo d (12.18-20) . Present stat e structure s are inadequate t o dea l with problem s raise d b y such a universa l common goo d (e.g . worl d peace) and this requires the establishment o f some for m o f world government (12.21-5) . Such a governmen t shoul d onl y com e int o bein g throug h universa l consen t - fo r otherwise it might favour one nation over others - an d should be concerned wit h making sure tha t huma n right s ar e uphel d everywher e (12.26-7) . I n addition , i t shoul d b e concerned solel y wit h question s relate d t o th e universa l commo n goo d an d no t wit h those rightly belonging t o individua l state s (12.28-9) . UNO i s a step i n the directio n o f such a government (12.20-3) . Individual Christians should b e particularly concerned t o offer themselve s fo r publi c servic e an d t o see k t o chang e society , no t i n term s o f revolution, bu t gradually , in a spiri t o f dut y an d lov e (12.34-8) . Peac e will come onl y when individual hearts are changed and when it is built on th e firm principles of God in Christ (12.39-45) . Among mor e recen t theologian s i t i s the exponent s o f liberation theolog y wh o hav e argued mos t strongl y tha t Christianit y ha s direc t relevanc e t o politica l issues . The y are represented i n thi s Sectio n b y Miranda an d i n th e nex t b y Bonino. Bot h are convince d that Marxis t theory can illuminate th e biblical understandin g o f humanity and tha t thi s understanding ought to inform ou r interpretation o f political realities. Miranda has been at considerabl e pain s t o demonstrat e tha t th e biblica l understandin g o f wealt h an d poverty an d th e clas s division s tha t hav e resulte d fro m the m coincid e a t man y crucial points wit h Marxis t theory . I n thi s Extract , h e argue s tha t i n th e Ol d Testamen t 'almsgiving' an d 'justice ' ar e synonymou s (13.1-3) . Althoug h thi s ha s frequentl y bee n forgotten by subsequent Christians , the early Church Fathers were clear that 'almsgiving ' was really a restitution tha t people make for something tha t i s not properl y theirs (13.47). Fo r Luke , th e differenc e betwee n 'rich ' an d 'poor ' ('differentiatin g ownership' , i n Marxist terms) cannot b e justified and , indeed, result s from injustic e and violence (13.89). Despite the attempts of some biblical critics to claim that such views are not authentic to Jesus himself, th e evidence is overwhelming (13.10-12). Further, to regar d the biblical position a s 'primitive' is to make a highly suspect, Western value-judgemen t (13.13-14). 146

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AN D JUSTIC E

The prophets were well aware of the injustice of differentiating ownershi p and it would be a mistake to explain their attitudes in terms of an anti-urban bias (13.14-20). Christianity must retur n t o a fres h awarenes s o f thi s injustic e an d eve n papa l teachin g mus t b e interpreted afres h i n it s light (13.21-3) . Extract 1 4 takes th e discussio n o f th e 'commo n good ' i n Extrac t 1 2 a stag e further . Hollenbach finally argues that it is more complex i n the modern contex t o f globalization and pluralism than John XXIII allows. Hollenbach is critical of Western public policy that is shaped predominantl y b y the value s of tolerance an d non-judgementalis m an d leave s little room , i n addition , fo r th e ide a o f the 'commo n good ' (14.1-2) . H e believe s tha t social issues, such as the provision of adequate health care to all people, require a stronger vision o f th e good s tha t w e shar e i n commo n (14.3-5) . On e possibl e solutio n i s th e worldwide public authority proposed b y John XXIII (14.6) , but Hollenbac h argue s that a proper understanding of interdependence makes demand s upon a whole rang e of local, national an d internationa l communitie s (14.7) . 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS The clearest ethical arguments are contained i n John XXIII's and Temple' s Extracts . The first is thoroughly based upon natural law and sees a straightforward continuum between the rights and duties of the individual and those of societies. These rights and duties must always be related t o th e 'commo n good' and i t is on thi s basis that, fo r example, he can argue that , 'th e mora l orde r itsel f demand s th e establishmen t o f som e sor t o f worl d government' (12.25) . Hollenbach' s mor e comple x notio n o f th e 'commo n good ' i s critical of the latte r (14.7) . However, John XXIII's deontological positio n i s immediately followed b y a number o f consequential argument s - e.g . that i f such a government were imposed b y force th e 'efficac y o f its action would thereb y be imperilled ' (12.26) . Temple's position , too , i s dependen t upo n som e notio n o f natura l law , albei t i n a somewhat modifie d form . However , h e als o use s a mixtur e o f deontologica l an d consequential arguments . So , havin g enunciate d a genera l principl e o f respec t fo r persons, h e argues, in a style owing something to utilitarianism , that 'societ y must be so arranged a s t o giv e t o ever y citizen th e maximu m opportunit y fo r makin g deliberat e choices' (11.10) . It i s even possible tha t hi s radical stress upo n th e individual , his stress upon th e 'primar y principle ' o f respect fo r persons , an d hi s avoidanc e o f anything bu t general principle s as absolutes, coul d b e see n a s a form o f personalism . Differing deontologica l position s ar e apparent in Niebuhr and Miranda . Fo r the first, the notion s o f lov e an d justic e appea r t o b e accepte d deontologically , whereas , fo r Miranda, it is a strong moral identification (whether in Marxism or in the Bible) with the poor an d the oppressed . However , Niebuhr's criticism s of those wh o have attempted t o apply individua l lov e t o socia l situations , ar e predominantl y consequentialis t (10.4-7 ) and hi s defenc e o f pacifism a t this early stage of his career is entirely pragmatic (10.10). Consequentialism i s als o apparent , sometimes , i n th e fe w ethical argument s o f th e predominantly theologica l Berdyae v and Eart h Extracts . Berdyae v argues that absolut e monarchies an d socialis t republic s 'ar e alik e necessar y t o th e masses ' (9.3) , bu t onl y because they d o no t belon g t o th e 'aristocrac y o f the spirit ' (9.6) . I n a similar negative manner, Bart h maintain s tha t authoritarianis m i n politic s lead s t o tyrann y (8.1) . Nonetheless, Earth' s primary objection to such authoritarianism is theological - i t usurps the positio n whic h should alon e belong t o God .

147

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

4. BASES O F CHRISTIAN ETHICS Only thre e o f th e Extract s mak e an y continuou s us e o f th e Bibl e an d the y diffe r significantly fro m eac h other i n the way that the y do this . Earth' s Extract is obviously a part o f hi s commentar y o n Romans , bu t i t i s quit e unlik e a scholarly , critica l commentary. Hi s remarks frequently have more t o d o with hi s own social contex t tha n that of Paul (as in his discussion o f political revolution). Joh n XXIII quotes both th e Old Testament and th e New Testament (e.g . in 12.4 , 43 and 44) , but th e central thrus t o f his argument doe s no t depen d upo n them . A s in Aquinas , the Bibl e i s use d t o suppor t a position whic h is first developed o n the basis of natural law. Although himself a Roman Catholic priest , Miranda' s us e o f th e Bibl e migh t see m mor e characteristi c o f th e Reformed tradition : i t i s centra l t o hi s argument , owe s muc h t o critical , non-Roma n Catholic scholarship , an d range s ove r both Ol d Testament an d Ne w Testament. Differing appeal s to Christian tradition ar e also apparent i n Miranda, Hollenbach an d John XXIII . Th e las t follow s th e traditiona l Roma n Catholi c approac h (see further, Welty's Extrac t 1 5 an d Pau l VI' s Extrac t 29 ) i n seekin g t o substantiat e particula r positions fro m th e Father s o r fro m th e statement s o f previou s Popes . S o Joh n XXII I quotes Augustin e (12.13 and 39 ) and hi s predecessor Piu s XII (12.6 and 36) . However , Miranda mainl y use s the Father s to substantiat e hi s position (13.4-7) : papal statement s provide hi m wit h obviou s problems . A s one stil l workin g withi n th e Roma n Catholi c tradition, h e is clearly concerned tha t h e contradict, no t direc t papa l teaching , but onl y papal 'suppositions' behind this teaching (13.22-3). However, the Jesuit Hollenbach doe s come nea r t o criticizin g papal teaching (14.7) . Differing theologica l bases are also apparent i n these Extracts. Berdyaev and Bart h ar e both emphaticall y theological i n orientation , bu t th e firs t emphasize s th e Spiri t an d a spiritual for m o f Christianity, whereas Earth's emphasi s i s upon th e judgemen t o f God and upon huma n attempts t o usur p God's position . John XXIII concludes hi s Encyclical with Christolog y (12.45) , wherea s Templ e conclude s hi s discussio n wit h theologica l anthropology (11.26) . I n Miranda , i t i s the concep t of'justice' , derive d throug h Jesu s from th e Old Testament, which is central to his position, whereas for Hollenbach i t is the idea of the 'commo n good'. For all six theologians, i t i s clear that they believe that thei r distinctive approaches to political realities owe much to their initial theological positions. Only Niebuhr' s Extrac t i s relativel y lackin g i n specificall y Christia n bases : indeed , religious fait h appear s in his analysis here as far more relevan t to th e individua l than t o society. 5. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS The influenc e o f th e particula r socio-politica l context s withi n whic h the y wrot e i s especially eviden t i n Barth , Niebuh r an d Miranda . Th e backgroun d o f revolutionar y Europe o f 1917-1 9 doubl y influence d Barth . O n th e on e hand , th e specificall y socia l repercussions convince d hi m (an d man y of hi s contemporaries) tha t revolutio n le d t o greater tyranny than i t replaced. Throughou t Europ e there was considerable disillusion ment with political attitudes of authoritarianism that had led both to the Great War and to the Russian Revolution. On the other hand, Barth saw the theological liberalism of the pre-war period (whic h he had shared) as disastrously implicated with these attitudes. Hi s rejection bot h of revolutionary politic s an d o f theological liberalis m an d hi s espousal of neo-orthodoxy wer e clearl y relate d t o thi s Europea n politica l context . Similarly , 148

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

Niebuhr's ethical dualis m ca n be related to th e America n Depression tha t followe d this war. Hi s experiences i n industria l Detroi t convince d hi m tha t libera l attempt s t o relat e Christian concepts of love to social phenomena were misguided. The ineluctable forces of economic depressio n an d th e consequen t feeling s o f helplessnes s o f individual s caught within tha t depressio n an d withi n th e dehumanizin g structure s o f contemporar y industrialism, mad e a lasting impression o n Niebuhr' s mind. Similarly , the political and economic frustration s o f Sout h Americ a i n th e 1970 s ha s ha d a n eviden t effec t upo n Miranda. He, too, reject s Western theologica l an d politica l liberalism (13.6 , 1 0 and 13 ) and declare s emphatically that 'the time ha s come for Christianity to brea k a long chain of hypocris y an d collusio n wit h th e establishe d powers ' (13.7) . Hi s star k contrast s between 'rich ' an d 'poor ' an d hi s clos e correlatio n o f 'wealth ' wit h 'violenc e an d spoliation', may reflect th e feudal, authoritarian and oppressive socio-political structures of part s o f Centra l America , rathe r tha n wha t migh t b e see n a s the ambiguitie s o f th e mixed economie s o f the West . Berdyaev stand s i n shar p contras t t o thes e thre e theologians . Hi s earl y espousa l o f Marxist theor y i s stil l partiall y eviden t i n thi s Extrac t an d hi s socializatio n i n Russian Orthodoxy als o act s a s a determinant o f his position . Nonetheless , a s has alread y been pointed out , despit e th e revolutionar y contex t withi n which he lived , hi s writings as a whole still appear remarkabl y timeless. John XXIII's, Temple's an d Hollenbach' s Extract s are not s o timeless and clearly reflect the topical political interest s of the contexts within which they were written. The issue of unemployment dominate d muc h o f Temple's politica l though t i n th e 1930 s and occur s spontaneously as an illustration (11.2) . In the period followin g Hiroshima an d Nagasaki, peace becam e a ver y dominant concern , allie d t o a searc h fo r politica l stabilit y i n th e developed an d developin g worlds . Joh n XXIII's Extract clearly relate s strongl y to thes e concerns. Hollenbac h reflect s a t lengt h i n Th e Common Good an d Christian Ethics upon an increasingly globalized society that is also highly pluralistic. It is in this specific context that h e proposes hi s understanding o f the 'commo n good' . 6. SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE

A number of the works from whic h these Extracts are taken had a real political influence . John XXII I was , perhaps, th e mos t generall y admired o f recent Pope s and hi s effort s t o foster peac e in the world receive d a wide audience, amongst both Roma n Catholics an d others. Th e issue of human rights has remained an important on e in the Western world, even if the specifi c connectio n wit h natural law articulated by John XXIII i s now seldo m discussed. I n th e 1940 s an d 1950s , Niebuh r wa s particularl y influentia l i n th e Unite d States. His ethica l position change d considerably fro m Moral Ma n an d Immoral Society, with hi s ethica l dualis m becomin g les s pronounce d an d a greate r stres s o n 'politica l realism', but hi s central distinctions between love and justice remained highly influential. A numbe r o f ke y politician s an d politica l theorist s wer e directl y influence d b y hi s writings. Temple, in contrast, althoug h he is often regarde d as one of the most respecte d archbishops o f the Churc h o f England i n th e twentiet h century , seldo m ha d th e ea r of prime ministers . Hi s overt socialis m an d tendenc y t o b e outspoke n o n politica l issue s tended t o alienate him fro m politicians , such as Churchill. But, within church circles, his influence wa s ver y considerabl e an d h e playe d a majo r par t i n th e Lif e an d Wor k Movement whic h eventuall y becam e a centra l componen t o f th e Worl d Counci l o f Churches. Many of Temple's distinctions, between general principles, middle axioms (see 149

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

above, p . 39 ) an d changin g factors , wer e adopte d b y thes e tw o movements . Withi n present-day Sout h America , liberatio n theolog y no w receive s considerabl e politica l attention. I t ha s radicalized a significant sectio n o f the Roma n Catholic clerg y there and provides a rar e exampl e o f a theologica l movemen t actin g a s a n independen t socia l variable (i.e . a s a socia l factor , such a s 'class', which affect s mas s behaviour). A s noted earlier, amon g th e U S Catholi c Bishop s i n th e 1980 s th e wor k o f Hollenbac h wa s particularly influentia l o n socia l an d politica l issues . Th e influenc e o f Earth' s De r Romerbriefupon theologians , rathe r than upon politicians, was very considerable. I n fact , for man y theologians it has proved t o be one of the most semina l books of the first half of the twentiet h century . Berdyaev' s writings, however , hav e seldo m bee n know n outsid e scholarly circles. FURTHER READING A number of the works of Barth are important for understanding his various approaches to politica l realities, includin g Ho w I Changed m y Mind (1969) , Church Dogmatics III.4 (1961) an d Ethics (1981) . O f th e man y book s writte n abou t Barth , th e followin g ar e particularly useful : Charle s West , Communism an d th e Theologians (1958) ; H . Richar d Niebuhr, Th e Responsible Self (1963)-, an d R . E . Willis, Th e Ethics o f Karl Barth (1971). There hav e bee n a numbe r o f studie s o f Berdyaev , including: Olive r Fieldin g Clarke , Introduction t o Berdyaev (1950) ; Donald A . Lowrie , Rebellious Prophet: A Life o f Nicolas Berdyaev (1960) ; E. L. Allen, Freedom i n God: A Guide t o the Thought o f Nicolas Berdyaev (1960); an d Michae l Alexande r Vallon , A n Apostle o f Freedom: Life an d Teaching o f Nicolas Berdyaev (1960) . For Niebuhr, see C. W. Kegle y and R . W. Bretal l (eds) , Reinhold Niebuhr: Hi s Religious, Social an d Political Thought (1961) ; D . Meyer , Th e Protestant Search for Political Realism (1960); and Richar d Harries (ed.) , Reinhold Niebuhr and th e Issues o f Ou r Time (1986) ; an d especiall y Robi n W . Levin' s Reinhold Niebuhr an d Christian Realism (1995). F . A . Iremonger' s William Temple: Archbishop o f Canterbury (1948) i s still ver y important fo r informatio n abou t Temple : se e also Ronal d Preston' s introduction t o th e 197 6 editio n o f Christianity an d Social Order, an d Ala n Suggate's William Temple an d Christian Social Ethics Today (1987) . Fo r Liberatio n theology , se e below, p. 230 .

EXTRACT 8 BARTH God's judgment on political revolutions 8.1 Be not overcom e o f evil, but overcom e evil with good (Rom . 12.21). The problem o f the victory of right over wrong is presented to u s in a far more essential form i n the existence of human ordinances than i n the existence of the enemy (12.19,20). Must not th e existing order, the order tha t has already been FOUND, seem the very incarnation o f triumphant unrighteousness t o th e ma n wh o i s SEEKIN G afte r Go d an d Hi s Order ? I s no t th e existing order a reinforcement of men agains t God, a safeguard o f the norma l cours e of this worl d agains t it s disturbanc e b y th e grea t ambiguit y an d it s defenc e agains t th e presupposition b y whic h i t i s threatene d o n al l sides ? Are no t th e ordinance s o f me n 150

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

simply a conspirac y o f the Man y - fa r too man y - agains t th e On e who manifest s Himself, an d ca n only manifes t Himself , when th e matur e wisdo m an d authorit y of the Many crumble s i n pieces ? Rulers ! What ar e ruler s bu t men ? Wha t ar e the y bu t me n hypocritically engage d i n setting things in order, i n order tha t the y may - coward s tha t they ar e - ensur e themselve s securel y against th e riddl e o f their existence ? Are we not once agai n confronte d b y fool s beggin g a fe w moments' dela y befor e th e sentenc e o f death i s pronounce d upo n them ? Th e invective s tha t hav e bee n hurle d agains t 'Governments' fro m th e day s o f th e Revelatio n o f Joh n t o th e fulmination s o f Nietzsche, from th e Anabaptists to the Anarchists, have not bee n directe d agains t defect s in government bu t agains t the right of governments t o exist at all. That me n should, a s a matter o f course, claim to posses s a higher right over their fello w men , that the y should, as a matte r o f course, dar e t o regulat e an d predetermin e almos t al l their conduct , tha t those who put forwar d suc h a manifestly fraudulent claim should be crowned with a halo of real power an d shoul d b e capable of requiring obedience an d sacrific e a s though the y had been investe d wit h the authorit y o f God, that th e Many should conspir e t o spea k as though the y were the One, tha t a minority or a majority - eve n the supreme democrati c majority o f all against on e - shoul d assum e tha t the y are the community, tha t a quit e fortuitous contrac t o r arrangemen t shoul d b e regarde d a s superio r t o th e soli d organisation o f the struggle for existence and should proclai m itself to be the peace which all men yearn after an d whic h all should respect ; thi s whole pseudo-transcendence o f an altogether immanen t orde r i s the wound tha t i s inflicted b y every existing government even b y the best - upo n thos e wh o are most delicatel y conscious o f what i s good an d right. The more successfull y th e good an d the right assume concrete form , the more they become evi l and wrong - summum ius, sumtna iniuria. Supposing the right were to take the for m o f theocracy , supposing , tha t i s t o say , superio r spiritua l attainmen t wer e concreted int o a n ideal Church and all the peoples o f the earth were to pu t thei r trust in it; if, for example, the Church of Calvin were to be reformed and broadened ou t t o be the Church of the League of Nations; - thi s doing of the supreme righ t would the n becom e the suprem e wrong-doing . Thi s theocrati c drea m come s abruptl y t o a n end , o f course , when w e discove r tha t i t i s th e Devi l wh o approache s Jesu s an d offer s Hi m al l th e kingdoms o f this world. I t ends als o with Dostoevsky' s pictur e o f the Gran d Inquisitor . Men hav e no righ t t o posses s objectiv e right against othe r men . An d so, the mor e the y surround themselve s wit h objectivity , th e greate r i s the wron g the y inflic t upo n others . Others are , it is true, awaitin g the righ t of the One. Bu t when and wher e has the right of the Man y reall y becom e th e righ t o f th e One ? Ha s i t no t bee n alway s an d everywher e acquired fraudulently ? I s there anywher e legalit y which i s not fundamentall y illegal ? I s there anywher e authority whic h i s not ultimatel y base d upo n tyranny? 8.2 There i s a certai n imperfectio n i n th e existin g ordinance s b y whic h w e are enable d t o detect tha t thei r existenc e is , as such, evil. Ther e i s a certain uncontrollabl e tendenc y t o freedom whic h causes both goo d an d bad men to resent the chain which the Many - n o doubt wit h th e bes t intention s - pu t upo n them . Ther e i s a certai n strang e an d penetrating perception whic h sees through th e fiction that lies behind our bondage. Fro m this perceptio n o f th e evi l tha t lie s i n th e ver y existenc e o f th e existin g government , Revolution i s born. The revolutionary seek s to b e rid o f the evi l by bestirring himself to battle wit h i t and t o overthro w it . He determines t o remov e the existin g ordinances, i n 151

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

order that he may erect in their place the new right. This is, of course, a wholly intelligible course of action, and one in which we might very well take part; it is, in fact, as intelligible as i s hostilit y agains t th e enemy (12.19 ) an d conflic t agains t ou r fello w men . (Th e revolutionary does not begin by betaking himself to the generally decried shedding blood. He begin s b y simpl y harbourin g a certai n secre t poisonou s resentmen t agains t th e existing order - man y indeed go no further tha n this ; they detest the Power, and become wholly enslaved to feeling s of resentment!) The revolutionary must, however, own that in adopting hi s plan h e allows himself to b e overcome o f evil H e forget s tha t h e i s not th e One, that h e is not th e subjec t of the freedo m which he so earnestly desires, that, fo r all the strang e brightnes s o f hi s eyes , h e i s no t th e Chris t wh o stand s befor e th e Gran d Inquisitor, but is , contrariwise, the Grand Inquisitor encountered by the Christ. He too is claiming what no man can claim. He too is making of the right a thing. He too confronts other men with his supposed right. H e too usurp s a position which is not due to him, a legality whic h i s fundamentall y illegal , a n authorit y whic h - a s w e hav e griml y experienced i n Bolshevism , bu t als o i n th e behaviou r o f fa r mor e delicate-minde d innovators! - soo n display s its essential tyranny. What ma n has the right t o propoun d and represent the 'New', whether it be a new age, or a new world, or even a new - spirit ? Is not ever y new thing, in so far as it can be schemed by men, born o f what already exists? The momen t i t become s a huma n proposition , mus t i t no t b e numbere d amon g th e things that are? What man i s there who, having proposed a novelty, has not propose d a n evil thing? Far more tha n the conservative , the revolutionar y is overcome of evil, because with his 'No' he stands so strangely near to God . This is the tragedy of revolution. Evi l is not th e true answe r t o evil . The sense o f right whic h ha s been wounde d by the existin g order i s not restore d t o healt h when that orde r i s broken. 8.3 Overcome evil with good. What can this mean but th e end of the triumph of men, whether their triumph is celebrated i n the existing order o r by revolution? And how can this end be represented, if it be not b y some strange 'not-doing' precisely at the point where men feel themselve s most powerfull y calle d to action ? The revolutionar y ha s erred. H e really means that Revolutio n which is the impossibl e possibility . He means forgivenes s o f sins and the resurrection of the dead. He means Jesus Christ - H e that hath overcome-who is the true answer to the injury wrought b y the existing order as such. But the revolutionary has chosen anothe r revolution : he has adopted th e possible possibilit y of discontent an d hatred an d insubordination , o f rebellion an d demolition . An d thi s choice i s not better , but much worse than choosing the possible possibility of contentment an d satisfaction, of security an d usurpation ; fo r b y i t Go d i s fa r bette r understood , bu t fa r mor e deepl y outraged. Th e revolutionar y aim s a t th e Revolutio n b y which th e tru e Orde r i s t o b e inaugurated; but h e launches another revolution which is, in fact, reaction . The legitimist, on th e othe r hand , himsel f also overcom e o f evil, aims at th e Legitimis m by which th e true Revolutio n i s inaugurated; but h e maintain s anothe r legitimis m which is , in fact , revolt! And so, as always, what men d o is the judgment upon wha t they will to d o (7.15 , 19). When, however, the revolutionary becomes aware of the judgment, he is dispossessed of his well founded, concrete, justifiable action , and i s turned toward s the action of God. But ho w ca n h e demonstrat e th e actio n o f Go d sav e by dyin g where h e wa s born? b y dying, tha t i s to say , where he firs t perceive d th e evi l of the presen t order . Wha t mor e radical action can he perform than the action of turning back to the original root of'not152

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AN D JUSTIC E

doing' - an d NOT be angry, NOT engage in an assault, NOT demolish? This turning back is the ethica l factor in the command , Overcome evil with good. There is here n o word o f approval of the existin g order; but ther e is endless disapproval of every enemy of it. It is God wh o wishe s t o b e recognise d a s H e tha t overcometh th e unrighteousnes s o f th e existing order. Thi s i s the meanin g of the commandment ; an d i t i s also th e meanin g of the Thirteenth Chapte r o f the Epistle to th e Romans. 8.4 Let ever y ma n b e i n subjectio n t o th e existin g rulin g power s (Rom . 13.la) . Thoug h subjection ma y assum e fro m tim e t o tim e man y various concret e forms , a s an ethical conception i t i s here purely negative. It mean s to withdra w and mak e way; it mean s to have no resentment, an d not to overthrow. Why, then, does not the rebel turn back and become no mor e a rebel? Simply because the conflict i n which he is immersed cannot be represented a s a conflict between him an d th e existing ruling powers; it is, rather a conflict of evil with evil . Even the mos t radica l revolution ca n d o n o mor e tha n se t what exist s against what exists. Even the most radical revolution - an d this is so even when it is called a 'spiritual' or 'peaceful' revolutio n - ca n be no more than a revolt; that is to say, it is in itself simply a justification and confirmation of what already exists. For the whole relative right o f what exists is established onl y by the relativ e wrong o f revolution i n it s victory; whereas th e relativ e righ t o f revolutio n i n it s victor y i s i n n o wa y establishe d b y th e relative wrong of the existing order. Similarly also, the power of resistance in the existing order i s i n n o wa y broken b y th e victoriou s attac k o f revolution ; i t i s merel y driven backwards, embarrassed, an d compelled t o adopt differen t forms , an d thus rendered th e more dangerous; whereas the energy of revolution is dissipated and rendered innocuous simply b y it s victory . An d s o th e whol e conduc t o f th e rebe l i n n o wa y constitutes a judgment upo n th e existin g order, howeve r much his act of revolution ma y do so . The rebel ha s thoughtlessl y undertake n th e conflic t betwee n God' s Orde r an d th e existin g order. Shoul d h e allo w himsel f t o appea l directl y t o th e ordinanc e o f God, 'shoul d h e boldly and confidentl y storm th e heavens and bring down thenc e his own eternal rights which han g alof t inalienable , unbroke n a s th e star s themselves ' (Schiller), h e betray s thereby perception o f the true 'limit to the tyrant's power', but hi s bold storming of the heavens in no way brings about thi s limitation. H e may be justified at the bar o f history; but h e is not justifie d befor e th e judgment-seat of God. The sequel shows 'the return of the ol d natura l orde r wher e me n oppos e thei r fello w men' . Whe n me n undertak e t o substitute themselve s fo r God , th e proble m o f God , Hi s min d an d Hi s judgment, still remain, but the y are rendered ineffective . An d so, in his rebellion, the rebel stands on th e side of the existin g order . 8.5 Let the existing order - state , Church, Law, Society , &c., &c. - i n their totalit y be:

(abed) 8.6 Let their dissolution b y the Prima l Order of God, by which their totality is contradicted, be expressed by a minus sig n outside the bracket: 153

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

—(+a+b+c+d) 8.7 It is then clea r that no revolution, howeve r radical , which takes place within the realm of history, can ever be identical with the divine minus sign outside the bracket, by which the totality o f human ordinance s i s dissolved. Revolutio n ca n do n o mor e than chang e th e plus sign within th e bracket - th e plus, that i s to say, which existing ordinances posses s within th e bracke t becaus e the y exis t - int o a minu s sign . Th e resul t o f a successfu l revolution i s therefore:

—(-a-b-c-d) 8.8

And now we see that for the first time the great divine minus sign outside the bracket has transformed th e anticipatory , revolutionar y minu s sig n int o a genuin e plu s sign . Revolution has , therefore, the effec t o f restoring the ol d afte r it s downfall in a new an d more powerfu l form . (Equall y false, however , i s th e reckonin g o f th e legitimists : false , because they consciously and as a matter of principle - i n their consciousness an d in their appeal to principle lies the arrogant an d titanic element i n Legitim-ISM - ad d a positive sign to the terms within the bracket. But the divine minus sign outside the bracket means that al l huma n consciousness , al l huma n principle s an d axiom s an d orthodoxie s an d -isms, all principality an d power and dominion, are AS SUCH subjected to th e destructiv e judgment of God. Le t every ma n b e in subjection means , therefore , that ever y man shoul d consider th e falsit y o f all human reckonin g a s such. W e are no t competen t t o plac e th e decisive minus sign before the bracket; we are only competent t o perceive how completely it damages our plus and our minus. Accordingly, the subjection her e recommended mus t not b e allowe d t o develo p int o a ne w an d subtl e manne r o f reckoning , whereb y w e reintroduce onc e mor e a n absolut e right . I t i s eviden t tha t ther e ca n b e n o mor e devastating underminin g o f th e existin g order tha n th e recognitio n o f i t whic h i s here recommended, a recognition rid of all illusion and devoid of all the joy of triumph. State , Church, Society , Positiv e Right , Family , Organise d Research , &c. , &c. , liv e of f th e credulity o f thos e wh o hav e bee n nurture d upo n vigorou s sermons-delivered-on-the field-of-battle and upon other suchlike solemn humbug . Deprive them of their PATHOS, and the y will be starved out ; bu t sti r up revolutio n agains t them, and thei r PATHO S is provided with fresh fodder . No-revolution i s the best preparation for the true Revolution; but eve n no-revolutio n i s n o saf e recipe . T o b e i n subjection is , whe n i t i s rightl y understood, a n actio n voi d o f purpose, a n action , tha t i s to say , which can sprin g onl y from obedience t o God. Its meaning is that me n hav e encountered God , and ar e thereby compelled t o leave the judgment to Him . The actual occurrence of this judgment canno t be identifie d wit h th e purpos e o r wit h th e secre t reckonin g o f the ma n o f this world.) 8.9 Upon this background we are able to understand what follows - fo r there is no power but of God ; an d th e power s tha t b e ar e ordaine d o f Go d (Rom . 13 . Ib). Her e a positive , affirmative authorit y seem s t o b e assigne d t o th e existin g government . Thi s would , however, directl y contradic t th e basi s of subjection whic h ha s bee n se t fort h above . I t is therefore eviden t tha t th e emphati c wor d 'God ' mus t no t b e s o interprete d a s t o 154

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

contradict the whole theme of the Epistle to the Romans. We must not giv e to the word 'God' the value of a clearly defined, metaphysical entity. What will it profit us if a forma l fidelity to th e meanin g o f a word i s purchased a t th e cos t o f complete infidelity to th e Word? He of whom the power is and by whom every existing authority is ordained i s God the Lord , the Unknown , Hidde n God , Creato r an d Redeemer , the Go d wh o elect s and rejects. Thi s means that th e might y powers that be are measured by reference to God , as are al l human , temporal , concret e things . Go d i s their beginnin g an d thei r end , thei r justification an d their condemnation, thei r 'Yes' and their 'No'. If we adopt an attitude of revolution toward s them - an d this is the attitude adopted i n the Epistle to the Romans, as is shown by the unmistakabl e fac t tha t th e passag e dealing with human rulers follow s immediately after th e passag e dealing with th e enemy and i s prefaced by the quit e clear statement tha t me n ar e to overcom e evil - th e attitud e o f revolutio n is , nevertheless, crossed by the reflection that it is only in relation to God that the evil of the existing order is really evil. God alone is the minus sign outside the bracket that i s able to demolish th e false plu s signs within the bracket - and , moreover, the romanticists of the present order have also t o lear n a s surely that genuin e plus signs can exis t onl y because of the minu s sign o f God .

8.10 We, therefore, have to remember that it is not fo r us to arm ourselves for action with the standard of the measurement of God - a s though He acted through us! The revolutionary must als o renounce th e blue flower of romanticism. I f then evi l be evil in its relation t o God, it i s not a thing o f which we can complain, any more than good i s a thing about which w e ca n boast . Therefore , eve n th e observe r wh o ha s bee n directl y hur t an d wounded b y th e evi l of the existin g orde r mus t bo w befor e Hi m wh o i s so strong an d wondrous a God , hig h abov e al l gods . I f Go d b e th e Judge , wh o ca n shar e i n Hi s judgment? An d i f Go d b e th e Judge , where i s ther e the n not-righteousness ? Wher e i s there then evi l which is not pregnan t with witness to th e good? Where is there then any concrete thin g whic h i s no t pregnan t wit h tha t whic h i s Prima l an d invisible ? Is not , therefore, the existing order a pregnant parable of the Order that does not exist - Fo r the creature was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it in hope (8.20) ? Th e existin g orde r fall s an d passe s t o corruptio n becaus e i t exists. Th e apprehension of this, however, ha s been, as we have seen, the sourc e of revolution. But the existin g orde r i s justifie d agains t revolutio n precisel y at thi s source ; fo r her e th e demand is made that the revolutionary should no t take the assault and judgment into his own hands, but rathe r should recognise that the evil of the existing order bears witness to the good, since it stands of necessity as an order contrasted wit h THE ORDER. Precisely in this contras t th e existin g order bear s involuntar y witness t o TH E ORDER an d i s the reflection of it. The powers that be are, therefore, in the general course of their existence of God; and , i n th e particula r for m i n whic h they constitute a present urgen t problem , especially fo r the revolutionary , the y ar e - ordained o f God. The KRISI S t o whic h th e powers that be are subjected by God renders the possibility of our revoltin g against them far les s advantageous to us than the possibility of our not revolting. In any case revolutio n is thereby deprived of its PATHOS, of its enthusiasm, of its claim to be a high place; it is, in fact, deprive d of all those factor s which are indispensable if the revolutionary is boldly and confidentl y an d properl y t o 'stor m th e heavens' . Vengeance belongeth unto m e (12.19). Our subjectio n means, therefore, no mor e than that vengeance is not ou r affair . 155

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

It means that the divine minus before the bracket must no t be deprived o f its potency by a series of anticipatory negations o n our part . (Th e supporters of the present order , wh o may perhap s fee l encourage d b y what ha s been said , must , however , b e reminde d tha t revolution has been ordained a s evil, in order that they may bear witness to the good; and this means , i n orde r tha t the y ma y themselve s b e withou t justificatio n an d utterl y unromantic, i n order, i n fact , tha t the y too ma y turn an d becom e fro m hencefort h disordered.)

EXTRACT 9 BERDYAEV Politics and the spirit 9.1 The religiou s lif e passe s throug h thre e characteristi c stages . Firstl y there i s the stag e o f objective religion which is both popula r and collective, natura l and social. Secondl y there is the subjectiv e stage which is individualistic and psycho-spiritual . I n the third stag e the opposition betwee n th e objective and subjectiv e is transcended an d th e highest degre e of spirituality i s reached . A condition o f th e emergenc e o f Christianit y i s thi s movemen t from a n objective and popula r religio n t o on e which i s subjective and individual . Bu t in actual practic e Christianit y ha s no t develope d i n thi s way ; i t ha s crystallise d int o a religion whic h is at onc e objectiv e and popular , socia l an d collective . I t i s precisely this form o f Christianit y whic h i s undergoin g a crisi s a t th e presen t time . Religiou s lif e i s passing through a subjective and individualistic phase which cannot b e final and which is bound, i n it s turn, t o giv e way to somethin g else .

9.2 There are two types which confront one another al l through th e course of man's history , and the y ar e type s whic h fin d i t har d t o ente r int o an y mutua l comprehension . Th e former belong s t o th e collective , t o th e majorit y o f society , whic h outwardl y predominates i n history ; th e othe r belong s t o th e spher e o f 'spiritua l individuality' , t o the elec t minority , an d it s significance i n history i s much harde r t o discover . Thes e tw o types or states of mind ma y be called, respectively , the 'democratic' and the 'aristocratic'. Now socialist s ar e i n th e habi t o f affirmin g tha t throughou t th e cours e o f histor y th e privileged minorit y ha s exploite d th e disinherite d majority . Bu t ther e i s anothe r trut h which, thoug h a t firs t sigh t les s obvious , i s mor e profound . Th e collective , th e 'quantitative' majority , ha s always oppressed an d persecute d i n histor y th e 'qualitative ' minority, tha t whic h possesse s th e divin e Ero s an d i s compose d o f trul y spiritua l individuals whos e live s ar e directe d toward s th e highes t aims . Histor y work s ou t habitually in favour o f the averag e man, and o f the collective. It is for such that the State, the family , th e law, and ou r educationa l institution s hav e been created , n o les s than th e whole fabric of custom an d conventio n an d the external organisation o f the Church . I t is for suc h tha t knowledg e an d morality , dogm a an d cul t hav e bee n adapted . I t i s th e average man, th e typica l product o f the mass , who has dominated history , an d who has always insiste d tha t everythin g should b e don e fo r hi m an d tha t everythin g shoul d b e brought dow n t o th e leve l of his interests . 156

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

9.3 The right wing and the left , conservative s and revolutionaries, monarchists and socialists, all alik e belon g t o thi s collectiv e 'democratic ' type . Th e conservative s an d th e monarchists, wh o ar e th e partisan s o f authority , ar e no t les s 'democratic ' tha n thos e who actuall y bear th e nam e 'democrats' . Fo r thi s socia l collective , fo r mankin d i n th e mass, the hierarchy of authority is maintained an d ancient institutions are preserved. It is for the m als o that they are abolished, an d fo r them tha t revolution s ar e made. Absolute monarchies an d socialis t republic s are alike necessary to th e masses , and ar e equally well adapted to the average man. It is, in fact, the average man who has dominated among the nobility no less than among the middle classes , the peasants, and th e workers. It is never for th e aristocracy of the spirit that governments are established, constitutions elaborated, and system s of learning or th e techniqu e of creation evolved . 9.4 Saints, prophets, geniuses, men, in short, who live on the higher planes of the spiritual life and who are capable of authentic creation, have no need of monarchy or republicanism, conservatism o r revolution , nor ye t of constitutions an d educationa l establishments . For the aristocracy of the spirit does not bear the burden of history for itself. On the contrary it i s made t o submi t t o institutions , reforms , an d system s whether ol d o r new , i n th e name of the so-called people and of the collective, or, in other words, of the happiness of the averag e man. Evidentl y the aristocrac y of the spirit , th e elec t who ar e alive with th e divine Eros, belong to th e falle n rac e of Adam and suffe r i n this way the consequences of the sin which they have to expiate . They cannot isolat e themselves from 'th e world' an d must therefor e bea r it s burden , an d serv e th e universa l caus e o f freedo m an d o f civilisation. One can only deplore the pride of men who, while believing that they share in that whic h i s highest, regard with contemp t lesse r men , an d wil l not hel p th e worl d t o progress. But those wh o belong to th e aristocrac y of the spirit , who ar e not responsibl e for th e qualitie s the y possess, hav e in reality a bitter an d tragi c destiny in the world, fo r they canno t adap t themselve s t o an y o f the socia l conventions an d system s o f thought which belong to averag e men. The y are a race of men wh o hav e always been oppresse d and persecuted. 9.5 Those who are of the 'democratic' type, whose orientation i s towards the masses and th e organisation o f th e lif e o f th e collective , ma y b e endowe d wit h grea t talent s an d ma y number amon g the m grea t men , heroes , geniuses , and saints . O n th e othe r han d thos e who ar e o f the 'aristocratic ' type , whose interest s ar e centre d o n othe r world s an d th e creation o f values which are of no us e to th e averag e man, may be completely lacking in genius and may be less powerful an d talente d tha n me n o f the forme r type . Nevertheless they posses s a differen t spiritua l organisatio n whic h i s a t onc e mor e sensitive , mor e complex, an d mor e subtle than that o f the 'pachyderms ' of democratic breed . Suc h men suffer mor e fro m th e 'world ' an d fro m it s ugliness , barbarity , an d decadenc e tha n th e men whose attention i s focussed upon th e masses and the collective. Even the grea t men of the 'democratic' type possess this simple kind of psychology, which places them unde r the protectio n o f tha t ver y worl d whic h i s s o inimica l t o spiritua l personalitie s les s adapted to it. Cromwell and Bismarck belong to this type, as in a certain sense do all men of action , a s well a s the grea t statesme n an d revolutionaries . Thi s simpl e psychological 157

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

make-up can also be found amon g man y of the Doctor s of the Church , who have ofte n belonged t o th e democrati c type . 9.6 From thi s point o f view the Gnostic s are of particular interest . A great number o f them truly belon g t o th e 'aristocracy ' o f th e spirit , bu t the y see m t o hav e bee n unabl e t o reconcile themselve s t o th e 'democracy ' o f th e Christia n Church . Th e questio n i s no t whether the y wer e i n th e right . Th e Churc h ha d profoun d reason s fo r opposin g an d condemning them , for had the Gnostics won the day Christianity would never have been victorious. I t woul d hav e been transforme d int o a n aristocrati c sect . Bu t th e questio n which Gnosticism raises is a profoundly disturbing one which is always with us, and ha s its importanc e eve n today . Revelatio n an d absolut e trut h ar e bot h distorte d an d assimilated, according to the make-up and spiritual development o f the persons receiving them. Are we bound to consider as absolute and unchangeable that for m o f the Christian revelation which was intended fo r the averag e man? Must th e mor e spiritual , complex , and subtl e typ e of man, who ha s i n som e measur e received th e grea t gif t o f Gnosis, b e brought dow n to a lower level and perforce rest content - wit h a reduced spiritualit y for the sak e o f the masses , an d i n orde r tha t h e ma y shar e i n th e fellowshi p of the whol e Christian people? But is it possible t o identif y sobornost with the popular collective ? Can the pat h whic h lead s t o th e acquirin g o f th e gift s o f th e Hol y Spiri t an d t o spiritua l perfection an d holines s b e regarde d a s the sol e criterio n o f spiritua l lif e an d th e onl y source o f religious Gnosis? ... 9.7 The Gnostics di d no t understan d th e myster y of freedom, that is , of freedom i n Christ , any mor e tha n the y understoo d th e myster y o f love . Ther e wa s i n al l thi s a hopeles s dualism which upset the true hierarchy of values. The Gnostics were without a glimpse of the orde r o f value s upo n whic h th e worl d o f th e Christia n rests , wher e th e highes t elements ar e organicall y linke d wit h th e lowes t an d thu s assis t th e proces s o f transfiguration an d of universal salvation. Their interpretation o f the hierarchic principle was a fals e one . Th e suprem e Gnosi s o f 'spiritual' persons i s necessary for th e salvatio n and transfiguration of those who are 'carnal'. 'Spiritual' persons must not remain proudly upon the mountaintops i n separation fro m th e 'carnal' world, but they must devote their energies to it s spiritualisation an d to raising it to the highest levels. Moreover th e sourc e of evi l is spiritual an d no t carnal . Th e Churc h ha s rightl y condemned th e prid e o f th e Gnostics, thei r hopelessl y dualisti c poin t o f view , an d th e unbrotherl y an d unlovin g attitude whic h they displayed toward s thei r fello w me n an d th e worl d a t large . But the consciousness of the Church was absorbed by preference with the problems of the average man, o f th e typica l produc t o f th e mass . Th e Churc h wa s anxious t o guid e arigh t th e ordinary ma n an d wa s preoccupied wit h th e tas k o f effectin g hi s salvation . I n condemning Gnosticism , th e Churc h i n som e measur e affirme d an d mad e lawfu l agnosticism. Eve n th e proble m whic h ha d give n ris e t o suc h sincer e an d tormentin g perplexity amon g the Gnostic s was regarded a s one whic h could no t an d indee d ough t not to be raised. The highest aspirations of the spirit, the thirst for a deeper knowledge of divine an d cosmi c mysteries , were brought dow n t o th e leve l of average humanity. No t only the Gnosi s of Valentinian but als o that o f Origen was regarded a s inadmissible an d dangerous, i n th e sam e wa y a s tha t o f Solovyo v i s today . A syste m o f theolog y wa s 158

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

elaborated whic h becam e a n obstacl e t o th e highe r Gnosis . Onl y th e grea t Christia n mystics succeeded i n cuttin g their wa y through thes e well-nigh impregnable defences.

9.8 It mus t b e recognised , however , tha t on e o f th e difficultie s connecte d wit h 'th e highe r knowledge' in those days was that men could not disassociat e it from it s connection wit h the worship of demons, an d here Christianity found itsel f entangled with pagan cults and with th e 'wisdom ' o f paga n religion . An d ye t i t i s possibl e fo r a highe r Christia n knowledge of spiritual things to exist which is at once more penetrating, less exoteric, and less moulded t o th e need s o f the collectiv e than tha t o f the dominan t system s of officia l theology. Ther e i s roo m i n Christianit y no t onl y fo r S t Thomas Aquina s but als o fo r Jacob Boehme, not onl y for the Metropolita n Philare t but als o for Vladimir Solovyov. If spiritual person s ough t no t t o boas t o f the height s the y hav e reached , an d t o separat e themselves from those of the 'natural' and 'carnal' order, i t must not , o n the other hand , be supposed that such men do not exist, nor must the aspirations of their spirit and their almost frenzie d thirs t for truth be denied satisfaction on the grounds that there is no such thing a s ' a highe r spiritua l knowledge' . Thi s woul d b e equivalent , i n a n opposit e direction, t o tha t ver y destructio n o f th e organi c hierarch y o f value s whic h w e hav e noticed alread y in Gnosticism. The world finds it easy to deny and despis e every form o f spiritual life, every aspiration of the spirit, and every sort of higher learning or knowledge. It readil y asserts tha t suc h thing s are a clog upon th e progres s of the worl d toward s it s more complete organisation an d that they can perfectly well be left o n on e side. This is a point of view which is held and expressed by millions. Furthermore, nothing can be more heart-rending than to find the Church itself subscribing to that denial of the spirit which is professed by the State , a denia l whic h a t th e opposit e pol e i n atheisti c Communis m means th e definit e crushin g ou t o f th e spiri t an d th e exterminatio n o f ever y for m o f spiritual aristocracy. 9.9 'Quench no t th e spirit' i t has been said ; but t o den y the problem presente d t o u s by the Christian consciousnes s i s to forge t thi s command. Th e tas k which has a s its object th e enlightenment o f the worl d wil l ask for no diminutio n i n th e qualit y of the spirit . Thus the proble m whic h above all is confronting us today i s the proble m o f the spiri t an d o f the spiritua l life .

EXTRACT 1 0 NIEBUHR The conflict between individual and social morality 10.1 A realisti c analysi s o f the problem s o f huma n societ y reveal s a constant an d seemingl y irreconcilable conflic t betwee n th e need s o f societ y an d th e imperative s o f a sensitive conscience. Thi s conflict , whic h coul d b e mos t briefl y define d a s th e conflic t betwee n ethics and politics , i s made inevitable by the doubl e focu s o f the mora l life. On e focu s i s in th e inne r lif e o f th e individual , an d th e othe r i n th e necessitie s o f man' s socia l life .

159

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

From the perspective of society the highest moral ideal is justice. From the perspective of the individua l the highest ideal is unselfishness. Society must strive for justice even if it is forced t o us e means, such as self-assertion, resistance, coercion an d perhap s resentment, which canno t gai n the mora l sanction o f the mos t sensitiv e moral spirit . The individual must striv e to realis e his lif e b y losin g an d findin g himsel f i n somethin g greate r tha n himself.

10.2 These two moral perspective s are not mutuall y exclusive and th e contradictio n betwee n them i s not absolute . Bu t neither ar e they easily harmonised. Efforts t o harmonis e the m were analysed in the previous chapter. It was revealed that the highest moral insight s and achievements of the individua l conscienc e ar e both relevan t an d necessar y to th e lif e o f society. Th e mos t perfec t justic e cannot b e establishe d i f the mora l imaginatio n o f th e individual doe s no t see k to comprehen d th e need s and interest s o f his fellows. Nor ca n any non-rational instrumen t o f justice be use d without grea t peri l to society , i f it is no t brought unde r th e contro l o f mora l goodwill . An y justice whic h i s onl y justic e soo n degenerates int o somethin g les s tha n justice . I t mus t b e save d b y somethin g whic h i s more tha n justice. The realistic wisdom o f the statesma n i s reduced t o foolishnes s if it is not unde r th e influence of the foolishness of the moral seer . The latter's idealism result s in political futilit y and sometimes in moral confusion, if it is not brought into commerc e and communicatio n wit h th e realitie s o f man' s collectiv e life . Thi s necessit y an d possibility o f fusing mora l and political insights does not, however , completely eliminat e certain irreconcilabl e element s i n th e tw o type s o f morality , interna l an d external , individual and social . These elements mak e for constant confusio n but the y also ad d t o the richnes s of human life . We may best bring our stud y of ethics and politic s t o a close by giving them som e furthe r consideration . 10.3 From the internal perspective the most moral act is one which is actuated by disinterested motives. The external observer may find good i n selfishness. He may value it as natural to the constitution o f human nature and a s necessary to society . But from the viewpoint of the autho r o f an action, unselfishnes s must remai n the criterion of the highes t morality. For onl y th e agen t o f an actio n know s t o wha t degre e self-seekin g corrupt s hi s sociall y approved actions. Society , on th e other hand , make s justice rather than unselfishnes s its highest mora l ideal . It s ai m mus t b e t o see k equalit y of opportunit y fo r al l life. I f this equality and justice cannot b e achieved without th e assertion of interest agains t interest, and withou t restrain t upo n th e self-assertio n o f those wh o infring e upo n th e right s of their neighbours, then society is compelled to sanction self-assertion an d restraint. It may even, as we have seen, be force d t o sanctio n socia l conflict an d violence . 10.4 Historically the interna l perspective has usuall y been cultivate d b y religion. For religion proceeds fro m profoun d introspection an d naturall y makes good motive s the criteri a of good conduct . I t ma y defin e goo d motive s eithe r i n term s o f lov e o r o f duty , bu t th e emphasis i s upo n th e inne r spring s o f action . Rationalise d form s o f religio n usuall y choose duty rather than love as the expressio n o f highest virtue (as in Kantian and Stoi c morality), becaus e i t seem s mor e virtuou s t o the m t o brin g al l impuls e unde r th e 160

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

dominion o f reason than to giv e any impulses, even altruistic ones, moral pre-eminence . The social viewpoin t stand s i n sharpest contras t t o religiou s moralit y whe n i t views the behaviour of collective rather than individual man, and when it deals with the necessities of politica l life . Politica l morality , i n othe r words , i s i n th e mos t uncompromisin g antithesis to religious morality ...

10.5 Every effort t o transfer a pure morality of disinterestedness to group relations has resulted in failure. The Negroes of America have practised it quite consistently since the Civil War. They did not ris e against their masters during the war and remaine d remarkabl y loyal to them. Thei r socia l attitude s sinc e tha t time , unti l a ver y recen t date , hav e bee n compounded o f genuine religiou s virtues of forgivenes s and forbearance , and a certain social inertia whic h was derived no t fro m religiou s virtue but fro m racia l weakness. Yet they did no t softe n th e heart s of their oppressor s b y their socia l policy . 10.6 During th e earl y triumph s o f fascis m i n Ital y th e socialis t leader s suddenl y adopte d pacifist principles . One of the socialist papers counselled the workers to meet the terror of fascism wit h the followin g strategy : '(1 ) Creat e a voi d aroun d fascism . (2) Do not provoke; suffer an y provocation wit h serenity. (3) To win, be better than your adversary. (4) D o not us e the weapons of your enemy. Do not follo w in his footsteps. (5) Remember that the blood of guerrilla warfare fall s upo n thos e who shed it . (6 ) Remembe r that i n a struggle betwee n brother s thos e ar e victor s wh o conque r themselves . (7 ) B e convinced that i t is better t o suffe r wrong than to commi t it . (8) Don't be impatient. Impatienc e is extremely egotistical; it is instinct; it i s yielding to one' s ego urge. (9) D o not forge t tha t socialism win s th e mor e whe n i t suffers , becaus e i t wa s born i n pai n an d live s o n it s hopes. (10 ) Liste n t o th e min d an d t o th e hear t whic h advise s you tha t th e working people should b e nearer to sacrific e tha n t o vengeance.' (Quote d by Max Nomad, Rebels and Renegades, p. 294.) A nobler decalogu e of virtues could hardl y have been prescribed. But th e Italia n socialist s were annihilated b y th e fascists , thei r organisation s destroyed , and the rights of the workers subordinated t o a state which is governed by their enemies. The workers ma y live 'on their hopes', but ther e is no prospect o f realising thei r hope s under th e presen t regim e by practisin g th e pur e mora l principle s which th e socialisti c journal advocated . Som e of them ar e not incompatibl e wit h th e us e of coercion against their foes. But inasfar as they exclude coercive means they are ineffectual befor e the brutal will-to-power o f fascism . 10.7 The effort t o appl y the doctrines o f Tolstoi t o the politica l situation o f Russia had a very similar effect . Tolsto i an d hi s disciples felt tha t th e Russia n peasants would have the best opportunity fo r victory over their oppressors i f they did not become stained with the guilt of th e sam e violence whic h the czaris t regime used agains t them. Th e peasant s were t o return goo d fo r evil , an d wi n thei r battle s b y non-resistance . Unlik e th e policie s o f Gandhi, the political programme of Tolstoi remaine d altogether unrealistic. No effort was made t o relat e th e religiou s idea l o f love t o th e politica l necessit y of coercion. It s total effect wa s therefor e sociall y an d politicall y deleterious . I t helpe d t o destro y a risin g protest agains t politica l an d economi c oppressio n an d t o confir m th e Russia n i n hi s 161

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

pessimistic passivity. The excesses of the terrorists seemed to giv e point t o th e Tolstoia n opposition t o violence and resistance . But the terrorists and th e pacifists finall y ended in the sam e futility. An d their common futilit y seeme d t o justif y th e pessimis m which saw no escap e from th e traditiona l injustice s o f the Russia n political an d economi c system . The real fact wa s that both sprang from a romantic middle-class or aristocrati c idealism , too individualisti c in each instanc e to achiev e political effectiveness . Th e terrorists were diseased idealists , so morbidly oppressed b y the guilt of violence restin g upon thei r class, that the y imagine d i t possibl e t o aton e fo r tha t guil t b y deliberatel y incurrin g guil t i n championing th e oppressed . Thei r idea s were ethical and , t o a degree, religious, thoug h they regarded themselve s a s irreligious. The political effectiveness o f their violence was a secondary consideration . Th e Tolstoia n pacifist s attempte d th e solutio n o f th e socia l problem b y diametricall y opposit e policies . But , i n commo n wit h th e terrorists , thei r attitudes spran g fro m th e conscienc e o f disquiete d individuals . Neithe r o f the m understood th e realitie s o f politica l lif e becaus e neithe r ha d a n appreciatio n fo r th e significant characteristic s of collective behaviour. The romanti c terrorists faile d t o relat e their isolate d act s o f terror t o an y consistent politica l plan . Th e pacifists , o n th e othe r hand, erroneousl y attribute d politica l potenc y t o pur e non-resistance .

10.8 Whenever religiou s idealism bring s forth it s purest fruit s an d place s the stronges t chec k upon selfis h desir e i t result s i n policie s which, fro m th e politica l perspective , ar e quit e impossible. Ther e is , i n othe r words , n o possibilit y o f harmonisin g th e tw o strategie s designed to bring the strongest inne r and the most effectiv e socia l restraint upo n egoisti c impulse. I t woul d therefor e see m bette r t o accep t a fran k dualis m i n moral s tha n t o attempt a harmony between th e two methods whic h threatens the effectivenes s o f both. Such a dualism would hav e two aspects. It would mak e a distinction betwee n th e mora l judgments applie d t o th e sel f an d t o others ; an d i t would distinguis h between wha t we expect o f individual s and o f groups. Th e firs t distinctio n i s obvious an d i s explicitly o r implicitly accepted whenever the mora l proble m i s taken seriously . T o disapprov e your own selfishnes s mor e severel y than th e egois m o f others i s a necessary disciplin e i f th e natural complacenc y towar d th e sel f an d severit y i n th e judgmen t o f other s i s t o b e corrected. Suc h a cours e is , furthermore , demande d b y th e logi c o f th e whol e mora l situation. One can view the actions of others only from a n external perspective; and fro m that perspectiv e th e socia l justificatio n o f self-assertio n become s inevitable . Onl y th e actions o f the sel f can be viewed from th e interna l perspective ; and fro m tha t viewpoin t all egoism must be morally disapproved. I f such disapproval should occasionall y destroy self-assertion t o suc h a degree as to invit e the aggressio n of others, th e instance s will be insignificant i n comparison wit h the number o f cases in which the moral disapproval of egoism merely tends to reduc e the inordinat e self-assertion of the average man. Eve n in those fe w cases in whic h egois m i s reduced b y religiou s discipline t o suc h proportion s that i t invite s injustic e i n a n immediat e situation , i t wil l hav e socia l usefulnes s i n glorifying th e mora l principl e an d settin g an exampl e for futur e generations . 10.9 The distinction between individual and group morality is a sharper and more perplexing one. Th e moral obtusenes s o f human collective s make s a morality o f pure disinterested ness impossible . Ther e i s no t enoug h imaginatio n i n an y socia l grou p t o rende r i t 162

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

amenable to the influenc e of pure love. Nor is there a possibility of persuading any social group to mak e a venture in pure love, except, as in the cas e of the Russia n peasants, the recently liberate d Negroe s an d othe r simila r groups , a morall y dubiou s socia l inerti a should b e compounded wit h th e ideal . Th e selfishnes s o f human communitie s mus t be regarded a s an inevitability . Where it i s inordinate i t can be checked onl y by competing assertions o f interest ; an d thes e ca n b e effectiv e onl y i f coercive method s ar e adde d t o moral and rational persuasion. Moral factors may qualify, but the y will not eliminate, the resulting socia l contes t an d conflict . Mora l goodwil l ma y see k t o relat e th e peculia r interests o f the grou p to th e idea l of a total and final harmony of all life. I t may thereby qualify th e self-assertio n o f the privileged , and suppor t th e interest s o f the disinherited , but i t wil l neve r b e s o impartia l a s t o persuad e an y grou p t o subjec t it s interest s completely to an inclusive social ideal. The spirit of love may preserve a certain degree of appreciation fo r th e commo n weaknesse s an d commo n aspiration s whic h bin d me n together above the areas of social conflict. But again it cannot prevent the conflict. It may avail itself of instruments o f restraint and coercion , through which a measure of trust in the mora l capacitie s o f an opponen t ma y be expresse d an d th e expansio n rathe r tha n contraction o f thos e capacitie s i s encouraged . Bu t i t canno t hid e th e mora l distrus t expressed b y th e ver y us e of th e instrument s o f coercion . T o som e degre e the conflic t between th e pures t individua l moralit y an d a n adequat e politica l policy must therefor e remain.

10.10 The needs of an adequate political strategy do not obviat e the necessity of cultivating the strictest individual moral discipline and the most uncompromisin g idealism. Individuals, even when involved in their communities, will always have the opportunit y o f loyalty to the highest canons o f personal morality . Sometimes , when their group is obviously bent upon evil , they may have to expres s their individua l ideals by disassociating themselves from thei r group. Such a policy may easily lead to political irresponsibility, as in the case of the mor e extreme sects of non-resisters. Bu t it may also be socially useful. Religiousl y inspired pacifists who protest agains t the violence of their state in the name of a sensitive individual conscienc e ma y neve r lam e th e will-to-powe r o f a stat e a s much a s a classconscious labour group. But if their numbers grew to large proportions, they might affec t the policy of the government. It is possible, too, that their example may encourage similar nonconformity amon g individual s in the enem y nation an d thu s mitigate the impac t of the conflic t withou t weakenin g the comparativ e strength o f their ow n community . 10.11 The ideals of a high individual morality are just as necessary when loyalty to the group is maintained an d it s genera l cours e i n relatio n t o othe r group s i s approved . Ther e ar e possibilities for individual unselfishness, even when the group is asserting its interests and rights agains t othe r communities . Th e interests of the individua l are related to thos e of the group , and h e may therefore seek advantages for himself when he seeks them fo r his group. Bu t this indirec t egois m i s comparatively insignificant besid e th e possibilitie s of expressing o r disciplinin g hi s egois m i n relatio n t o hi s group . I f h e i s a leade r i n th e group, it is necessary to restrain his ambitions. A leadership, free of self-seeking, improves the moral e o f the whol e group. Th e leaders of disinherited groups , even when the y are avowed economi c determinist s an d scor n th e languag e o f persona l idealism , ar e 163

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

frequently actuate d b y hig h mora l ideals . I f they sough t thei r ow n persona l advantag e they could gai n it more easily by using their abilities to ris e from their grou p to a more privileged one . Th e temptatio n t o d o thi s amon g th e able r member s o f disinherite d groups i s precisely what ha s retarde d th e progres s of their clas s or race .

10.12 The progress of the Negr o race, for instance, is retarded by the inclinatio n o f many able and educate d Negroe s t o striv e fo r identificatio n an d assimilatio n wit h th e mor e privileged white race and to minimise their relation to a subject race as much as possible. The American Labour Movement ha s failed t o develop its full powe r for the same reason. Under th e influenc e o f America n individualism , abl e labou r me n hav e bee n mor e ambitious t o ris e into the class of owners and their agent s than to solidif y th e labourin g class i n it s struggl e fo r freedom . Ther e is , furthermore , alway s th e possibilit y tha t a n intelligent membe r o f a socia l grou p wil l begi n hi s caree r i n unselfis h devotio n t o th e interests of his community, only to be tempted b y the personal prizes to be gained, either within th e grou p o r b y shifting hi s loyalty to a more privileged group . Th e interest s o f individuals are, i n other words , neve r exactly identical with those of their communities . The possibility an d necessit y of individual moral disciplin e is therefore never absent , n o matter wha t importanc e th e socia l struggl e betwee n variou s huma n communitie s achieves. No r ca n an y communit y achiev e unit y an d harmon y withi n it s life , i f th e sentiments of goodwill and attitudes of mutuality are not cultivated . No political realis m which emphasise s th e inevitabilit y an d necessit y o f a socia l struggle , ca n absolv e individuals of the obligatio n t o chec k their own egoism, to comprehen d th e interest s of others an d thu s to enlarg e the areas of co-operation .

EXTRACT 1 1 TEMPLE Christianity and the social order 11.1 The method o f the Church's impact upon society at large should be twofold. The Church must announce Christia n principles and point ou t wher e the existing social order a t any time i s in conflic t wit h them. I t mus t the n pas s on t o Christia n citizens , acting in thei r civic capacity , th e tas k o f re-shapin g th e existin g orde r i n close r conformit y t o th e principles. Fo r a t thi s poin t technica l knowledg e ma y b e require d an d judgment s o f practical expedienc y ar e alway s required . I f a bridg e i s t o b e built , th e Churc h ma y remind th e enginee r that i t i s his obligation t o provid e a really safe bridge; but i t i s not entitled t o tel l hi m whether , i n fact , hi s desig n meet s thi s requirement ; a particula r theologian ma y also be a competent engineer , and, if he is, his judgment o n this point is entitled t o attention ; bu t thi s i s altogether becaus e he i s a competen t enginee r an d hi s theological equipmen t ha s nothin g whateve r t o d o wit h it . I n jus t th e sam e wa y the Church ma y tell the politicia n wha t end s th e socia l orde r shoul d promote ; bu t i t mus t leave to th e politicia n the devisin g of the precis e means t o thos e ends . 164

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

11.2

This is a point of first-rat e importance , an d i s frequently misunderstood. If Christianity is true at all it is a truth of universal application; all things should b e done i n the Christian spirit an d i n accordanc e wit h Christia n principles . 'Then' , sa y some , 'produc e you r Christian solutio n fo r unemployment. ' Bu t there neithe r i s nor coul d b e suc h a thing. Christian fait h doe s no t b y itsel f enable it s adherent t o forese e ho w a vast multitud e of people, eac h on e partl y selfis h an d partl y generous , an d a n intricat e economi c mechanism, wil l i n fac t b e affecte d b y a particular economi c o r politica l innovatio n 'social credit' , fo r example . 'I n tha t case, ' say s th e reforme r - or , quit e equally , th e upholder o f the status quo - 'kee p of f the turf . B y your ow n confession you are out of place here.' But this time the Church mus t say 'No; I cannot tel l you what is the remedy; but I ca n tel l yo u tha t a societ y o f whic h unemploymen t (i n peac e time ) i s a chroni c feature, i s a disease d society , an d tha t i f yo u ar e no t doin g al l yo u ca n t o fin d an d administer the remedy, you are guilty before God.' Sometimes the Church can go furthe r than thi s point to feature s i n the socia l structure itself which are bound t o be sources of social evi l because the y contradict th e principle s o f the Gospel .

11.3 So the Church is likely to be attacked from both sides if it does its duty. It will be told that it has become 'political ' when in fact i t has been careful onl y to state principles and poin t to breaches of them; and i t will be told by advocates of particular policies that i t is futil e because it does not suppor t these . If it is faithful t o its commission i t will ignore both sets of complaints , an d continu e s o fa r a s i t ca n t o influenc e al l citizen s an d permeat e al l parties. 11.4 Before going on to state in outline the chief principles of Christian social doctrine, i t may be wise, in th e prevailin g temper o f our age , to ad d a furthe r wor d o f caution. Fo r i t is sometimes suppose d tha t wha t th e Churc h ha s to d o i s to sketc h a perfect socia l orde r and urg e men t o establis h it . But it is very difficult t o know what a 'perfect socia l order' means. I s it the orde r tha t woul d work best i f we were all perfect? O r i s it the orde r tha t would work best in a world of men an d women such as we actually are? If it is the former , it certainly ought not t o be established; we should wreck it in a fortnight. If it is the latter, there i s no reaso n fo r expecting th e Churc h t o kno w what i t i s .. . 11.5 The political problem i s concerned wit h men a s they are, not wit h me n a s they ought t o be. Part of the task is so to order life as to lead them neare r to what they ought to be; but to assum e tha t the y ar e alread y this , wil l involv e certai n failur e an d disaster . I t i s no t contended tha t me n ar e utterl y bad , o r tha t the y ar e mor e ba d tha n good . Wha t i s contended i s that the y ar e no t perfectl y good , an d tha t eve n thei r goodnes s i s infecte d with a qualit y - self-centrednes s - whic h partl y vitiate s it , an d expose s the m t o temptations s o fa r a s the y achiev e eithe r freedo m o r power . Thi s doe s no t mea n tha t freedom o r powe r shoul d b e denied t o them ; o n th e contrary , i t i s fundamental to th e Christian position tha t men should hav e freedom even though the y abuse it; but i t is also to be recognised tha t they certainly will abuse it except so far as they are won by devotion 165

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

to truth or to beauty to that selfless outlook, which is only perfectly established in men by love which arises in them i n answe r to th e redemptiv e lov e of God.

11.6 In an y period wort h considering , an d probabl y t o th e en d o f earthly history, statesme n will themselve s be men , an d wil l be dealin g with men , wh o abus e freedo m an d power . Now the most fundamental requirement o f any political and economic system is not tha t it shall express love, though that is desirable, nor tha t it shall express justice, though tha t is the first ethical demand t o b e made upo n it , but tha t i t shall supply some reasonabl e measure o f securit y against murder, robbery , an d starvation . I f it ca n b e sai d wit h rea l probability tha t a propose d schem e woul d i n fact , me n bein g wha t the y are , fai l t o provide tha t security , tha t schem e i s doomed . Christian s hav e som e clue s t o th e understanding o f huma n natur e whic h ma y enabl e the m t o mak e a mor e accurat e estimate tha n other s o f thes e points . Bu t the y wil l not , i f the y ar e tru e t o thei r ow n tradition, approac h the question with rosy-tinted spectacles . Its assertion o f Original Sin should mak e the Churc h intensely realistic and conspicuousl y free fro m Utopianism . 11.7 There is no such thing as a Christian social ideal, to which we should conform our actual society as closely a s possible. We may notice, incidentally , abou t an y suc h ideal s fro m Plato's Republic onwards, that no one really wants to live in the ideal state as depicted by anyone else. Moreover, ther e is the desperate difficulty o f getting there. When I read any description of an Ideal State and think how we are to begin transforming our own society into that , I a m reminde d o f th e Englishman i n Irelan d wh o aske d th e wa y t o Roscommon. 'I s i t Roscommo n yo u want t o g o to?' aske d th e Irishman . 'Yes, ' sai d th e Englishman; 'that's why I asked the way.' 'Well,' said the Irishman , 'if I wanted to g o to Roscommon, I wouldn't b e starting fro m here. ' 11.8 But though Christianity supplies no idea l in this sense, it supplies something of far more value - namely , principle s on which we can begin to act in every possible situatio n ... 11.9 The primary principle of Christian ethics and Christia n politic s must be respect for every person simply as a person. If each ma n an d woman i s a child of God, who m Go d love s and fo r who m Chris t died , the n ther e i s in eac h a worth absolutel y independen t o f all usefulness t o society . Th e perso n i s primary , no t th e society ; th e Stat e exist s fo r th e citizen, not th e citize n for the State . The first aim of social progress must b e to giv e the fullest possibl e scop e fo r th e exercis e o f al l power s an d qualitie s whic h ar e distinctl y personal; an d o f those th e mos t fundamenta l i s deliberate choice . 11.10 Consequently societ y mus t b e s o arrange d a s t o giv e t o ever y citize n th e maximu m opportunity fo r makin g deliberate choice s an d th e bes t possibl e trainin g fo r th e us e of that opportunity . I n othe r words , on e o f ou r firs t consideration s wil l b e th e wides t possible extensio n o f persona l responsibility ; i t i s the responsibl e exercis e of deliberat e 166

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTICE

choice whic h mos t full y expresse s personalit y an d bes t deserve s th e grea t nam e o f freedom.

11.11 Freedom is the goal of politics. To establish and secur e true freedom is the primary object of all right political action. For i t i s in an d throug h hi s freedo m that a man make s full y real his personality - th e quality of one made i n the image of God. 11.12 Freedom i s a great word, an d lik e other grea t words i s often superficiall y understood. I t has been said that t o thos e who have enough o f the world's goods th e clai m to freedom means 'Leave us alone', while to those who have not enoug h i t means 'Give us a chance'. This important differenc e o f interpretation rest s on a single understanding of freedom as absence of compulsion o r restraint. Bu t if that is all the word means, freedom and futilit y are likely to be so frequently combined a s to see m inseparable. For nothing i s so futile a s the unhampered satisfaction of sporadic impulses; that is the sort of existence which leads through boredo m t o suicide . Freedo m s o fa r a s i t i s a treasur e mus t b e freedo m fo r something as well as freedom from something . I t mus t be th e actua l ability to for m an d carry ou t a purpose. Thi s implie s disciplin e - a t first external disciplin e t o chec k the wayward impulses before there is a real purpose i n life to control them, and afterward s a self-discipline directe d t o th e fulfilmen t o f the purpos e of life whe n formed. Freedom, in short, i s self-control, self-determination , self-direction . T o trai n citizen s in th e capacit y for freedo m and to giv e them scope for free actio n is the suprem e end o f all true politics. 11.13 But man i s a self-centred creature. He can be trusted to abus e his freedom. Even so far as he win s self-control , h e wil l contro l himsel f i n hi s ow n interest : no t entirely ; he i s no t merely bad; but h e is not altogether good, and any fraction of self-centredness will involve the consequence tha t hi s purpose conflict s t o som e extent with that o f his neighbour. So there must b e the restrain t o f law, as long as men hav e any selfishness left i n them. Law exists to preserv e and exten d rea l freedom. First, it exists to preven t th e selfishnes s of A from destroyin g the freedom of B. If I am left untouche d when I knock my neighbours on the head , thei r freedo m t o g o abou t thei r dutie s an d thei r pleasure s ma y b e greatl y diminished. Bu t th e la w which restrain s an y occasiona l homicida l impuls e tha t I ma y have, by threatening penaltie s sufficientl y disagreeabl e to mak e the indulgenc e of it no t seem t o b e goo d enough , als o protect s m y purpos e o f goo d fellowshi p against bein g violated b y that sam e impulse . I n suc h a case the restrain t o f the la w increases the tru e freedom o f all concerned .. . 11.14 No ma n i s fitte d fo r a n isolate d life ; everyon e ha s need s whic h h e canno t suppl y fo r himself; but h e needs not only what his neighbours contribute to the equipment o f his life but thei r actua l selve s a s th e complemen t o f hi s own . Ma n i s naturall y an d incurabl y social. 167

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS 11.15

Recent political theories have given ostensible emphasis to this truth and have then, as a rule, gon e fa r t o ignor e it . Certainl y ou r socia l organisatio n largel y ignores it . Fo r thi s social natur e of man i s fundamental to hi s being . I am no t firs t som e on e o n m y own account who happens to be a child of my parents, a citizen of Great Britain, and s o forth. If yo u tak e al l thes e socia l relationship s away , ther e i s nothin g left . A ma n i s talkin g nonsense i f he says: 'Well, if I had been the son of some one else... etc'. He is his parent' s son; what he is supposing is not tha t h e should b e someone else' s son , but tha t h e should not exis t an d someon e els e shoul d exis t instead . B y our mutua l influenc e w e actually constitute one another as what we are. This mutual influence finds its first field of activity in th e family ; i t find s othe r field s late r i n school , college , Trad e Union , professiona l association, city , country, nation, Church .

11.16 Now actual liberty is the freedom which men enjoy in these various social units. But most political theories confine attention to the individual and the State as organ of the national community; the y ten d t o ignor e th e intermediat e groupings . Bu t tha t make s an y understanding o f actual liberty impossible; fo r it exists for the mos t par t i n and throug h those intermediate groups - th e family, the Church or congregation, the guild, the Trade Union, th e school , th e university , th e Mutua l Improvemen t Society . (Onl y i n th e nineteenth centur y coul d Englis h peopl e devis e suc h a titl e a s th e las t o r consen t t o belong to a society so named; but th e thing which that name quite accurately describes is very common an d ver y beneficial.) 11.17 It i s the commo n failin g o f revolutionar y politics t o ignor e o r attemp t t o destro y thes e lesser associations . The y are nearly always the produc t o f historical growt h an d d o no t quite fi t an y theoretica l pattern . S o the revolutionary , wh o i s of necessit y a theorist, is impatient o f them. I t was largely for this reason tha t the great French Revolution, which took a s it s watchwor d Liberty , Equalit y an d Fraternity , degenerate d int o a struggl e between Libert y an d Equalit y wherei n Fraternit y wa s smothere d an d Libert y wa s judicially murdered . Fo r th e isolate d citize n canno t effectivel y b e fre e ove r agains t th e State except a t th e cos t o f anarchy. 11.18 Liberty is actual in the various cultural and commercia l an d loca l associations tha t me n form. I n eac h o f thes e a ma n ca n fee l tha t h e count s fo r somethin g an d tha t other s depend on him a s he on them. The State which would serve and guard Liberty will foster all such groupings, giving them freedo m t o guid e their own activities provided thes e fal l within th e genera l orde r o f the communa l lif e an d d o no t injur e th e freedo m of othe r similar associations. Thus the State becomes the Community of communities - o r rather the administrativ e organ o f tha t Communit y - an d ther e i s much t o b e sai d fo r the contention tha t it s representative institutions shoul d b e s o designed a s to represen t th e various groupings o f men rathe r tha n (o r a s well as) individuals ... 168

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

11.19 A democrac y whic h i s t o b e Christia n mus t b e a democrac y o f persons , no t onl y o f individuals. I t must no t onl y tolerat e bu t encourag e minor communitie s a s at onc e th e expression an d th e arena of personal freedom ; and it s structure must be such as to serve this end. That is the partial justification of Fascism which has made its triumphs possible. It sins far more deeply against true freedom than i t supports it; yet in the materialist and mechanical qualit y o f th e democrati c movemen t fro m Roussea u t o Kar l Mar x an d hi s communist disciples , i t ha d rea l justification fo r reactin g agains t them . 11.20 It i s impossibl e t o sa y ho w muc h w e ow e i n ou r ow n countr y t o th e schoolin g i n democratic habit s provided , firs t b y the ol d Trad e Guilds , then, when th e fellowshi p o f trade ha d bee n broke n u p b y the releas e of individualis t acquisitiveness , b y th e Trad e Unions, and ever since the seventeenth century by the dissenting congregations. Man y of our most effective Labou r leaders learned their art of public speech as local preachers; and the self-governmen t o f th e loca l Chape l ha s bee n a fruitfu l schoo l o f democrati c procedure. Ou r 'Lef t Wing ' has by no mean s always maintained thi s close association of democratic principle with conscientious worshi p of God! But the historical roo t i s there. And the British tradition o f freedom has probably more o f the element which consists of the claim to obe y God rather than me n an d less of the element of mere self-assertivenes s than ha s th e democrati c traditio n i n mos t othe r countries . Th e elemen t o f self assertiveness is morally bad an d politicall y disastrous; a freedom based upo n i t is only an opportunity fo r selfishnes s and wil l decline through anarch y to disruptio n o f the State ; the claim to obe y God rather than me n is a source both of moral strength, for it inspires devotion t o duty , an d o f politica l stability , fo r suc h freedo m ma y onl y be use d i n th e service o f the whol e fellowship. 11.21 The combinatio n o f Freedo m an d Fellowshi p a s principle s o f socia l lif e issue s i n th e obligation of Service. No one doubts this in so far as it concerns the individual. Whatever our practic e may be, we all give lip-service to thi s principle. 11.22 Its applicatio n t o th e individua l i s pretty clear . I t affect s hi m i n tw o mai n way s - a s regards work and leisure. In England we have depended a great deal on voluntary service given i n leisur e hours. W e want a grea t dea l mor e o f it ; an d w e have a righ t to expec t more tha n w e ge t fro m th e Christia n Churches . Ye t i t i s certai n tha t a ver y larg e proportion o f th e day-to-da y drudger y o f socia l servic e i s done b y Christia n me n an d women i n the inspiration o f their Christian faith. We want more of them; but th e greater part o f what i s done a t al l is done b y Christian folk . 11.23 What i s less ofte n recognise d i n practice is the obligatio n t o mak e of the occupation , b y which a man o r woman earn s a living, a sphere of service. This may be done in two ways. Some young people hav e the opportunit y t o choos e the kind o f work by which they will earn their living. To make that choice on selfish grounds is probably the greatest single sin 169

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

that an y young person ca n commit, fo r it is the deliberat e withdrawal from allegianc e to God o f the greatest par t o f time an d strength .. .

11.24 It i s no t onl y individual s wh o must , i f Christianity i s the truth , guid e thei r polic y o r career by the principles o f service; all groupings of men mus t d o the same. The rule here should be that we use our wider loyalties to check the narrower. A man is a member of his family, o f his nation, and o f mankind. I t is very seldom tha t an y one can render a service directly to mankind as a whole. We serve mankind by serving those parts of it with which we ar e closel y connecte d .. . A ma n mus t chiefl y serv e hi s ow n mos t immediat e community, acceptin g as the standard o f its welfare tha t whic h its members ar e ready to accept (thoug h trying, it may be, to lead them nearer to a fully Christian view), but always checking thi s narrowe r servic e b y th e wide r claims , s o tha t i n servin g th e smalle r community h e never injure s th e larger . 11.25 But as a member of each small group - wit h a voice in determining its conduct and policy - e.g . as a Christian Trad e Unionist or Managing Director, or as the Governor of a School - h e will d o al l he can to secur e tha t hi s own group accept s fo r itsel f th e principl e of service and set s its course in the way that will benefit no t onl y its own members i n their own self-interest, bu t als o the large r communit y i n which thi s group is a part. 11.26 Freedom, Fellowship, Service - thes e are the three principle s of a Christian socia l order , derived fro m th e still more fundamenta l Christian postulate s that Ma n i s a child o f God and i s destined fo r a lif e o f eternal fellowshi p wit h Him .

EXTRACT 1 2 JOHN XXII I Towards a world government 12.1 That inter-stat e relationship s involv e mutual rights and duties has been frequently taught by our predecessor s an d this we now confirm. These relationships, too , mus t conform to the norm s o f truth, justice, friendship an d respec t o f freedom. Fo r the sam e natura l law which governs the conduct of individual men applies with equal force to the managemen t of publi c affairs .

12.2 This will be clear to anyon e wh o reflect s tha t ruler s cannot discar d thei r huma n dignit y whilst the y ar e actin g o n behal f o f th e communit y an d attendin g t o it s welfare . The y cannot, therefore , disregar d th e natura l mora l la w which binds the m a s men . 170

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

12.3

Nor i s it to be imagined that men are driven to shed their humanity by being elevated to the highes t rank i n the state . O n th e contrar y they have usually been chose n becaus e of their outstandin g gift s an d qualities .

12.4 We hav e seen , too , tha t i t i s th e mora l la w whic h provide s fo r authorit y i n th e community. How then can authority turn round and reject the moral law by which it was constituted? It would lose its foundation and collapse. We have God's own warning in the Book of Wisdom : 'Listen the n king s and understand ; ruler s of remotes t lands , tak e warning; hear this , you wh o hav e thousand s unde r you r rule , wh o boas t o f you r horde s o f subjects . For power i s a gift t o you fro m th e Lord , sovereignty is from th e Mos t High; he himself will probe you r act s and scrutinis e your intentions.' (6.2-4) 12.5 All along th e line , eve n when i t come s t o inter-stat e relations, we have to maintai n th e principle tha t authorit y must see k to promot e th e commo n goo d o f all, fo r tha t i s the reason fo r it s existence . 12.6 But on e o f th e firs t rule s fo r securin g the commo n goo d i s tha t th e mora l orde r b e recognised and its precepts obeyed. 'If order amongst states is to be securely established it must rest on the bedrock of those unalterable standard s of honesty which the Creator has made to appear in nature itself and established irremovably in the minds of men ... These norms ar e guidin g light s t o sho w me n an d nation s th e wa y the y shoul d take . Thei r salutary and provident warnings must be observed if the attempts to build a new order in society ar e not t o en d i n storm s an d ship-wreck ' (Piu s XII, Christmas Broadcast, 1941) . 12.7 First of all then th e links between state s must be forged i n truth. Trut h demand s that i n the creatio n o f these link s racia l o r ethni c discriminatio n shoul d hav e no part : that al l states be regarded as equal in their natural dignity. Each, in consequence, has the right to its existence, to its prosperity and to the aids which these make necessary, and the right to retain fo r itsel f th e responsibilit y fo r securin g al l these . I t ca n likewis e legitimatel y demand t o hav e it s reputatio n respecte d an d t o b e give n th e honour s t o whic h i t i s entitled. 12.8 We know that individual me n diffe r greatl y from on e anothe r i n knowledge, strengt h o f character, talents and the possession of wealth. But this is no reason why those who excel in such things should lord it over others. On the contrary the obligation that falls upon all and sundry to cooperate with others in striving for perfection lies more heavily on thos e with somethin g extr a to contribute . 171

A TEXTBOOK O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

12.9

In th e sam e wa y som e nation s surpas s other s i n scientific , cultura l an d economi c development. Bu t this superiority, fa r from permittin g them a n unjus t domination ove r others, increases thei r obligatio n to contribut e t o th e common welfare o f all peoples.

12.10 In respect of their human dignity nature makes no men superior to others. Nor does it do so i n th e cas e o f civi l communities , fo r eac h o f thes e i s a bod y whos e member s ar e individual huma n beings. We know, too, well enough, ho w sensitive people are in matter s that touc h a nation's honou r an d with good reason . 12.11 Truth als o call s fo r balanc e an d fairnes s i n th e us e o f th e mean s o f communicatin g information whic h modern technolog y ha s put a t men's disposal and which help nations to lear n mor e abou t eac h other. Thi s does no t mea n tha t a country i s wrong i n givin g prominence t o wha t ca n b e sai d i n it s ow n favour . I t doe s mea n th e rejectio n o f an y spreading of rumours which do violence to truth and justice and damage the reputatio n of another country . 12.12 Relations between states must also accord with justice. This involves mutual recognitio n of rights , mutual fulfilmen t o f obligations . 12.13 We hav e establishe d tha t state s hav e th e righ t t o exist , t o prosper , t o acquir e th e aid s necessary for their developmen t an d t o rel y principally on thei r ow n effort s i n so doing. They have the righ t als o to protec t thei r reputatio n an d t o insis t o n du e honour s bein g paid to them. It follows logically that there is a corresponding obligatio n on all of them t o see that ever y one of these rights is safeguarded and that nothing is done to violate them . For, just as in private life men may not pursu e their own interests in such a manner as to inflict unjus t har m o n others , i n the sam e way states ar e guilty of criminal behaviou r if they see k thei r ow n advantag e a t th e expens e o f injurin g other s o r unwarrantabl y oppressing them. Ho w apt in this connection i s St Augustine's remark: 'Take away justice and wha t ar e kingdom s bu t gang s o f robbers?' (City o f God, IV.4). 12.14 It ca n happen, an d indeed doe s happen , tha t clashe s of interests develo p betwee n states . The solution o f these shoul d b e sought no t i n recours e t o arms , no r i n underhan d an d deceitful ways, but in a manner worth y of human beings: throug h mutua l appreciation o f arguments and attitudes, giving mature consideration t o all points, weighin g them in the balance o f truth an d resolvin g difference s fairly . 12.15 This applies particularl y t o the problem of national consciousness . From th e nineteenth century onward s ther e hav e been increasin g attempt s i n variou s part s o f th e worl d t o make politica l boundarie s coincid e wit h nationa l ones , s o as to giv e self-government t o people o f the sam e ethni c group . Since , fo r a variety o f reasons , thi s canno t alway s be 172

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

achieved, it often happens that minorities find themselves hemmed in within the frontier s of a nation comprise d o f people from anothe r stock . Thi s gives rise to serious problems .

12.16 It must be made quite clear that it is a gross violation of justice to do anything to reduce the vigou r an d growt h o f such minorities; al l the mor e s o i f the abominabl e attemp t i s made t o exterminat e them . 12.17 The way to secur e justice in such situation s i s for governments t o tak e effective step s t o improve the human conditions o f these ethnic minorities, particularl y as regards the use of their language, the preservation of their nativ e genius, their ancien t customs and their enterprises an d activities in the economic field ... 12.18 The lates t advance s i n scienc e an d technology , exercisin g a s the y d o suc h a profoun d influence o n men's way of living, are causing people al l over the world t o com e togethe r and join in common enterprises . Th e interchange of goods an d ideas and the amount of travel have all increased considerably. The result ha s been an extensive growt h of contacts across national frontier s betwee n individuals, familie s an d intermediat e bodie s as well as between governments . Al l the tim e the economie s o f the various state s ar e becoming s o interdependent an d graduall y getting so inextricably interwove n tha t ther e already exists a sor t o f worl d economi c orde r forme d b y th e combinatio n o f th e economie s o f th e different nations . Added to this, the social progress, the order, the security and stability of each and ever y state ar e inevitabl y affected b y what i s happening in the others . 12.19 This being so, it is clear that individual states cannot properl y develop and attend to their needs in isolation. For the prosperit y an d progres s o f any nation i s part caus e and par t consequence o f the prosperit y and progres s of the rest . 12.20 There is also a unity in the huma n rac e deriving fro m th e huma n natur e that me n have perpetually i n commo n an d whic h demand s tha t attentio n b e give n t o th e welfar e o f mankind a s a whole: i n other word s to th e universa l common good . 12.21 In forme r time s th e government s o f th e variou s nation s wer e considere d capabl e o f attending sufficientl y t o thi s universa l commo n good . The y did s o either throug h thei r ambassadors o r b y congresse s o r b y drawin g u p treatie s an d conventions . Thes e were ways an d mean s indicate d b y the natura l la w or th e commo n la w of al l peoples o r b y positive internationa l law . 12.22 In ou r da y th e customar y relation s betwee n state s hav e undergon e a prodigiou s transformation. On the other han d th e universal common goo d brings up for immediate attention serious an d comple x problem s whic h hav e to d o with securit y and peac e on a 173

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

world scale . O n th e othe r han d nationa l governments , fo r th e ver y reason tha t the y all have equa l status , ar e unabl e t o impos e a solution , howeve r muc h the y multipl y thei r efforts t o wor k ou t appropriat e laws . I t i s no t tha t the y lac k sufficien t goodwill : i t i s simply that th e authorit y they possess i s inadequate fo r the purpose .

12.23 So it is that, in the circumstances in which human societ y finds itself today, both politica l organisations an d politica l authorit y fal l shor t o f th e standar d require d fo r attendin g properly t o the universa l common good . 12.24 Yet i f we have a proper ide a o f the commo n goo d an d a correct understandin g o f th e nature an d functio n o f politica l authorit y w e canno t hel p seein g tha t ther e mus t b e perfect correspondenc e betwee n th e two . Fo r th e mora l orde r whic h demand s th e existence o f publi c authorit y fo r th e commo n goo d o f civi l societ y must , i n doin g so , require also that it be equal to the task. This principle helps us to determine the form an d the degre e o f competenc e wit h whic h t o inves t civi l institutions . Thes e institution s constitute th e mediu m throug h whic h publi c authorit y i s exercise d an d attain s it s purpose o f promoting the common good . If they are to perform this function adequately they mus t hav e th e for m an d th e degre e o f competenc e whic h matc h contemporar y circumstances at an y given time. 12.25 Today, however, the common goo d o f all nations involve s problems whic h affect peopl e all the world over: problems which can only be solved by a public authority which has the power, the form and the agencies competent t o deal with them and whose writ covers the entire globe . W e canno t therefor e escap e th e conclusio n tha t th e mora l orde r itsel f demands th e establishmen t o f some sor t o f world government . 12.26 Such a world government , enjoying a n authority extending t o the farthest corners of the earth and having in its service agencies capable of advancing the universal common good , will nee d t o com e int o bein g throug h universa l consen t an d no t b e impose d b y force. This is because authority of the kind we are speaking of must be able to operate effectivel y and this will involve being fair to all, devoid of favouritism and intent on the welfare of all peoples. I f it were to be forcibly impose d on the rest by the more powerful nations , there would be good reaso n to fea r that i t would serve the interests o f some few only or favou r one nation unduly . The force an d efficac y o f its action would b e thereby imperilled. For, though nation s diffe r considerabl y i n materia l wealth an d militar y power , they all cling tenaciously to their claim for equal rights and fo r the excellenc e of their own way of life . They hav e good reason , therefore , t o objec t t o an y rul e impose d o n the m b y forc e o r arranged withou t thei r participatio n o r t o whic h the y hav e no t give n a spontaneou s assent. 12.27 Just as in the cas e of the commo n goo d o f individual states s o also i n the respec t of the interests of all states taken together, no proper judgment can be made without taking into 174

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

consideration th e huma n person . Worl d government , therefore , ha s t o b e speciall y directed towards making sure that human rights are everywhere acknowledged, respected , protected an d given ever wider scope. It can attend t o this by its own direct interventio n where th e situatio n call s fo r it , o r b y creatin g th e condition s whic h enabl e th e governments o f individual state s to perfor m thei r function s mor e efficiently .

12.28 We must add that th e relationships between th e world government an d the government s of individua l nation s mus t b e regulate d accordin g t o th e principl e o f subsidiarity , i n exactly th e sam e wa y a s th e relationship s withi n an y countr y betwee n th e stat e government o n th e on e han d an d th e citizens , families an d intermediat e bodies o n th e other. Thu s i t wil l b e th e provinc e o f suc h a worl d authorit y t o conside r an d settl e questions prompte d b y th e universa l commo n good , whethe r the y touc h o n matter s economic, social, political or cultural. We mean the sort of questions which, by reason of their gravity , thei r widesprea d natur e an d thei r extrem e urgenc y canno t b e deal t wit h satisfactorily b y the government s o f individual states. 12.29 To put i t anothe r way : the worl d authorit y mus t no t arrogat e to itsel f questions which rightly belong t o individual membe r states. On the contrary it must see to it that all over the world thos e condition s prevai l which giv e not onl y to nationa l government s but t o individual citizen s and intermediate bodies a better opportunity to get on with their own business, fulfi l thei r dutie s and vindicat e their rights. 12.30 Everyone know s how , o n 2 6 Jun e 1945 , ther e cam e int o bein g th e Unite d Nation s Organisation - UN O for short. Specialised agencie s composed o f members nominated by the government s t o th e variou s countrie s hav e bee n adde d t o i t since . T o thes e ar e assigned project s o f grea t importanc e an d world-wid e exten t i n socia l an d economi c matters and i n the fields of science, education an d publi c health. But the main purposes of the Organisation are declared to be: i. To maintain international peace and security; ii. To develop friendl y relation s amon g nation s base d o n respec t fo r the principl e of equal rights; iii. To achieve international cooperation i n solving international problems ; iv . To be a centre for harmonising th e action s o f nations . 12.31 It i s t o thi s Organisatio n tha t w e ow e th e Universa l Declaratio n o f Huma n Rights , approved b y the U N Genera l Assembly on 1 0 December 1948 . I n th e Preambl e t o th e Declaration i t i s stated tha t 'th e effectiv e recognitio n an d observanc e o f th e right s an d freedoms' proclaime d i n it are to be 'a common standar d o f achievement for all peoples and nations'. 12.32 We ar e wel l awar e tha t som e peopl e ar e no t entirel y satisfie d wit h som e item s i n th e Declaration, and with good reason. Nevertheless we think i t is a step towards the creation of a lega l an d politica l syste m fo r th e worl d a s a whole , inasmuc h a s i t enshrine s a recognition of the dignity of the human person, asserts the right of every man on earth to 175

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

seek trut h i n freedom , t o observ e mora l norms , t o d o wha t justice demands, t o liv e as befits a human bein g and t o enjo y othe r right s consequent upo n these .

12.33 It i s therefor e ou r earnes t wis h tha t th e Unite d Nation s Organisatio n shoul d g o fro m strength t o strength , perfectin g its constitution an d it s agencies t o mee t th e exten t an d grandeur of its tasks. May the time come soon when this Organisation will be able to give effective protectio n to human rights : rights which derive immediately fro m man's dignity as a person an d which , for that reason , ar e all-embracing, on n o accoun t t o b e violated and neve r t o be filched away . There i s all the mor e reaso n for wanting this because me n today are much more active in the public life of their own country, take a keener interest in internationa l affair s an d ar e becomin g eve r mor e consciou s o f belongin g a s living members t o th e whol e family o f mankind . 12.34 This is the plac e to repea t our exhortatio n tha t ou r son s should offe r themselve s readily for servic e in public life and shoul d join with others in working for the good o f the whole human rac e as well a s that o f their ow n country . Profitin g b y the guidanc e which their Christian faith provide s and under the impulse of Christian love, they must work hard t o ensure that whatever plans are formed t o promote economic , social , political or cultural ends are such a s will not hinde r bu t wil l rather help men to develo p i n the supernatura l order a s well as the natural ... 12.35 There are , indeed , generou s soul s who , whe n face d wit h a situation no t completel y o r perhaps no t a t al l consonant wit h justice, burn wit h a desir e t o pu t everythin g right at once and who get carried away by such an ungovernable zeal that their attempt at refor m becomes a sort o f revolution . 12.36 To suc h peopl e w e woul d sugges t tha t i t i s i n th e natur e o f thing s fo r growt h t o b e gradual an d tha t i n human institution s n o improvemen t ca n be looked fo r which doe s not procee d ste p b y step an d fro m within . Th e point wa s well put b y our predecessor , Pius XII: 'Security and justice lie in not completely overthrowing the old order but i n well planned progress . Uncontrolle d passionat e zea l alway s destroy s everythin g an d build s nothing. I t inflames cupidity , never cools it. Since it does nothing but so w hate and ruin , far fro m leadin g t o reconciliation , i t drive s me n an d politica l partie s t o th e laboriou s undertaking o f buildin g anew , o n ruin s lef t b y discord , th e edific e wit h whic h the y started.' [Address, 13/6/42 ] 12.37 Therefore, amongs t th e mos t urgen t issue s facin g seriou s thinker s toda y i s tha t o f working ou t a ne w patter n o f huma n relationship s base d o n truth , justice , lov e an d freedom: relationship s betwee n ma n an d man , betwee n citize n an d state , betwee n on e country and anothe r and , finally, between individuals , families, intermediat e bodies an d states o n th e on e hand , and , o n th e other , th e communit y o f th e whol e famil y o f mankind. Ther e is none, surely, who will not estee m this as a service of the highest order ; 176

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

for i t i s that whic h wil l rende r possibl e th e buildin g u p o f true peac e accordin g t o th e pattern whic h Go d has made .

12.38 Such thinkers, indeed , ar e all too fe w to accomplis h everything that require s to be done ; but th e whole of mankind i s deeply in their debt. I t is fitting that w e should pay them a public tribut e o f praise and a t th e sam e time beg them t o pres s on wit h their beneficia l efforts. I t is our constan t hop e tha t thei r number s will be reinforced, especially from th e ranks o f Christians inspire d t o joi n the m b y a sense o f duty an d a spirit o f love; for o n those wh o hav e enrolle d unde r th e standar d o f Chris t ther e lie s a specia l obligation t o bring vision and love to human societ y and to act as leaven in the mass. They will succeed in thi s i n the measur e of their unio n wit h God . 12.39 For no peace can reign over the whole human famil y unless it has first gained sway in the hearts o f individua l men : tha t i s to sa y unless eac h observe s within himsel f th e orde r which Go d ha s prescribed . Som e words o f St Augustine are very appropriat e here : 'Do you want your mind t o be capable of controlling you r passions? Let it bow to a superior power and it will conquer al l beneath itself ; and peace will come to you: true, certain and in righ t goo d order . What order ? Go d commandin g th e min d an d th e min d th e flesh. Nothing coul d b e more i n order' (Miscellanea Augustiniana). 12.40 It i s our burnin g desir e tha t suc h a peace shoul d b e established al l over th e worl d - a desire which i s surely shared b y all men of good wil l - whic h has led us to put forwar d these ideas on the problems which vex human society so sorely today and on the solution of which it s futur e progres s depends . 12.41 We do so knowing that, unworthy as we are of the office, w e represent the One whom the divinely inspired prophe t referre d t o a s 'The Prince of Peace'. It is our bounde n dut y to dedicate ourselve s t o thi s work fo r th e commo n goo d wit h al l the strengt h o f soul an d body. Bu t peac e wil l remai n a mer e drea m i n men' s mind s unles s i t i s built o n th e principles we have, with grea t hopes, sketche d ou t i n this letter: that i s to sa y unless it is grounded o n truth, given a framework o f justice, raised to a lofty heigh t and crowne d by charity, and take s proper accoun t o f freedom. 12.42 To erect so wonderful an edifice is truly beyond th e capacity of man, whatever his natural gifts, i f he relies solely on his own powers. To construct human society in the image of the kingdom o f Go d ther e i s need o f help fro m heaven . 12.43 So, during this Holy Week, we address our prayers to Him who, by His bitter Passion and Death, not onl y wiped awa y sin, th e caus e of all conflicts, miseries and inequalities , bu t led back the human rac e to reconciliation wit h His heavenly Father through the sheddin g of Hi s ow n blood ; thu s winnin g fo r mankin d th e gif t o f peace . 'Fo r h e i s th e peac e 177

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

between us , and has made the two into one ... He came to bring the good new s of peace, peace to you who were far away and peac e to those who were near at hand.' [Eph . 2.1417]

12.44 This i s a message which is echoed i n th e Liturg y of this sacred season : 'Jesus , ou r Lord , risen an d standin g i n th e mids t o f his disciples sai d "Peac e be upon you, alleluia" : th e disciples saw the Lor d and wer e glad.' Chris t brought u s peace and bequeathe d i t to us . 'Peace I bequeath t o you, my own peace I give you, a peace the world canno t give , this is my gif t t o you. ' [Jn . 14.27] 12.45 It is this peace brought t o us by our divin e Redeemer which is the object o f our entreatie s in th e prayer s we address t o Him . Ma y H e banis h fro m th e soul s o f me n al l that ca n undermine peace . Ma y He moul d the m al l t o becom e witnesse s o f truth , justic e an d brotherly love . Ma y H e enlighte n al l wh o rul e s o tha t the y provid e fo r thei r subjects , together wit h commendabl e prosperity , th e inestimabl e boo n o f impregnabl e peace . Finally, ma y Chris t inspir e al l me n wit h a determinatio n t o brea k dow n th e barrier s which kee p me n divided , t o strengthe n th e bond s o f mutua l lov e whic h dra w the m together, t o tr y t o understan d other s an d t o fin d forgivenes s fo r thos e guilt y o f wrongdoing. S o that , followin g hi s pla n an d hi s guidance , al l nation s wil l arriv e unfailingly a t a unio n i n brotherly concor d i n which will flourish an d reig n perpetuall y the peac e for which men dream .

EXTRACT 1 3 MIRANDA Justice and almsgiving 13.1 Since a t leas t th e sixt h centur y A.D., a bald fac t ha s bee n systematicall y exclude d fro m theological an d mora l consideration : 'T o give alms' i n the Bible is called 't o do justice.'

13.2 To cite a few of the passages which have resisted all misrepresentation, w e mention Prov . 10.2; Tob. 4.10 ; 12.9 ; 14.11 ; Dan. 4.24; and Matt. 6.1-2. These are not th e only ones, bu t these are unequivocal. When our Western translations say 'almsgiving,' they do not do so in ba d faith . Indee d th e realit y involve d i s wha t w e cal l toda y 'almsgiving, ' an d th e translations ar e mad e fo r th e peopl e o f today . Bu t th e origina l say s sedakah, whic h signifies justice . We migh t als o ad d Ecclus . 3.30, 7.1 0 an d 12.3 , th e origina l Hebre w o f which w e hav e onl y recentl y com e t o know . Previou s centurie s kne w onl y th e Gree k translation, which, like our modern versions, i s 'almsgiving.' With th e same certainty we could als o list Ps . 112.3 , 9; Artur Weiser and H . J . Kraus dogmatically interpret 'justice ' (sedakah i n Hebrew) i n these tw o verses a s 'fidelity-to-the-covenant,' bu t the y hold that the Bible treats no other theme but th e covenant. As we shall see later, however, covenant 178

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

theology belong s t o a relatively late perio d i n th e Ol d Testament. I n Ps . 112 , a s in th e other passage s we have cited, th e Bibl e call s 'justice' wha t we call 'almsgiving.'

13.3 Some exegete s hav e trie d t o diminis h th e importanc e o f thi s fact . The y argu e tha t th e Greek translators o f the Ol d Testament, th e famou s Seventy, caused som e confusio n by translating justice (sedakah) a t time s b y eleemosyne 'almsgiving, ' a t othe r time s b y eleos 'compassion,' an d a t other s b y dikaiosyne 'justice. ' But , i n th e firs t place , thi s characteristic o f th e translatio n shoul d no t distrac t u s fro m th e fac t whic h i s disconcerting fo r the Wes t - tha t th e work s whic h w e consider t o b e o f charit y and supererogation ar e i n th e origina l Bibl e text calle d work s o f justice . Thi s i s th e sam e sedakah which th e whole Bibl e considers transgressed when th e worker doe s not receiv e his wage; see, for example, Jer. 22.13. In the secon d place , instead of minimizing the bald fact w e have pointed out, th e Gree k translation emphasized i t eve n more: It means tha t the translator s o f the Septuagin t themselve s wer e disconcerted . 13.4 The act which in the West is called almsgiving for the original Bible was a restitution that someone make s fo r something tha t i s not his . The Father s of the earl y Church sa w this with great clarity: 'Tell me, how is it that you are rich? From whom di d you receive your wealth? And he , whom di d h e receiv e it from ? Fro m hi s grandfather, you say , fro m hi s father. B y climbin g thi s genealogica l tre e ar e yo u abl e t o sho w th e justic e o f thi s possession? O f course you cannot ; rathe r it s beginning and root have necessarily come ou t of injustice.' 'D o not say , "I a m spendin g wha t i s mine; I am enjoyin g what i s mine." In reality it is not your s but another's. ' 13.5 Jerome comments i n this way on Jesus' expression 'money of injustice' (Luk e 16.9) : 'And he very rightly said , "mone y of injustice, " fo r al l riches come from injustice. Unles s on e person has lost, another cannot find. Therefore I believe that th e popular proverb is very true: "Th e ric h perso n i s either a n unjus t perso n o r th e hei r o f one."' Basi l the Grea t thinks the same way: 'When someone steals a man's clothes we call him a thief. Should we not giv e the same nam e to on e who could cloth e th e naked an d doe s not ? The bread i n your cupboar d belong s t o th e hungr y man ; th e coa t hangin g unuse d i n you r close t belongs to the man who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the man who has no shoes; the money which you hoard u p belongs t o the poor.' Ambrose teaches the same thing in a formula of unsurpassable exactitude : 'You are not makin g a gift o f your possessions t o th e poo r person . Yo u are handing over t o him what is his. y 13.6 The defender s of private ownershi p hav e used wonder s o f subterfug e an d misrepresen tation t o escap e attack by such a n unequivoca l an d constan t tradition, which wa s only being faithfu l t o Sacre d Scripture . Bu t n o subtlet y i s abl e t o whitewas h thes e explici t teachings of Ambrose an d Augustine: 'Go d willed tha t this earth shoul d be the common possession o f al l an d h e offere d it s fruit s t o all . Bu t avaric e distribute d th e right s o f possession (Avaritia distribuit iura possessionum).' 'lustitia es t i n subveniendo miseris: Assisting the need y is justice.' 179

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

13.7

Apologists fo r the status qu o attribute this incontrovertible tradition to the imprecision of preachers . B y this standar d however , w e would als o hav e to eliminat e no t onl y th e entire patristi c traditio n but th e Bibl e as well, fo r there is nothing imprecis e abou t th e statements w e have considered. O n th e contrary , the y demonstrate o n th e par t o f their authors the very clear intention o f formulating a well-deliberated idea . The time has come for Christianit y t o brea k a lon g chai n o f hypocris y an d collusio n wit h th e establishe d powers and decid e if its message is or i s not goin g to b e the sam e a s the Bible's .

13.8 It does us no good to think like the Greeks and say that 'money of injustice' cannot mea n that injustice is inherent in money like quality, like weight or color, and that therefore we do not comprehen d wha t Jesus means by the term an d should le t the question rest . It is obvious that Christ did not mean that, nor did Luke, for the simple reason that neither of them was a disciple of Aristotle. The expression i n question shoul d be understood i n the context o f a society divide d between ric h an d poor. 'How happy ar e you who are poor' (Luke 6.20) and 'Ala s for you who ar e rich' (Luk e 6.24) are not expression s whic h bless the physica l fac t o f not havin g mone y an d condem n the physica l fac t o f having money , and neither are the numerous statements in the Psalter and the prophets o n behalf of the poor an d agains t th e rich . Th e term s 'rich ' an d 'poor ' ar e correlative , an d wha t th e blessing and the corresponding curse attack is precisely the difference betwee n the two. It does not see m to Luk e (nor to Christ) that this difference ca n be justified. I t is 'money of injustice' for, as Jerome understood ver y well in the paragraph we have quoted, 'all riches come from injustic e ... "The ric h person is either an unjust perso n o r the heir of one."' Jesus ben Sirach, who in Ecclus. 5.8 uses 'unjust riches' with the same sense as the term in Luke 16. 9 (an d not, certainly , in a determinative sense, which would need the article tois chremasin tois adikois), wit h astonishin g perspicacit y provide s th e sam e explanation : 'Many have sinned for the sake of profit; he who hopes to be right must be ruthless. A peg will stic k i n th e join t betwee n tw o stones , an d si n will wedge itself between sellin g an d buying' (Ecclus . 27.1-2). 13.9 Let it not be said that the biblical authors did not understan d economics; thi s is the same ben Sirac h who in 3.30, 7.10 , an d 12. 3 in the original Hebrew refer s to 'almsgiving ' and 'justice.' Th e underlyin g convictio n i s that differentiatin g ownership , that whic h makes some rich and some poor within the same society, could not be achieved with the genuine acquiescence o f thos e wh o wer e thereb y disempowered ; i t coul d no t an d i t canno t b e achieved without violence and despoliation . Th e condemnation o f the right in Luke 6.24 and th e expression 'money of injustice' i n Luke 16. 9 are based on the same conviction. If this were not s o the programmatic battle cry which at the beginning of this Gospel Luke puts on the lips of Jesus' mother herself would b e completely incomprehensible: 'He has filled the hungry with good thing s and sent the rich away empty' (Luk e 1.53) . Thi s verse is generall y classified amon g th e incomprehensible , bu t suc h a n alternativ e i s not ver y scientific. I t i s obvious tha t th e statemen t i n questio n presuppose s a definite convictio n about the injustice of differentiating wealth , that is, the wealth which in the same society constitutes som e peopl e i n on e clas s and other s i n another . Th e underlyin g convictio n can be none other than the one we have indicated: It is impossible for this wealth to have 180

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AN D JUSTICE

been acquired without violence and spoliation . T o avoid this conclusion regardin g what is at the basis of all these scriptural passages , i t would b e necessary to assert that they do not refe r t o ever y type o f differentiatin g wealth , bu t onl y t o tha t whic h wa s wrongly acquired. Th e passage s would therefor e impl y tha t th e wealt h coul d hav e been rightl y acquired. Bu t th e ver y strengt h o f th e text s i s i n th e intentiona l universalit y o f th e statements, i n th e non-distinction , precisel y i n th e fac t tha t the y d o no t allo w distinctions: 'I t i s easier fo r a camel to pas s through th e ey e of a needle tha n fo r a rich man to enter the kingdom of God' (Mark 10.25; Matt. 19.24 ; Luke 18.25). It is impossible to interpre t thi s statemen t a s directe d agains t th e distributio n o f differentiatin g ownership whic h d e facto prevail s and no t agains t d e iure differentiatin g ownershi p a s such. I t i s impossibl e t o interpre t i t a s directe d agains t th e abuse s an d no t agains t differentiating ownershi p i n itself.

13.10 The effort s o f certai n moder n exegete s to negat e th e authenticit y o f thi s logio n (Mar k 10.25; Matt. 19.24 ; Luke 18.25) a s the words of Christ himsel f only show how greatly the work of interpretation i s influenced by the statu s which Western civilization bestows on the theologia n an d o n Christianit y itsel f a s the officia l religion . O f this entir e teaching they wis h t o retai n a s th e origina l nucleu s onl y Mar k 10.26 , whic h i n substanc e says , 'How difficult i t is to be saved.' They want us to believe that 10.2 5 is one example among many and that it was more or less invented b y pre-Marcan communit y preaching , whic h does no t hav e t o b e take n literally . Bu t wit h thi s maneuve r exegesi s transgresse s th e methodological principle s which i t has scientificall y elaborated durin g many decades of meritorious work. In fact, the absolute impossibility of salvation for the rich is something which no primitiv e Christian community (befor e 7 0 A.D., as Mark's Gospe l was written in 70 or 71 ) would have dared to assert if it were not basing its assertion on the authority of Chris t himself . O n th e othe r hand , 'ho w difficul t i t i s t o b e saved ' i s a theologica l generality which could have been invented by any community or redactor of that time or any other . Therefor e th e mos t seriou s moder n exegetes , fro m th e accredite d Joachi m Jeremias and the authoritative Walter Grundman n t o the very exigent Rudolf Bultmann and Norma n Perrin , hold tha t Mar k 10.2 5 is an authenti c saying of the historica l Jesus. 13.11 Thus the statement s o f Luke 1.53 , 6.24, and 16. 9 could be , as regards their formulation, proper to Luke or to his pre-redactional tradition; as regards the content, however, the y faithfully transmi t t o u s the thinking of Christ himself , which we know from Mar k 10.25 and man y other equall y authentic passages like Matt. 11.5- 6 (Luk e 7.22-23); Luk e 6.20; etc. 13.12 Thus w e ca n retur n t o ou r startin g point : Th e fac t tha t differentiatin g wealt h i s un acquirable withou t violenc e an d spoliatio n i s presuppose d b y th e Bibl e i n it s pointe d anathemas agains t th e rich; therefore almsgiving is nothing more than restitution of what has bee n stolen , an d thu s th e Bibl e call s i t justice . An d w e includ e her e th e Ne w Testament. Matthe w leave s n o roo m fo r doub t whe n h e explain s an d thematicall y attempts t o delineat e wha t justic e is , that is , what make s som e just an d other s not , i n Matt. 25.31-46: 'the just' (w.3 7 an d 46) ; 'And they will go away to eternal punishment , 181

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

and the just to eternal life' (v.46) . It all has to do with giving food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, a home to the stranger, clothing to the naked, etc. The list is given four times so that there can be no mistake. It would be difficult t o establish with greater emphasis a definitive an d singl e criterio n t o distinguis h betwee n th e just an d th e unjust . And thi s justice canno t b e reduce d withou t misrepresentatio n t o som e kin d o f Virtue ' o r supererogation, as we see by the fat e which awaits those who do not practis e it: 'Go away from m e wit h you r curs e upo n you , t o th e eterna l fir e prepare d fo r th e devi l an d hi s angels' (v.41) .

13.13 These ar e al l work s whic h th e Wes t call s charity , i n contradistinctio n t o justice . A frequent methodologica l error is to believe that the discrepancy i s verbal or explicable by the allege d imperfectio n o f biblica l morality , whic h di d no t kno w ho w t o distinguis h between justic e an d charity . Th e discrepancy i s a solid, unequivoca l fact . T o brand th e biblical authors as primitive is a value judgment, not objective exegetical work. What is in question is precisely Wester n morality' s alleged superiorit y to biblical morality . To bas e oneself on thi s superiority in order t o reduc e biblica l thought t o Wester n though t i s an extraordinarily unscientifi c methodolog y fo r i t prevent s on e fro m seein g th e differenc e which exists between the thinking and wishing of the investigator and that of the authors being studied . 13.14 We have said that when the Bibl e calls 'justice' what Western cultur e calls 'almsgiving' it is because the private ownership which differentiates th e rich from th e poor is considered un-acquirable without violence and spoliation; th e Fathers of the Church also understood this ver y clearly . Th e causa l dependenc e whic h exist s betwee n th e distributio n o f ownership an d the distribution of income ha d led us, by economics alone , t o th e sam e conclusion. Bu t i t woul d b e erroneou s t o thin k tha t thi s economi c fac t escape d th e biblical authors . Ecclus. 27.1-2, which we have cited, is exceedingly clear: It refers to those who try to enrich themselves through profits, an d i t points ou t ho w this profit occur s in buying an d selling . Whe n i n 3.30 , 7.10 , an d 12. 3 i t refer s t o 'almsgiving ' a s 'justice ' (sedakah), th e thinking is in perfect congruenc e with the economic fact to which we have alluded an d which , to be sure, has escaped Wester n moralist s an d jurists. 13.15 In 22.1 7 Jeremia h condemn s thi s profit , afte r describin g i n v.1 4 th e luxuriou s hom e which King Jehoiakim had built, undoubtedly with such profits. Thus in v.13 the prophe t could specif y of what material the property was made: 'Shame on the man who builds his house by non-justice and completes its upstairs rooms by not-right'. As economic theory demonstrates, profi t i s the tangible concretizatio n o f the differenc e i n incomes. Jeremia h sees very clearly how private ownership arises from this. We refer to the ownership which we have called differentiating . 13.16 Amos is equally penetrating in the causa l relationships h e draws. He , however, refer s t o no perso n i n particular bu t t o th e system itself : 'Well then, sinc e you have trampled o n the poo r man , extortin g levie s o n his wheat - thos e house s yo u have buil t o f dressed 182

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

stone, yo u wil l never liv e in them ; an d thos e preciou s vineyard s you hav e planted, yo u will neve r drin k thei r wine . "Assembl e o n Samaria' s mountai n an d se e wha t grea t disorder ther e is in that city, what oppression i s found insid e her." They know nothing of fair dealin g - i t is Yahweh who speaks - the y cram thei r palace s full wit h violenc e and spoliation.' (5.11 ; 3.9-10 )

13.17 Here we have, despite all the appearances o f elegance and luxury , the true consistency of the property o f the rich : violence and spoliation . Thei r palace s and al l that whic h makes them int o a clas s differen t fro m th e res t o f th e populatio n ar e fo r Amo s concretize d oppression, th e accumulate d materializatio n o f violenc e an d spoliation . Whe n h e threatens punishment , Amo s is aware that h e is proclaiming elementary justice. Because they trampled on the poor and extorted from them levies of wheat, they could build thei r houses of dressed stone, but the y would not inhabi t them, for the day of justice is coming. 13.18 Micah (3.9-10 ) allude s t o thi s sam e characteristi c o f differentiatin g ownershi p a s h e contemplates th e mansion s an d building s o f Jerusalem: 'You wh o loat h justic e an d perver t al l that i s right , yo u wh o buil d Zio n wit h blood , Jerusalem wit h injustice. '

13.19 The secon d chapte r o f Habakku k attack s profi t i n bot h it s secon d (w.6b-8 ) an d thir d (w.9-11) stanzas . The n i t speak s o f the crie s of the wall s and th e beam s o f the house s which were built wit h suc h materials : For the stone fro m th e very walls cries out, and th e beam respond s fro m th e framework . And i t continues b y taking up th e word s o f Micah: Trouble i s comin g t o th e ma n wh o build s a tow n wit h bloo d an d found s a cit y o n injustice. (2.11 ; 2.12 )

13.20 It is needless t o dra w out th e list of biblical testimony. Thirt y years ago there were those who trie d t o explai n thi s unanimou s understandin g o f th e essenc e o f differentiatin g ownership b y the rura l an d anti-urba n origi n o f the prophets . Toda y scientifi c exegesi s rejects such subterfuges o f interpretation, o f which the histor y of Christianity is full. An y anecdotal o r psychologica l explanatio n i s ou t o f plac e here , fo r i n th e propheti c anathemas there is a lucid understanding tha t inherited wealth has its economic origin in profit. Moreover , Isaia h an d Hose a thin k th e sam e way as the othe r prophets , an d the y are no t peasant s bu t city-dwellers . Isaia h i s even fro m th e capital , an d prou d o f it . 13.21 Before Christianity became compromised wit h the prevailing social systems, that is, up to the fourt h o r fift h centur y A.D. , there wer e neve r misrepresentation s o r evasion s wit h regard t o th e biblica l testimon y concernin g th e inescapabl y unjus t origi n o r differen 183

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

tiating ownership . Th e patristi c passages which w e have cited abundantl y demonstrat e this.

13.22 At th e beginnin g o f thi s chapter , I note d tha t th e papa l encyclicals ' defenc e o f private ownership canno t b e quote d t o bran d a s heterodox wha t I am sustaining . As Allaz an d Bigo hav e demonstrated , th e encyclical s understan d ownershi p a s somethin g ver y different. I now wish to add, although I have already touched thi s in passing, that in their defence th e pope s obviousl y presuppos e thi s provision : tha t th e ownershi p ha s bee n legitimately acquired. Thus the papa l doctrine o n ownership i s on a different level , onto which my considerations i n no wa y enter. Bu t the whole doctrine i s conditioned b y the implicit phrase : provided tha t th e ownershi p has been legitimatel y acquired. 13.23 If i t is objected tha t th e pope s presuppos e tha t legitimatel y acquired ownership de facto does exist, I respond tha t in any case this notion i s not the object of their teaching activity but i s rather a supposition. Thei r teaching s therefore do no t prejudg e th e possibilit y of demonstrating tha t thi s suppositio n i s false . Bot h th e recen t advance s i n economi c science and the understandin g tha t th e Bibl e and the Churc h Father s had o f the matte r demonstrate tha t th e suppositio n i s indeed false .

EXTRACT 1 4 HOLLENBACH The common good and globalisation 14.1 New thinking about issue s such a s urban povert y and emergin g patterns o f world-wide interdependence wil l requir e som e basi c change s i n presupposition s abou t publi c lif e today. W e need t o rethin k th e attitude s an d idea s that shap e th e wa y we live together . Taken together a s a more or less coherent body of beliefs, these attitudes an d ideas can be called ou r publi c philosophy . Michae l Sandel ha s define d suc h a publi c philosoph y a s "the politica l theor y implici t i n ou r practice , th e assumption s abou t citizenshi p an d freedom tha t infor m ou r publi c life." Thi s theor y i s most ofte n taci t i n th e pattern s o f public life , bu t i t i s operative eve n when only partially recognized. It i s the se t of takenfor-granted understandin g o f ho w w e should interac t wit h on e another . I t i s als o th e source o f th e question s w e as k whe n face d wit h nove l socia l situation s requirin g innovative responses . I f these presupposition s prov e incapabl e of providin g satisfactory responses t o pressin g practical questions , th e publi c philosoph y need s t o b e rethough t and revised . Th e issue s o f urba n povert y an d globa l interdependenc e challeng e th e adequacy o f a publi c philosoph y shape d b y th e attitud e o f wariness an d th e value s of tolerance an d non-judgmentalism . W e nee d t o develo p a publi c philosoph y i n whic h social connection s an d th e good s tha t ca n onl y b e achieved throug h thes e connection s play more centra l roles. Thi s will be a public philosophy tha t combine s commitmen t t o the commo n goo d wit h respec t fo r th e equalit y an d freedo m o f al l member s o f th e relevant communities .

184

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AN D JUSTICE

14.2

The prevailing public philosophy o f tolerance presupposes that people are safest when no one can interfere with their pursuit of their own understandings of the good. I t does no t go s o fa r a s t o sugges t tha t peopl e ar e bette r of f when the y ar e alone . Tha t woul d b e absurd. But it does regard communal interaction with suspicion. But we face problems of a ver y differen t kin d fro m thos e tha t mad e toleranc e suc h a deepl y hel d value . Th e situation o f today' s citie s an d growin g globa l interdependenc e sugges t tha t findin g stronger share d vision is required. Buildin g a public philosoph y on warines s toward th e dangers o f the ide a o f the commo n goo d lead s i n th e wron g direction . Contemporar y urban povert y and global interdependence bot h revea l strong social current s that isolate individuals an d threate n the m throug h socia l fragmentation . Suc h threat s wil l b e misinterpreted i f they are forced int o an intellectual Procrustea n bed that was constructed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Where domination o f one group by another is the problem , buildin g defensiv e barrier s agains t th e surroundin g socia l ambianc e can appear a reasonable response . Bu t if isolation an d fragmentatio n ar e among the principal dangers, strategies designed solely to kee p people fro m interferin g wit h one anothe r wil l be misdirected. Inappropriatel y directed fea r o f tyranny can slide into fea r o f any form o f social connectednes s o r interdependenc e o f persons i n society . I t ca n lea d t o response s that actuall y deepen isolatio n an d socia l fragmentation. Wha t i s needed i s to discove r a better wa y to liv e together .

14.3 The problems raise d by urban poverty and global interdependence are admittedly not th e whole story of contemporary socia l life in the United States and the West more generally. But there are other important matters that raise similar questions about the adequacy of a public philosophy o f wariness and tolerance. Among these is the issue of how to provid e adequate healt h car e to al l people whe n technological innovatio n i s relentlessly openin g up ne w treatmen t option s an d drivin g u p costs . Equall y significan t i s th e fac t tha t citizenship has itself become a problematic concep t i n our time . On e author ha s named this problem th e "eclips e o f citizenship". Th e low percentage of Americans who exercise their right to vote is only the mos t visibl e evidence for this eclipse. A strong case can be made, therefore , tha t th e issue s raise d her e ar e representativ e o f significant current s i n contemporary socia l life . The y provid e evidenc e tha t th e liberalis m o f warines s an d tolerance, take n neat , is a way of avoiding rather than addressin g many of the problem s we face today. " I won't bother yo u if you don't bother me " implie s that everyon e would be better of f if people would jus t leave each other alone . Thi s is not a n adequat e stance toward ke y problems in socia l lif e today . 14.4 The growing de facto interdependenc e i n both nationa l an d internationa l lif e require s a stronger vision of the goods we share in common. I t calls for exploration of how the wellbeing o f individua l peopl e migh t b e advance d b y seekin g good s w e mus t shar e i n common i f we are to have them at all. For the suburban middle class, "lifestyle enclaves" often see m t o b e th e onl y for m o f communa l connectio n tha t i s realistically available, with a consequent devaluatio n o f larger forms o f public life. Bu t the social divisions that make enclave s necessar y can b e addresse d onl y b y a renewe d commitmen t t o a larger public good . Addressin g thes e division s als o call s fo r th e discover y o f way s t o dra w 185

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

African American male youth out of the detached stanc e that Orlando Patterso n call s the "cool-pose stree t culture" . Corne l Wes t put s thi s mor e positivel y a s th e challeng e of repoliticizing o f blac k workin g poo r an d underclass , alon g wit h increasin g th e involvement o f the blac k middl e clas s in suc h politics . I n bot h th e citie s and suburbs , therefore, publi c lif e needs t o emerg e fro m it s eclipse. Thi s will depend o n revitalizin g a sense of being a citizen linked t o other s i n a common world . A similar and eve n mor e daunting task arises as we contemplate ho w to govern a more interconnected , globalizin g world i n ways that respec t democrati c commitments t o equalit y and self-governance.

14.5 There is considerable irony in the presen t situation. Th e same social conditions tha t set people on guard against too-close connection wit h each other are the very conditions of a qualitatively ne w for m o f objective , structure d interconnectio n amon g persons . Technology, bureaucracy , mobility, an d rapi d communicatio n mak e th e publi c worl d seem alie n and impersonal . At the sam e time thes e factors heighte n th e impac t that th e structures of the public world hav e on the dignit y and meanin g of individual lives. This increased de facto "socialization " o f many domains of human living was identified as one of the principa l "sign s o f the times " by both Pop e John XXIII an d th e Secon d Vatican Council. I n suc h circumstances , th e eclips e o f citizenshi p threaten s t o allo w th e institutions of social life t o sli p from th e contro l o f human freedom o r t o fal l unde r th e direction of powerful elites . Thus at the very time that it has become increasingly difficult to sustain a vision of the common good, it is more urgently important that we find a way to do so .. . 14.6 One possibl e respons e t o th e ne w patterns o f interdependence linkin g peopl e togethe r across th e border s o f nation-state s toda y woul d b e th e establishmen t o f somethin g analogous t o worl d governmen t t o overse e th e pursui t o f the commo n goo d globally . Such a response presumes that international government is needed to secure the common good globally , jus t a s nationa l government s ar e neede d t o secur e th e share d goo d o f people within a geographic territory. Following this line of argument, in 196 3 Pope John XXIII suggeste d tha t a n internationa l syste m compose d o f nation-states wa s no longe r adequate t o secur e well-bein g i n a n increasingl y interconnected world . I n hi s words , "Under th e presen t circumstance s o f huma n societ y bot h th e structur e an d for m o f governments as well as the powe r which public authority wields in all the nation s of the world, mus t b e considere d inadequat e t o promot e th e universa l commo n good" . T o remedy this inadequacy, John XXIII proposed th e establishmen t o f a "public authority , having worldwide power an d endowed wit h the proper mean s for the efficacious pursui t of it s objective " namely , th e world-wid e commo n good . Therefor e h e asserte d tha t normative mora l consideration s requir e tha t a world-wid e "publi c authority " b e established [see Extract 12.25] . Joh n XXIII' s proposa l wa s carefull y qualifie d b y hi s insistence tha t thi s authorit y b e freel y agree d t o b y the people s o f th e world . H e als o asserted that this global authority be regulated by the principle of subsidiarity; the role of nation-states an d other communities an d associations of less-than-global scope must no t be abolished or repressed. John XXIII gave particular endorsement to the founding of the United Nations , wit h it s goal s o f promotin g peac e amon g nation s base d o n mutua l 186

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

respect an d o f protecting th e huma n right s of all persons and th e legitimat e right of all nations.

14.7 John XXII I notabl y anticipate d som e o f th e possibilitie s tha t hav e bee n emergin g i n recent year s abou t th e restructurin g o f th e internationa l syste m i n ligh t o f th e ne w linkages o f interdependenc e w e have been considering . Considerabl y mor e need s t o b e said, however , abou t ho w to pursu e normativ e concern s abou t th e commo n goo d an d global socia l justice . Joh n XXIII' s almos t exclusiv e focu s o n a possibl e internationa l "public authority " suggest s tha t somethin g lik e a worl d government , wit h al l hi s qualifications concernin g subsidiarit y presumed , ca n b e th e mai n institutiona l vehicle that carrie s u s towar d a fulle r achievemen t o f share d well-bein g unde r condition s o f globalization. Th e issu e i s more comple x tha n this . Pursui t o f the share d goo d unde r conditions o f interdependenc e wil l mak e normativ e demand s o n nearl y all people an d communities. Thes e rang e fro m intimat e relationship s an d families , throug h local , national, and regional communities that are geographically defined, to historically roote d religious an d cultura l communitie s tha t cu t acros s borders , t o th e growin g numbe r o f new transnational association s tha t includ e both corporation s an d NGOs . The behavior of al l thes e communitie s wil l hav e a n impac t o n whethe r interdependenc e lead s t o common good s o r common bads . Sometimes thes e impacts will be indirect an d remote ; sometimes the y will be direct an d proximate . Bu t in either case, a normative perspective that take s th e commo n goo d seriousl y wil l b e relevan t t o thes e communities ' self understanding an d decisions . A n exclusiv e focu s o n globa l politica l institution s o r authorities lik e th e U N thu s run s th e ris k o f overlookin g som e o f th e importan t normative implication s o f a common goo d ethi c unde r condition s o f interdependence . CRITIQUE The critica l attitud e tha t on e adopt s toward s th e Extract s will partl y depen d upo n th e answer on e give s t o eac h o f th e question s tha t opene d thi s Section : namely : (1 ) Ca n specific politica l structures , ideal s o r programme s b e derive d unambiguousl y fro m th e gospel?; (2) How far can the Church be identified with specific politica l regimes, ideals or programmes? an d (3 ) Shoul d th e individua l Christia n b e totall y obedien t t o specifi c political regimes , ideal s o r programmes ? So , if one answer s 'y es> to 0) > th e differin g positions o f Earth an d Temple would b e unacceptable. An d if one answers 'y es> to tne third only, that of Barth might be acceptable. Nonetheless, apart from thes e (vital) overall criticisms a number o f more interna l criticisms of the individual Extract s can be made . It has already been noted that, by the standards of critical exegesis, much of Earth's Der Romerbrief ma y appear to tel l the reade r as much about Bart h as about Paul . The central difficulty o f thi s Extrac t fo r th e twenty-first-centur y reader ma y b e tha t i t seem s t o demand to o rigid an obedience of the individual t o government an d an acceptance o f the political statu s quo (whethe r tyrannical o r not). Suc h a position seem s much more rigid than tha t o f Calvi n (see above, p . 110 ) and , i n practice , Bart h late r foun d i t t o b e unsustainable i n th e fac e o f Nazism . Nonetheless , a s a theologica l correctiv e o f facil e revolutionary politics , Earth' s contribution remain s important - particularl y since, as an individual, Bart h was himself firmly committed t o a left-wing politica l perspective . Despite th e equall y importan t emphasi s o f Berdyae v o n th e spiritua l i n religion , hi s particular discussio n o f political realitie s will appear to man y to b e fa r too esoteri c an d

187

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

elitist. His grudging allowance o f political structures fo r 'the masses', combined with his avoiding any discussion of how these structures might be evaluated or improved , migh t seem bot h arrogan t an d ethereal . Yet , in hi s defence, Berdyaev might hav e claimed that such attitudes are necessary, given people's persisten t tendency to persecute or ignore the truly spiritual. The centra l difficult y tha t i s usuall y foun d i n Niebuhr' s Moral Ma n an d Immoral Society involve s the moral dualis m that he frankly admitte d and , yet, which he gradually modified durin g hi s life . A s wit h Earth , i t woul d see m tha t a sharpl y define d earl y position, whic h mad e obviou s overal l sense , coul d no t b e sustaine d i n practice . Many critics have argued that suc h a sharp moral dualis m would allo w societies, government s and larg e corporation s t o ac t i n highl y immora l ways . O n thi s argument , th e prevarications o f sa y President Nixon' s governmen t woul d appea r perfectl y acceptabl e and onl y became wrong when they actually sought to obstruc t justice . Although ther e is some forc e i n this criticism, Niebuhr's early position wa s by no mean s a s dualistic a s at first it might appear , sinc e h e did insis t tha t leader s o f social group s mus t stil l adhere to 'the ideals of a high individua l morality' (10.11) . Both Templ e an d Joh n XXIII fac e th e difficultie s confrontin g all natural law theories (see above, pp. 55-6). The problems are, perhaps, less for Temple, since he only propose d general principle s an d wa s carefu l t o sho w tha t thes e deriv e fro m genera l Christia n doctrine. Provide d on e ca n accep t th e latter , the n th e forme r migh t see m t o follo w (although, eve n here , h e showe d hi s ow n bia s i n regardin g respec t fo r person s a s th e primary principl e o f Christia n ethics) . Mor e importan t i s th e criticis m tha t Templ e appeared to believe that the specific application of general principles to political problems by politicians involves only 'technical knowledge' and 'judgments of practical expediency' (11.1). I n fact , man y politica l problem s (a s can b e see n i n th e nex t Section ) involv e a whole range of smaller ethical, political and ideologica l decisions which divide Christians as much a s anyone. Similarly, wit h Joh n XXIII' s Pacem i n Terris, i t i s th e avoidanc e o f thes e sort s o f decisions whic h ma y giv e i t a n ai r o f generalit y an d unreality . Precisel y becaus e bot h authors attempte d t o addres s a s wid e a n audienc e a s possibl e an d sough t a broa d agreement i n thi s audience , thei r discussion s ten d t o lac k th e sor t o f specificit y whic h might make them appear more realistic. The second part of Temple's Christianity an d the Social Order attempted t o remed y this by supplying a detailed and , admittedly , partisa n (and now, of course, dated) serie s of political an d economic proposals. Eve n John XXIII's striking us e of the languag e of 'rights' (oppose d b y earlier Catholi c mora l theologians ) tends to b e rather general. Thi s language i s analysed i n detail in Kieran Cronin' s Rights and Christian Ethics (1992). However, a strength of Extract 12 is that, unlike some secular understandings o f 'rights', John XXIII insist s upo n linking 'rights' an d 'obligations' . For many , liberation theolog y appear s as one o f the mos t stimulatin g movements i n recent theology . I t ha s brough t ne w insight s an d perspective s t o th e disciplin e an d reminded man y o f th e passio n i n th e fac e o f oppressio n whic h shoul d characteriz e Christianity. Perhap s i t woul d b e unrealisti c t o expec t i t t o b e thoroughly defined an d rigorously methodologica l whils t i t i s stil l developing . Nonetheless , th e writing s of , especially, Alfred o Fierr o i n Th e Militant Gospel (1977) , Bonin o an d Miranda , demonstrate tha t i t doe s no t lac k critica l sophistication . Miranda' s Extrac t supplie s a n important correctiv e to th e medieva l concept o f 'almsgiving', which is undoubtedly stil l prevalent i n th e West . Yet , it i s no t itsel f withou t difficulties . Two , i n particular , ar e 188

POLITICS, ECONOMIC S AND JUSTIC E

crucial. The first is concerned with the adequacy of his exegesis. He concentrates upon the Old Testamen t criticis m o f wealt h an d tend s t o ignor e th e obviou s limitation s o f thi s criticism and the existence of other and quite different strand s within the Old Testament. The (largely prophetic) emphasis upon 'justice' is, of course, only justice for the people of Israel: i t seldo m extend s eve n to Israel' s mos t immediat e neighbours . And , even in th e context o f Israel, sedakah may be more concerned wit h maintaining a lawful societ y than achieving social equity or abolishing 'differentiating ownership' . Further, other strands in the Ol d Testament (particularl y in certain Psalm s and i n the prologu e an d postscrip t of Job) see m to regar d 'wealth' as a reward for, or a n indication of, 'righteousness'. Even in the Ne w Testament, th e variou s redaction s containe d i n Luk e do no t al l see m equall y hostile t o 'wealth ' (see further, Davi d Mealand' s Poverty an d Expectation i n th e Gospels, 1980). Th e secon d difficult y concern s Miranda' s deliberat e us e o f Marxis t theor y (e.g . 'differentiating ownership' ) t o depic t biblica l concepts . Alistai r Kee' s Marx an d th e Failure of Liberation Theology (1990 ) offer s a majo r critiqu e of Mirand a and other s on this crucia l issue. This i s a difficult y whic h will be discusse d furthe r i n th e criticis m of Bonino's Extrac t 19 , since i t i s in tha t Extrac t that th e issu e is explicitly raised. Looking fo r an y points o f unity between thes e Extracts is made mor e difficul t b y th e polemical contexts fro m whic h they mostly derive. So, the contrast s betwee n Eart h an d Miranda appear sharper because neither makes the sor t o f qualifications tha t they do i n their les s combativ e writings . Nonetheless , ther e migh t b e broa d agreemen t wit h th e following point s qualifyin g th e thre e initial questions : (1) Eve n if it is believed that specifi c politica l structures, ideals or programme s can be derived unambiguously from the gospel, the latter cannot be identified wit h them. For the Christian, politica l realities mus t always be set in the contex t o f transcendence. Eve n th e theologian wh o i s mos t ofte n though t t o hav e confuse d th e Kingdo m o f Go d wit h political realities , Walter Rauschenbusch , was emphatic about this : The Kingdo m o f Go d i s divin e i n it s origin , progres s an d consummation . I t wa s initiated by Jesus Christ, in whom the prophetic spirit came to its consummation, it is sustained b y the Hol y Spirit, and i t will be brought t o it s fulfilmen t b y the powe r of God in his own time. The passive and activ e resistance of the Kingdo m of Evil at every stage o f it s advanc e is so great, and th e huma n resource s o f the Kingdo m of God s o slender, that no explanation can satisfy a religious min d which does not se e the powe r of God in its movements ... The Kingdom of God, therefore, is not merel y ethical, but has a rightfu l plac e in theology . ( A Theology Fo r the Social Gospel, 1918 , pp . 139-40) . (2) I f th e Church' s aim s an d aspiration s canno t simpl y b e identifie d wit h politica l realities, mos t Christian s woul d als o argu e that neithe r ca n i t be indifferen t t o them . A notion of the relative worth of political regimes, ideals and programme s (relative, that is, to the Kingdom of God), would suggest that they do serve an important function , but no t one that shoul d b e absolutized. Whereas Christians have always differed wit h each other about th e exten t t o whic h tyrannica l regime s shoul d b e activel y opposed, the y might agree that som e form of political reality is necessary t o preserv e peac e and justice. Pur e antinomianism ha s seldom bee n though t t o b e a justifiable Christia n position . (3) If political realities do have some relative worth for the well-being of society, then it would seem that individual Christians (enjoined, as they are, to love their neighbours) do have a t leas t a genera l responsibilit y fo r obedience . Ther e ar e stil l very real difference s 189

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

apparent betwee n Christian s about ho w fa r this obedienc e shoul d go . But, again in th e context of transcendence, this obedience ca n hardly be absolute. The theist, par excellence, should alway s be consciou s tha t i t i s only t o Go d tha t absolut e obedienc e i s properl y given. However , fo r th e present-da y theologian , ther e i s a n additiona l reaso n fo r thi s position o f relativ e obedience. I n th e ligh t o f critical , historica l research , i t shoul d b e evident tha t Christianit y ha s subsiste d i n an d adapte d t o a variet y o f socio-politica l contexts. It is one of the merits of South America n liberatio n theology tha t it has served to remin d Wester n theologian s tha t Christianit y i s not dependen t upo n an y one singl e socio-political system. It should be a function o f Western, critical theologians, in turn, t o remind liberatio n theologian s that the y to o ar e engaged i n a historically relative , albei t vital, attemp t t o unrave l th e riche s o f th e gospel . Implicitly , Hollenbac h provide s a n important wa y of doing just that.

190

SECTION 3

War and Peace

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction t o Wa r an d Peac e

War presented th e twentieth centur y with perhaps its most crucial moral problem . Eve n if the issue s of the environmen t an d climat e chang e seem to b e supplanting i t as the key macro-challenges for the twenty-first century, the scale, cost and potential destructivenes s of twentieth-centur y warfar e differentiate s thi s fro m al l previou s centuries . I n th e twentieth centur y fo r th e firs t time : at leas t 5 0 million peopl e die d a s a direc t resul t o f war; in any year, world arm s expenditure became equivalent to th e total expenditure o n basic foodstuff s an d may soon equal the tota l present wealth o f the world; and human s eventually gained th e capacit y to destroy , man y times over, the worl d population . I f for no othe r reason , thes e horrifi c dimension s mak e it appropriate t o hav e a whole Sectio n devoted t o th e substantiv e issu e of war an d it s opposite, peace . However, there are other reason s fo r giving this Section to thi s single issue. Although the dimensions o f warfare were previously quite different fro m thos e o f the moder n era , the issue of war has always raised crucia l problems about th e relationshi p of Christianity to society at large. Empirically, a clear pattern emerge s in Christian responses t o war and this indicates , mor e sharpl y tha n i n most othe r mora l issues , the degre e t o whic h thes e responses are socially determined. An d ethically, divisions between Christian pacifists an d militarists, on this issue, serve to highlight the pluralism within Christianity evident in all of the Section s o f this Textbook . These point s - empirica l an d ethica l - requir e som e initia l distinction s betwee n differing response s t o war . Fou r 'ideal ' type s ma y b e isolate d (fo r these se e further m y Theology an d Social Structure, p. 7If) : (A) Thoroughgoing Militarism — understood a s a willingness to figh t anywhere , at an y time and fo r an y cause. (B) Selective Militarism - understoo d a s a willingness to fight when one's country, or another, declare s tha t th e caus e i s just. (C) Selective Pacifism — understood a s a willingnes s t o figh t onl y whe n on e i s personally convince d tha t th e caus e is just. (D) Thoroughgoing Pacifism - understoo d a s an unwillingnes s to fight anywhere, at any time an d fo r an y cause. These ar e ideal , no t actual , types , so particula r example s ma y be variant s o f them, bu t together they represent the range of options open to the individual, based upo n his or her willingness or unwillingnes s t o fight in war. The words 'i n war' shoul d b e stressed : th e responses ar e not primarily concerned wit h individual killing or violence, but rathe r with the issu e o f fightin g o r no t o n behal f o f other s (see Augustine's Tex t VII.6-7) . No t al l thoroughgoing pacifist s would admit this distinction - sinc e for some of them it is killing 193

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

in an y form tha t i s forbidden - bu t i t i s essential to mos t othe r Christia n response s t o war. Thi s distinctio n wil l b e examine d furthe r i n Sectio n 5 i n relatio n t o th e issue s of suicide and euthanasia . For mos t Christians , typ e A is not a Christia n respons e t o war , sinc e onl y the non idealistic or amoral mercenary belongs to i t (though see Luther's IX.26). Further, a moral defence of fighting in war, whether i n terms of type B or type C, requires som e notion of a 'jus t war' : th e differenc e betwee n th e type s dependin g o n whethe r th e individua l concerned decides that the cause is just (or, perhaps better, not unjust ) o r whether he or she simply relies upon th e judgement o f the Stat e or Church . Since these two response s are the majority Christian responses to war, the importance of just-war theory can readily be seen . Naturally , individuals ma y not b e thoroughl y consisten t i n thei r response s t o war: B and C ma y b e mixe d an d man y migh t eve n wish t o avoi d an y notion s o f 'jus t causes', regardin g wa r a s a mournfu l an d ethicall y confuse d fina l resort . Nonetheless , insofar a s war is ever thought to be justifiable, som e notion of justice is required and , i n turn, differin g response s o n th e par t o f the individua l can be distinguished . The fac t tha t type s B and C cover th e majorit y o f Christia n response s t o wa r toda y serves t o illustrat e on e o f th e centra l difference s betwee n th e earl y an d present-da y churches. It is here that a key empirical observation ca n be made about th e relationshi p between Christianity and society at large. A fundamental dichotomy can be seen between the pre-Constantinian an d post-Constantinian churches: if, within the latter, types B and C constitute the majority of Christian responses t o war, in the former it is type D which predominates. Th e historia n Rolan d Bainto n eve n claim s that , 'th e ag e of persecutio n down t o th e tim e o f Constantine wa s the ag e of pacifism t o th e degre e that durin g thi s period n o Christia n autho r t o ou r knowledg e approve d o f Christia n participatio n i n battle': but , 'th e accessio n o f Constantin e terminate d th e pacifis t perio d i n churc h history' (Christian Attitudes Toward Wa r an d Peace, 1960(1961] , pp . 6 6 an d 85) . I n contrast wit h th e earl y church, Christia n pacifism , i n it s thoroughgoin g sense , i s today confined t o a minority of Christians withi n churche s and t o a minority o f sects or ne w religious movements , suc h a s the Amis h Mennonites , Anabaptists , Brethren , Jehovah' s Witnesses an d Quakers . Individua l pacifists, suc h as the Methodis t Stanle y Hauerwas in Extract 18 , often ten d to fee l themselves to be relative outsiders on this issue within their own church . Naturally there wer e differences o f approach t o wa r within th e earl y church an d i t is sometimes difficul t t o decid e whether it is warfare itsel f that was despised or th e 'pagan ' customs surroundin g it . Thes e difference s rang e fro m th e absolutis m o f Tertullia n (c. 160-220), even befor e hi s conversion t o th e rigour s of Montanism i n middle-age, t o the pragmatis m of Origen (c . 185-254). Despite the undoubte d presenc e o f Christians in the Roma n army in the lat e second century , Tertullian's attitude wa s uncompromising: Enquiry i s made abou t thi s point, whethe r a believer may turn himsel f into military service, an d whethe r th e militar y may be admitted unt o th e faith , eve n th e ran k an d file, or each inferior grade, to whom there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices o r capital punishments . Ther e i s n o agreemen t betwee n th e divin e an d th e huma n sacrament, the standard o f Christ and the standard o f the devil, the cam p of light and the cam p of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters - Go d and Caesar. And yet Mose s carrie d a rod , an d Aaro n wor e a buckle , an d Joh n (Baptist ) i s gir t wit h leather, and Joshu a the so n of Nun lead s a line of march; and th e Peopl e warred: if it 194

WAR AN D PEAC E

pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serv e even i n peace , withou t a sword , whic h th e Lor d ha s taken away ? Fo r albei t soldiers ha d com e unt o John , an d ha d receive d th e formul a o f thei r rule ; albeit , likewise, a centurio n ha d believed ; stil l th e Lor d afterward , i n disarmin g Peter , unbelted ever y soldier. (O n Idolatry 19 , from Th e Ante-Nicene Fathers 3 ) Here, unambiguously , i t i s the swor d itsel f an d no t simpl y military 'paganism' whic h Tertullian believe d t o b e inconsisten t wit h Christianity . Similarly , i t wil l be see n late r (below, pp . 342f ) tha t h e too k a n absolutis t stan d agains t abortio n an d an y for m o f individual homicide . Like Tertullian, Origen probably just assumed that killing humans was contrary to th e law o f Christ . Fo r him , Jesu s forbad e altogethe r 'th e puttin g o f me n t o death ' an d 'nowhere teaches that it is right for his own disciples to offe r violenc e to anyone, however wicked' (Against Celsus 3.7). However, more than Tertullian , Orige n was determined t o refute Celsus ' charges that Christians were undermining the state through their pacifism : To this our answe r is, that we do, when occasion requires, giv e help to kings, and tha t so t o say , a divin e help , 'puttin g o n th e whol e armou r o f God' . An d thi s w e do i n obedience t o th e injunctio n o f th e apostle , ' I exhort , therefore , tha t firs t o f all , supplications, prayers , intercessions , an d givin g of thanks , b e mad e fo r al l men; fo r kings, and for all that are in authority,' and the more any one excels in piety, the mor e effective hel p does he render to kings, even more than is given by soldiers, who go forth to fight and sla y as many of the enemy as they can. And to thos e enemies of our fait h who require us to bear arms for the commonwealth, and to slay men, we can reply: 'Do not thos e who are priests at certain shrines, and those who attend o n certai n gods, as you account them , kee p their hand s fre e fro m blood , that the y may with their hands unstained and fre e fro m huma n blood offer th e appointed sacrifice s to your gods; and even when war is upon you, you neve r enlist the priests in the army . If that, then, is a laudable custom , ho w muc h mor e so , tha t whil e other s ar e engage d i n battle , thes e should engag e a s th e priest s an d minister s o f God , keepin g thei r hand s pure , an d wrestling in prayer s to Go d o n behal f of those who ar e fightin g i n a righteous cause, and fo r th e kin g wh o reign s righteously , tha t whateve r i s opposed t o thos e who act righteously may be destroyed!' And we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead to the violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpfu l t o the kings than those who go into th e fields to fight for them. And we do tak e ou r par t i n publi c affairs , whe n alon g wit h righteou s prayer s we joi n self denying exercises and meditations, whic h teach us to despis e pleasures, and no t t o be led away by them. An d non e fight better fo r the king than w e do. We do no t indee d fight under him , althoug h h e require it ; but w e fight on hi s behalf, forming a special army - a n army of piety - b y offering ou r prayer to God. (Against Celsus 8.73 , fro m The Ante-Nicene Fathers 4 ) Even allowin g fo r som e specia l pleadin g her e i n th e fac e o f criticism , ther e ar e clea r differences fro m Tertullia n and, indeed, similarities with later Christian responses to war. Augustine, too, wa s concerned t o defen d Christianit y agains t critics who thought i t had undermined the state. Unlike Augustine, Origen developed no just-war theory, but he did admit to a 'righteous cause' in war. And there is a prefigurement of the medieval position, 195

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

illustrated i n Aquinas ' clai m (VIII.7f ) tha t th e clerg y should b e exemp t fro m militar y service - a position wit h eviden t pre-Christia n roots . Nonetheless, th e overal l respons e o f both Tertullia n an d Orige n t o wa r was on th e opposite sid e o f the pacifist/militaris t divide t o tha t o f Ambrose an d Augustin e and t o most subsequen t theologians . Firs t Ambros e an d the n Augustin e justifie d th e ful l participation o f Christians i n war and sough t t o distinguis h betwee n 'just ' an d 'unjust ' wars. At times, both men remained critical of the State (more critical than Aquinas in the theocratic thirteent h century) , but sa w military service as a morall y legitimat e for m o f activity for the Christian . I n contrast t o Tertullian , Augustine saw the condemnatio n o f Peter's us e of the sword (i n Matt . 26.52-3) as a condemnation o f acting 'in a hasty zeal' and 'without the sanction of the constituted authority', rather than as a condemnation of the swor d a s such (VII.2) . And, i n contras t t o al l other know n theologian s i n th e pre Constantinian Church , h e interpreted th e comman d t o tur n th e othe r chee k (i n Matt . 5.39) as referring t o 'an inwar d disposition' rathe r than to ' a bodily act ' (VII.8) . For the first time, eve n argument s from silence appea r o n the issue of war - fo r example , tha t Jesus did no t actuall y condem n th e centurio n fo r being a soldier (VII.6 ; se e also X.10). Both Tertullia n an d Augustin e were aware that th e Ol d Testamen t ofte n sanction s wa r (even war s o f aggression) , bu t thei r attitud e t o thi s evidenc e agai n contrasts . Fo r Tertullian, Jesus' disarming of Peter revoked thi s sanction, whereas, for Augustine, Jesus' actions and commands were to be interpreted i n such a way that they did no t contradic t the Ol d Testament evidence . The legac y of Augustine can be seen quit e clearly in this quotation fro m Welt y (who had alread y pointed ou t tha t th e Ol d Testament doe s no t suppor t pacifism) : Concerning wa r th e Ne w Testament mus t b e considere d i n it s entirety . Statement s conditioned b y the circumstance s o f the tim e canno t be regarded a s universally vali d and binding. Neither Christ nor the apostles condemned wa r or military service. Christ was sent int o th e world b y the Fathe r in order t o establis h th e messiani c kingdom of peace. But men rejecte d him an d hi s Gospel, and thereb y forfeited th e promise s tha t were directly linked with the comin g of Christ. ( A Handbook o f Christian Social Ethics, 1960, Vol. 2, p. 396 ) Modern biblica l scholarshi p increasingl y look s t o th e differen t way s th e Bibl e i s interpreted i n Christia n history . A prim e exampl e o f th e importanc e o f thi s stud y i s evident here . I n bot h Augustine' s Tex t VI I an d Welty' s Extrac t 15 , i t i s th e Ne w Testament, rathe r tha n th e Old , whic h i s to b e interprete d an d contextualize d and , i n both, a n argumen t fro m silenc e i s adopted. Sinc e both me n ca n b e literalisti c i n thei r understanding of other aspect s of New Testament teaching , their uneasiness at this poin t is a n importan t indicatio n o f a chang e i n th e socio-politica l contex t o f th e pre Constantinian an d post-Constantinia n churches . I n the first, the position o f the Church was, arguably , more tha t o f sect o r ne w religious movement, wit h a relatively exclusive understanding o f it s membershi p an d doctrin e an d littl e feeling o f responsibilit y fo r society a s a whole or for the working of government. In the second, it is the church-typ e that seem s to predominate: th e Churc h ha s a more inclusiv e understanding o f itself and its boundarie s wit h societ y a t larg e ar e les s clear-cut : now , fo r th e firs t time , wit h th e adoption o f Christianity a s a state religion b y Constantine, i t mus t com e t o term s wit h the mora l dilemma s facin g th e State . I f thi s explanatio n i s accepted , th e empirica l 196

WAR AN D PEAC E

dichotomy, i n relatio n t o thi s issu e o f war, appear s les s surprising . Indeed , i t become s difficult t o see how a church, as a church, rather than as a sect, can systematically oppose a state on an issue as central to the latter as war: pacifism remain s an option for the sect , particularly i f i t i s alread y deepl y estrange d fro m societ y (a s toda y wit h th e Jehovah' s Witnesses or the Exclusive Brethren), in a way that i t is not a n option for the Church. In Luther's Text IX , with hi s high doctrine o f the State , th e church-typ e position i s well in evidence: hi s ecclesiologica l positio n preclude s hi s espousing , eithe r th e revolutionar y response o f the peasants , o r th e radica l pacifism o f the Anabaptists . This poin t lead s naturally to a consideration o f the ethica l difficultie s confrontin g the church-type response to war. Some form o f the just-war theory has usually been though t to be essential to it - a s Augustine's Text VII, Aquinas' Text VIII, and Welty's Extract 15 all indicate . Bu t i t i s a theor y whic h face s ver y considerabl e difficultie s - a s th e US Catholic Bishop s an d O'Donova n argu e i n Extract s 1 7 and 20 . Th e firs t o f thes e ha s already been note d - th e difficulty o f reconciling the Old and New Testament response s to war. Some theologians, lik e Hauerwas in Extract 18 , maintain that th e whole tenor of the Ne w Testament, a s distinct fro m th e Old , i s in th e pacifis t direction . Th e Scottis h biblical scholar , G . H . C . Macgregor' s Th e Ne w Testament Basis o f Pacifism (1936 ) wa s very influential for a previous generation o n this issue. Secondly, it has proved difficult t o set out a just-war theory which is not tautological: characteristically, that in Welty (15.12) contains withi n i t the concep t o f justice, as does tha t i n Augustine (VII.4). Thirdly, th e distinction between wars of aggression and wars of defence and the notion of a legitimate authority become particularl y difficul t t o maintai n i n th e contex t o f wars o f liberatio n (see 15.20f) . Sinc e the latte r hav e assumed a role o f such grea t importanc e i n th e Thir d World an d i n liberatio n theology , thi s difficult y i s particularly troublesome i n present day Christia n ethics . Fourthly , i n th e contex t o f actual wars , i t tend s t o becom e increasingly difficult consistentl y to apply just-war theories. So , in the light of progressive civilian bombin g i n Worl d Wa r Two , a just-war theoris t suc h a s Temple encountere d very considerabl e problem s i n reconcilin g theor y wit h actua l practice . I t ma y b e a particular featur e o f moder n war s - especiall y twenty-firs t centur y war s agains t 'insurgents' o r 'terrorists ' - that , a s they intensify , s o they becom e les s susceptibl e to moral justification in any recognizably Christian for m (henc e the distinction , eviden t in Extract 17 , between jus t cause s fo r goin g t o wa r - ius a d bellum — and jus t practice s actually within warfare - iu s in bello). Fifthly, nuclear warfare, or even the potential use or threatened us e o f nuclea r weapon s may , i n themselves , excee d th e bound s o f an y Christian just-wa r theor y (see O'Donovan a t 20.5) . This proble m i s exacerbated b y th e connection tha t is becoming increasingly apparent between nuclear weapons and nuclear power, by the proliferatio n of nuclear knowledg e beyond th e Western countries , b y the possibility o f nuclear terroris m an d b y strategic discussions o f limited nuclea r war. The dangers inherent i n all of these 'developments' are so obvious an d s o immense that littl e further justificatio n seems necessary for focusing this Section on th e substantive issues of war and peace . Among historical studie s o f Christian response s t o war , the followin g are particularly important: Roland H . Bainton , Christian Attitudes Toward Wa r and Peace (1960[1961]); Peter Brock, Pacifism i n Europe t o 1914 (1972) and Twentieth-Century Pacifism (1970) ; C. J. Cadoux , Th e Early Christian Attitude t o Wa r (1919) . I n addition , th e followin g historical reader s ar e ver y useful : Arthu r F . Holmes , Wa r an d Christian Ethics (1975); Albert Marrin , Wa r an d th e Christian Conscience (1971). 197

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

The sociologica l distinctio n betwee n 'church ' an d 'sect ' ha s bee n th e subjec t o f considerable debat e (see particularly the work of the sociologist Brya n Wilson: e.g . his The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism, 1990) . Th e followin g books , however , al l interpre t varying Christian responses to war in the light of the distinction: Robi n Gill, Theology and Social Structure (1978) and Prophecy an d Praxis (1981); David Martin, Pacifism (1965) ; J. Milton Yinger , The Scientific Study o f Religion (1970) .

198

TEXT VII AUGUSTINE The just war 1. BACKGROUND Reply t o Faustus th e Manichaean XXII , 69-76 ( The Nicene an d Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, Eerdmans , 1956 , trans . R . Stothert). Augustin e firs t me t Faustu s o f Milevi s in 383 , when h e was still himself a sympathizer with Manichaeism . Bu t he was unimpressed b y this largel y self-taugh t leade r o f th e Manichees : fro m hi s ow n classicall y educated , middle-class background , h e wrot e late r that , ' I foun d a t onc e tha t th e ma n wa s no t learned i n an y o f th e libera l studie s sav e literature , an d no t especiall y learne d i n that , either' (Confessions V.vi.ll) . Faustus claimed to be living the life of a 'true' Christian, but Augustine cam e increasingl y t o distrus t hi s attacks o n Catholi c orthodox y an d o n th e Bible, insofa r a s i t diverge d fro m Manichaeism . Augustin e finall y wrot e hi s Reply t o Faustus c.397-8, at about the sam e time a s his Confessions an d shortl y afte r becomin g a bishop a t Hippo. Augustine' s sympathie s with Faustus' understanding o f sexual morality are still evident i n his other writing s of this time (see below, pp. 344f) , bu t hi s doctrina l and exegetica l antipathie s t o Faustus ' view s ar e wel l i n evidenc e i n thi s Text . Lik e Ambrose, his mentor a t the time of his conversion, Augustin e shows himself prepared to defend Ol d Testament militaris m an d to justify the notion of a just war from a Christian perspective, even though, at the end of the Text, he still sees the importance o f the witness of many earlier Christians to war - martyrdom . 2. KEY ISSUES The centra l issu e whic h concern s Augustin e i s th e differenc e betwee n personall y motivated, individual killin g on the one hand, and, on the other, killing on the authority of th e monarc h o r o f Go d himself . Moses ' killin g o f th e Egyptia n (Exodu s 2.12 ) was wrong, becaus e i t wa s without an y authority - a s was Paul's killin g o f Christian s o r Peter's violent actio n i n Gethsemane (VII.2) . But, the spoiling of the Egyptian s (Exodus 7-14) was , in contrast, explicitl y at God's command and , as command, was to be obeyed by Moses (VII.3). If it is objected that a good God could no t giv e such a command, i t can be replied that it is indeed onl y God who could do so; by implication, fo r humanity alone it would certainl y be wrong to d o s o (VII.4) . Thus act , agen t an d authorit y ar e al l very important her e (VII.5) : for individual agents to ac t violently on their own authority and from passio n i s wrong, wherea s killin g i n war , i n obedienc e t o Go d o r t o som e lawfu l authority, is not (VII.6) . For Augustine, monarchs have a right to preserve peace through the us e of warfare an d soldier s hav e a duty to obe y their monarchs , whethe r o r no t th e latter ar e righ t actuall y t o wag e wa r i n particula r circumstance s (VII.7) . Th e fina l 199

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

paragraph face s a fresh objectio n fro m Faustu s and allegoricall y interprets Matthe w 5.3 9 in terms o f 'an inwar d disposition ' (fo r a similar stres s upo n intention , se e XIII.2-4). 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS The centra l thrus t o f Augustine' s ethica l argumen t i s clearl y deontologica l - wa r is morally justifiable because, in parts of the Ol d Testament, Go d can be seen t o comman d it. Faustu s was no moder n critica l exegete, but hi s mora l objection s t o Ol d Testamen t warfare woul d fin d a numbe r o f supporter s today . However , Augustin e increasingl y adopted a literalistic acceptance o f the Bibl e (see further. Tex t X) and wa s thus forced t o defend an d mak e sense of the evidenc e from Genesi s and Exodus . As a result, an ethica l position base d upo n th e centra l criterio n o f obedienc e t o God' s command s (howeve r unfathomable) seem s th e onl y on e consisten t wit h bot h Ol d Testamen t militaris m an d previous Christian pacifism/martyrdom. Apart from thi s central criterion, there are also a number of more minor natural law types of argument apparen t - e.g . in the crop analogy (VII.2), i n th e referenc e t o natura l orde r (VII.5 ) an d i n th e referenc e to huma n peac e (VII.7 - se e also Text IV) . Finally, Augustine's distinction betwee n 'cowardl y dislike' and the 'rea l evil s i n war ' (VII.6 ) i s importan t t o hi s argument , althoug h h e give s n o indication o f its ethical basis. It is possible that the latter result s as much from hi s Roman as from hi s Christia n world . 4. BASES OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS This las t point raise s importan t possibilitie s abou t th e extra-Christia n source s o f Augustine's just-war theory. Again , i t is clear that th e centra l thrust o f the argumen t i n this Text stem s fro m hi s attempt t o reconcil e th e Ol d Testament response s t o wa r with those confrontin g Christian s a t th e en d o f th e fourt h century . Augustine' s appeal s ar e either t o th e Bibl e or agains t Faustu s and th e Manichaeans . Nonetheless , h e also make s assumptions (e.g . in VII.7) about political leadership and natural justice which go beyond these appeals. At the en d o f the Tex t h e also make s the specificall y Christia n allusio n t o the sufferin g o f martyrs . 5. SOCHI DETERMINANTS If a church/sect typology is adopted, i t is evident that Augustine reflected the transition of Christianity t o a more church-typ e positio n i n society . H e remaine d uneas y abou t thi s position (see especially Tex t IV ) an d wa s wel l awar e o f Christianity' s pacifis t heritag e (VII.8), but h e did stil l sanction th e ful l participatio n o f Christians i n war. Intellectually, Augustine characteristically reflected bot h th e Graeco-Roman and the Hebraic world (see above, p. 42). To the latter, he owed hi s notion of war as obedience t o God's commands , but, to the former, he owed his concepts of'lawful authority' , 'natural order' and 'justice': indeed th e whol e notio n o f a just-war theory i s essentially classica l rathe r tha n biblica l (even though 'justice ' is certainly used in other biblical contexts - se e Extract 11) . At the more persona l level , it i s possible tha t Augustine' s crucia l disappointmen t wit h Faustu s may hav e owe d somethin g t o thei r ver y differen t socia l clas s an d educationa l backgrounds: i t woul d hav e bee n difficul t fo r someon e a s sociall y an d intellectuall y sophisticated a s Augustine to tak e Faustus seriously.

200

WAR AN D PEAC E

6. SOCIAL

SIGNIFICANCE

The importance o f Augustine's position on war cannot be exaggerated. Again, in terms of church/sect typology , had he simply affirmed the pacifis t traditio n and convince d othe r Christians t o d o th e same , a seriou s rif t migh t hav e been mad e betwee n 'church ' (or , more accurately , 'sect' ) an d societ y a t large . I t wil l be see n i n Tex t VII I that , fro m hi s arguments, a just-wa r theor y coul d b e develope d b y late r theologian s an d thu s a way could b e foun d t o accommodat e th e awkwardnes s o f th e Ne w Testamen t wit h th e demands o f th e State . Her e agai n Augustine' s particula r blen d o f Graeco-Roma n an d Hebraic notion s ha s ha d a majo r effec t upo n bot h Wester n Christianit y an d societ y generally. FURTHER READING The primar y source s fo r Augustine' s understanding o f wa r an d peac e ar e hi s Reply t o Faustus and hi s later Th e City o f God (see Text IV). For a survey of the relatio n o f classical theories o f just war t o Christia n an d non-Christia n response s t o war , Joh n Ferguson's War an d Peace i n th e World's Religions (1978 ) is useful. Fulle r treatments ca n b e foun d both i n book s alread y mentione d i n th e sectiona l introductio n an d i n th e followin g (though obviousl y the y apply more t o Tex t VIII) : Frederick H. Russell , Th e Just Wa r in the Middle Ages (1975) ; Joan D . Tooke, Th e Just Wa r i n Aquinas and Grotius (1965).

TEXT VII AUGUSTINE The just war VII. 1 Moses ... we love and admire , an d t o th e best o f our powe r imitate , coming indeed far short o f hi s merits , thoug h w e hav e kille d n o Egyptian , no r plundere d an y one , no r carried on an y war; which actions of Moses were in one case prompted b y the zea l of the future champio n o f his people, an d i n th e othe r case s commanded b y God. VII.2 It might be shown that, though Mose s slew the Egyptian , without being commanded b y God, th e actio n wa s divinel y permitted , as , fro m th e propheti c characte r o f Moses , i t prefigured somethin g in the future. Now , however, I do no t us e this argument, but view the actio n a s having no symbolica l meaning. In the light , then, of the eterna l law, it was wrong fo r on e wh o ha d n o lega l authority to kil l th e man , eve n thoug h h e wa s a ba d character, besides being the aggressor. But in minds where great virtue is to come, there is often a n earl y cro p o f vices , i n whic h w e ma y stil l discer n a dispositio n fo r som e particular virtue, which will come when the mind i s duly cultivated. For as farmers, when they see land bringing forth hug e crops, though of weeds, pronounce it good fo r corn; or when they see wild creepers, which have to be rooted out, still consider th e land good fo r useful vines ; and when they see a hill covered with wild olives, conclude that with culture it will produce good fruit : so the disposition o f mind which led Moses to take the law into his own hands, t o preven t th e wron g don e t o hi s brother, livin g among strangers , by a wicked citizen of the country from bein g unrequited, was not unfi t fo r the production o f

201

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

virtue, bu t fro m wan t o f cultur e gav e sign s o f it s productivenes s i n a n unjustifiabl e manner. H e who afterwards, b y His angel, called Moses on Mount Sinai , with the divin e commission t o liberat e th e peopl e o f Israe l fro m Egypt , an d wh o traine d hi m t o obedience b y the miraculous appearance in the bush burning but no t consumed , an d by instructing him i n his ministry, was the same who, by the cal l addressed fro m heave n t o Saul when persecuting the Church, humbled him, raised him up, and animated him; or in figurative words, by this stroke He cut off the branch, grafted it, and mad e it fruitful. For the fierc e energ y o f Paul , whe n i n hi s zea l fo r hereditar y tradition s h e persecute d th e Church, thinking that he was doing God service, was like a crop of weeds showing great signs of productiveness. It was the same in Peter, when he took his sword out o f its sheath to defen d th e Lord , and cu t of f the righ t ear of an assailant, when the Lor d rebuked hi m with something like a threat, saying, 'Put up th y sword into it s sheath; for he that taket h the sword shall perish by the sword' [Matt . 26.52-3]. To take the sword is to use weapons against a man's life, without the sanction o f the constituted authority . The Lord, indeed , had tol d Hi s disciples to carry a sword; but H e did not tel l them t o us e it. But that afte r this si n Pete r shoul d becom e a pastor o f the Churc h wa s no mor e imprope r tha n tha t Moses, after smitin g the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation. I n both cases the trespass originated not i n inveterate cruelty, but i n a hasty zeal which admitted of correction. I n both cases there was resentment agains t injury, accompanied i n one case by love for a brother, an d i n the other by love, though stil l carnal, of the Lord. Here was evil t o b e subdued o r roote d out ; bu t th e hear t wit h suc h capacitie s needed only , lik e good soil , t o b e cultivated to mak e it fruitfu l i n virtue. VII.3 Then, a s for Faustus ' objectio n t o th e spoilin g o f the Egyptians , he know s no t wha t h e says. In this Moses not only did not sin , but i t would have been sin not t o do it. It was by the command o f God, who, from Hi s knowledge both of the actions and of the hearts of men, can decide on what every one should b e made to suffer, an d through whose agency. The people a t that time were still carnal, an d engrosse d wit h earthly affections; whil e the Egyptians were in open rebellio n agains t God, for they used the gold , God' s creature, i n the servic e of idols, t o th e dishonou r o f the Creator , and the y had grievousl y oppressed strangers b y makin g the m wor k withou t pay . Thu s th e Egyptian s deserve d th e punishment, an d th e Israelite s were suitably employed i n inflictin g it . Perhaps , indeed , it wa s not s o muc h a comman d a s a permissio n t o th e Hebrew s t o ac t i n th e matte r according t o thei r ow n inclinations ; an d God , i n sendin g th e messag e by Moses , onl y wished tha t the y should thu s be informed of His permission. Ther e may also have been mysterious reason s fo r what Go d sai d t o th e peopl e o n thi s matter . A t any rate , God' s commands ar e t o b e submissivel y received, not t o b e argue d against . The apostl e says, 'Who hat h know n th e min d o f th e Lord ? o r wh o hat h bee n Hi s counsellor? ' [Rom . 11.34]. Whether , then , th e reaso n wa s wha t I hav e said , o r whethe r i n th e secre t appointment o f God, there was some unknown reason for His telling the people by Moses to borro w thing s fro m th e Egyptians , and t o tak e the m awa y with them , thi s remain s certain, that this was said for some good reason , and tha t Mose s could no t lawfull y hav e done otherwise than God told him, leaving to God the reason of the command, whil e the servant's dut y is to obey . 202

WAR AN D PEAC E

VII.4

But, says Faustus, it canno t b e admitte d tha t th e tru e God, who i s also good , eve r gave such a command. I answer, such a command ca n be rightly given by no othe r tha n th e true and good God, who alone knows the suitable command in every case, and who alone is incapable of inflictin g unmerite d sufferin g o n an y one . VII.5 According t o th e eterna l law , whic h require s th e preservatio n o f natura l order , an d forbids the transgression of it, some actions have an indifferent character , so that men are blamed fo r presumptio n i f the y d o the m withou t bein g calle d upon , whil e the y ar e deservedly praised fo r doing the m whe n required . The act, the agent , and th e authority for th e action are all of great importance in the order of nature. For Abraham to sacrific e his so n o f his ow n accor d i s shocking madness. Hi s doin g so at th e comman d o f God proves hi m faithfu l an d submissive . This i s s o loudl y proclaime d b y th e ver y voice of truth, that Faustus , eagerly rummagin g for some fault , an d reduce d at last to slanderou s charges, has not th e boldness to attack this action. I t is scarcely possible that he can have forgotten a dee d s o famous , that i t recur s t o th e min d o f itsel f without an y stud y o r reflection, an d i s in fac t repeate d by so many tongues, and portraye d i n s o many places, that n o on e can pretend t o shu t hi s eyes or hi s ears to it . If, therefore, while Abraham's killing his son of his own accord would have been unnatural, his doing it at the command of Go d shows not onl y guiltles s but praiseworth y compliance, wh y does Faustu s blame Moses for spoiling the Egyptians? Your feeling of disapproval for the mere human action should b e restrained by a regard for the divin e sanction. Will you venture to blam e God Himself fo r desirin g suc h actions ? The n 'Ge t the e behin d me , Satan , fo r tho u understandest no t th e thing s whic h b e o f God , bu t thos e whic h b e o f men. ' Woul d that thi s rebuk e migh t accomplis h i n yo u wha t i t di d i n Peter , an d tha t yo u migh t hereafter preac h the truth concernin g God, which you now, judging by feeble sense , find fault with ! a s Pete r becam e a zealou s messenger t o announc e t o th e Gentile s what h e objected t o a t first, when the Lor d spoke of it a s His intention . VII.6 Now, i f this explanatio n suffice s t o satisf y huma n obstinac y an d pervers e misinterpretation o f righ t action s o f th e vas t differenc e betwee n th e indulgenc e o f passio n an d presumption o n th e par t o f men, an d obedienc e t o th e comman d o f God, wh o know s what t o permi t o r t o order , an d als o th e tim e an d th e persons , an d th e du e actio n o r suffering i n eac h case , th e accoun t o f th e war s o f Mose s wil l no t excit e surpris e o r abhorrence, fo r i n war s carrie d o n b y divin e command , h e showe d no t ferocit y bu t obedience; an d God , i n givin g the command , acte d no t i n cruelty , bu t i n righteou s retribution, givin g to al l what the y deserved , an d warnin g thos e wh o neede d warning . What is the evil in war? Is it the death of some who will soon die in any case, that other s may live in peacefu l subjection ? This is mere cowardly dislike, not an y religiou s feeling. The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty , fierce and implacabl e enmity, wild resistance , an d th e lus t of power, and suc h like; and i t i s generally to punis h thes e things, whe n forc e i s required t o inflic t th e punishment , that , i n obedienc e t o Go d o r some lawfu l authority , goo d me n undertak e wars , when the y find themselves i n suc h a position a s regards the conduct of human affairs , tha t right conduct require s them to act, or t o mak e other s ac t i n thi s way . Otherwise John , when th e soldier s wh o cam e to b e 203

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

baptised asked , What shall we do? would hav e replied, Thro w away your arms ; give u p the service; never strike, or wound, or disable any one. Bu t knowing that such actions in battle wer e no t murderous , bu t authorise d b y law , an d tha t th e soldier s di d no t thu s avenge themselves , bu t defen d th e publi c safety , h e replied , 'D o violenc e t o n o man , accuse n o ma n falsely , an d b e conten t wit h you r wages ' [Lk . 3.14] . Bu t a s th e Manichaeans are in the habit of speaking evil of John, let them hear the Lord Jesus Christ Himself orderin g thi s money to b e give n to Caesar , which Joh n tell s the soldier s t o b e content with . 'Give', H e says, 'to Caesa r th e thing s that ar e Caesar's' [Matt . 22.21] . For tribute-money is given on purpose to pay the soldiers for war. Again, in the cas e of the centurion who said, 'I am a man unde r authority, and hav e soldiers under me : and I say to one, Go , and he goeth; and to another, Come, an d he cometh; an d to my servant, Do this, and h e doeth it' , Christ gav e due praise to hi s faith [Matt . 8.9-10]. He did no t tel l him to leave the service. But there is no need here to enter on the long discussion o f just and unjus t wars . VII.7 A great deal depends on the causes for which men undertak e wars, and o n th e authority they have for doing so ; for the natural orde r whic h seeks the peace of mankind, ordain s that the monarch should hav e the power of undertaking war if he thinks it advisable, and that the soldiers should perform their military duties on behalf of the peace and safet y of the community . Whe n wa r i s undertaken i n obedienc e t o God , wh o woul d rebuke , o r humble, or crush the pride of man, it must be allowed to be a righteous war; for even the wars which aris e fro m huma n passio n canno t har m th e eterna l well-bein g o f God, no r even hurt His saints; for in the trial of their patience, and th e chastening of their spirit, and i n bearin g fatherl y correction , the y are rathe r benefite d tha n injured . No on e ca n have any power agains t them bu t wha t i s given him fro m above . Fo r there i s no powe r but o f God [Rom . 13.1], who either orders or permits. Since , therefore, a righteous man, serving it may be under an ungodly king, may do the duty belonging to his position i n the State in fighting by the order o f his sovereign, - fo r in some cases it is plainly the will of God tha t h e shoul d fight , an d i n others , wher e thi s i s no t s o plain , i t migh t b e a n unrighteous command o n the par t of the king, while the soldier i s innocent, becaus e his position make s obedience a duty, - ho w much mor e mus t th e man be blameless who carries on war on th e authority of God, of whom every one who serves Him know s that He can neve r requir e what i s wrong? VII.8 If it is supposed that Go d could no t enjoi n warfare, becaus e in afte r time s it was said by the Lord Jesus Christ, 'I say unto you, That ye resist not evil : but i f any one strike thee on the righ t cheek , tur n t o hi m th e lef t also ' [Matt . 5.39] , the answe r is , that wha t i s here required is not a bodily action, but a n inward disposition. Th e sacred seat of virtue is the heart, an d suc h wer e th e heart s o f ou r fathers , th e righteou s me n o f old . Bu t orde r required such a regulation of events, and such a distinction o f times, as to show first of all that eve n earthl y blessing s (fo r s o tempora l kingdom s an d victor y ove r enemie s ar e considered t o be, and these are the things which the community o f the ungodl y all over the worl d ar e continually beggin g from idol s an d devils ) ar e entirely unde r th e contro l and at the disposal of the one true God. Thus, under the Old Testament, th e secret of the kingdom o f heaven , whic h wa s t o b e disclose d i n du e time , wa s veiled , an d s o fa r 204

WAR AN D PEAC E

obscured, i n the disguis e of earthly promises. Bu t when the fullnes s o f time came for th e revelation o f th e Ne w Testament, whic h wa s hidden unde r th e type s o f th e Old , clea r testimony wa s to be borne to the truth, that there is another lif e for which this life ough t to be disregarded, and another kingdo m for which the opposition of all earthly kingdoms should b e patiently borne. Thus the name martyrs, which means witnesses, was given to those who, by the will of God, bore this testimony, by their confessions , their suffering s and thei r death . CRITIQUE It would be anachronistic t o criticize this Text as if it contained a fully develope d just-war theory. Nevertheless , a numbe r o f tension s ar e eviden t withi n it , resultin g fro m Augustine's attemp t t o reconcil e th e Ol d Testamen t wit h th e Ne w an d wit h classica l understandings of a 'just' war . An immediat e difficult y arise s fro m th e observatio n that , howeve r sanctione d b y Yahweh, a number o f wars in the Old Testament, such as that against Canaan, appear, in classical terms , t o b e war s of aggression and no t o f defence. As a result, Augustin e was prepared t o conced e a n imag e o f Go d whic h make s God , fro m a huma n perspective , morally vulnerable (VII.4). He could, of course, have pointed out , i n this context, that it would indee d hav e been wron g for a human bein g rathe r tha n fo r God to hav e acted i n such a way. This is an importan t poin t tha t i s sometimes forgotte n in discussions o f the problem o f evil or o f the moralit y of particular images of God (see Do n Cupitt' s Crisi s of Moral Authority: The Dethronement of Christianity, 1972) . It i s always dangerous to judge the creator by the moral standards of the creature. Yet, Augustine's concession wil l still be difficult fo r many present-day Christian s to accept . A second difficulty arise s from hi s judgement that war may be fought o n human as well as on divine authority (VII.7). Along with his classical sources, he admitted th e possibility of 'some lawful authority ' waging war, but gav e few indications about what constituted a 'lawful authority' (VII.6). This point will recur in relation to Text VIII and Extract 15, but it is important to note that Augustine did not resolve the issue. Further, his notion of civil obedience i s dangerously unqualifie d in VII.7 . Niirnberg, i n th e twentiet h century , di d not accep t th e notio n o f militar y obedienc e regardles s of th e perceive d injustic e o f a situation. Finally, Augustine's understanding o f the authorit y o f the Ol d Testament ma y appear pre-critical. Increasingly , h e sa w the onl y option s as , eithe r t o accep t th e entir e Bibl e literally, or to treat it in the highly selective way of Faustus. By opting for the first, he was inevitably forced t o defen d th e mora l behaviou r o f th e Patriarchs , bot h i n relatio n t o polygamy (see above, p. 24) and her e in relation t o wars of aggression. However, a more critical understanding o f the Old Testament would have avoided some of these problems .

205

TEXT VIII AQUINAS War, Christians an d th e clergy 1. BACKGROUND This Tex t come s fro m Summa Theologica, 2a2ae , 40.1- 2 (Vol . XXX V o f th e Englis h Dominican translation , Blackfriar s wit h Eyr e and Spottiswoode , Londo n an d McGrawHill, Ne w York , 1972) . Taken fro m Secunda Secundae (see above, p . 41 ) Questio n 4 0 considers th e issu e o f war under fou r heading s - 'Ar e som e war s permissible?' , 'Ma y clerics engage in warfare?', 'Ma y belligerents use subterfuge?' an d 'Ma y war be waged on feast days? ' - o f which the first two are reproduced here . Although there was no major war i n norther n Europ e durin g Aquinas ' lifetime , ther e wer e severa l loca l war s an d dynastic struggles, as well as a declining number o f crusades. The struggl e which led t o the downfall of the Hohenstaufens and the establishment of Charles of Anjou i n Naples in 1268 directly affected Aquinas ' ow n family : tw o o f his brothers fough t fo r th e Emperor , but mos t o f his family fough t o n the papal side. Yet, despite this existential involvement , the issu e of war only played a very minor rol e in Summa Theologica an d i s handled very formally in this, the most extensive, discussion o f it. The clerical interests of Aquinas and of hi s intende d audienc e ar e clearl y reflecte d i n th e fou r headings . Lik e man y o f hi s contemporaries, Aquinas seems to have accepted the inevitability of war and, perhaps as a result, discussed remarkably few of the ethical dilemmas that it raises. Other scholars, like Albert th e Great , Bonaventure and Dun s Scotus, did no t discus s them a t all . 2. KE Y ISSUES This Text focuse s upon tw o questions : (a) I s i t alway s a si n t o wag e war ? Aquina s counter s th e obviou s Ne w Testamen t quotations tha t are frequently used to suppor t Christia n pacifism (Matt. 26.52, 5.39 an d Rom. 12.19 ) wit h a summar y o f Augustine' s thre e criteri a o f a 'just ' war : i t mus t b e undertaken o n the authority of God or of the sovereig n (VIII.3 and VIII.6.1); it must be for a just cause (VIII.4 and VIII.6.2); and it must be undertaken wit h a right intention, t o promote th e goo d an d t o avoi d evi l (VIII. 5 and VIII.6.3-4) . (b) Ma y clerics and bishops engage in warfare? H e faces the objectio n that i f warfare is just, par excellence it must be just for the clergy to participate fully i n it. In reply, Aquinas considers tha t verse s lik e Matthe w 26.52 , 2 Timoth y 2.4 , 1 Corinthians 11.2 6 an d 2 Corinthians 10.4 , either directly, or indirectly, preclude clergy from suc h action. For him, the contemplativ e an d sacramenta l role s o f th e clerg y ar e inconsisten t wit h warlik e pursuits (VIH.10-11) ; i t i s 'unbecomin g thei r persons ' (VIII.12.3) ; an d the y mus t b e concerned with 'work s of higher merit ' (VIII.12.4) .

206

WAR AN D PEAC E

3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS This text provides an interesting example of Aquinas' attempt to combine an Aristotelian, consequentialist approac h t o ethic s with a normative understandin g o f Augustinian and biblical tradition . Th e notio n o f 'righ t intention ' i s explaine d i n term s o f hi s overal l general principl e o f promoting the good and avoiding evi l (VIII.5): positively, this entails serving 'th e commo n good ' (VIII.6.2 ) and , negatively , i t risk s eterna l punishmen t (VIII.6.1). Hi s consequentialism , base d upo n natura l law , i s eve n mor e eviden t i n hi s claims abou t naturall y establishe d rol e differentiatio n a s i t affect s th e clerg y (VIII.9) . Once again , th e telos of human s provide s th e spu r fo r hi s understandin g o f ethic s (see above, pp. 20-1) , even if this i s combined wit h stron g deontologica l assumptions abou t the legitimac y of war and o f the traditio n whic h justifies war . 4. BASES OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS Aquinas' us e of the Bibl e is also particularly interesting. H e avoids Augustine's tendency to suppor t a just-war position fro m th e Ol d Testament an d onl y use s Joshua 6.4 late in his argument, against clerical participation i n warfare (VIII . 12.2). He does not resolv e the awkward Matthe w 5.3 9 an d resolve s Matthe w 26.5 2 onl y b y maintainin g tha t i t i s unauthorized, privat e violence (VIII.6) . And he understands th e quotations i n VIH.8-12 to be concerned onl y with the clergy. In general, hi s source o f tradition i s Augustine albeit i n a rathe r systematize d an d abbreviate d for m an d ofte n mediate d throug h Gratian's Decretum (see above, p. 41). Augustine appears as the authority to settle, beyond reasonable dispute , th e ethica l dilemm a fo r Christians . 5. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS Augustine, however , i s use d i n a significantl y (eve n i f unintentionally) modifie d form . The socio-political contex t o f Aquinas was quite different fro m tha t of Augustine and th e former show s none o f the latter's suspicion s of the politica l order. As a result, the bone s of Augustine's notion of a just war are adopted, bu t no t th e flesh of his overall distrust of the 'earthl y city' . Further , the notion s of guil t and jus t retributio n tha t forme d an important elemen t i n Augustine' s understandin g o f wa r ar e reduce d b y Aquina s to a single sentenc e (VIII.4) . The stylize d forma t o f th e scholasti c metho d i s onl y partiall y responsible fo r these modifications. In part, they reflect a radically changed social context, in part, a very different religiou s psychology (see above, pp. 21-2), and, in part, a culture which di d no t regar d war as presenting particularl y serious ethica l dilemmas . Thi s final factor i s clearly present i n Aquinas' handlin g o f the questio n o f clerical participatio n i n warfare: i t was simply obvious, t o hi m and to his contemporaries, tha t th e clergy should not participat e fully i n warfare, tha t they were to be considered a s ontologically differen t from th e laity , an d tha t Petrin e verse s referre d specificall y t o the m (VIII.8) . Th e earl y Christian and , indeed , pre-Christia n source s o f thes e assumptions hav e alread y bee n noted i n the sectiona l introduction . 6. SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE Aquinas' understandin g o f just-wa r theor y ha s bee n th e majo r influenc e i n muc h subsequent Roma n Catholic thinking on the issue of war - a s can be seen in both Extract 15 an d Extrac t 17 . I n effect , Aquina s reinforce d th e church-typ e respons e t o war , established b y Augustin e and mediate d throug h Gratian . Perhaps , becaus e o f this , an y

207

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

challenge t o conventiona l militaris t assumption s has , unti l ver y recently, com e mainl y from withi n non-Roman Catholi c churches. In a nuclear age, however, it is now eviden t to a number of Roman Catholic moral theologians, that Aquinas' just-war theory canno t provide a sufficien t basi s fo r ethica l decision-makin g o n moder n warfar e (see further, Extract 17) . FURTHER READING There are scattered references to war and killing elsewhere in Summa Theologica and there are also implications tha t can be drawn from work s like De Regimine Prindpum (see Tex t V) bu t S.T . 2a2ae.4 0 remain s th e mos t importan t sourc e fo r hi s ideas . Frederic k H . Russell's Th e Just Wa r i n th e Middle Ages (1975 ) an d Joa n D . Tooke's Th e Just Wa r i n Aquinas an d Grotius (1965 ) bot h provid e excellen t an d detaile d commentarie s o n Aquinas' notions . Thomas R . Heath's Appendi x 2 to th e Englis h Dominican translatio n of S.T 1., Vol . XXXV , als o supplie s importan t historica l information . Recen t Roma n Catholic discussions of the extreme difficulty of reconciling Aquinas' just-war theory with the realitie s o f nuclea r warfar e ca n b e see n i n th e U S Bishops ' Extrac t 1 7 and Roge r Ruston's Nuclear Deterrence - Right or Wrong? (1981) .

TEXT VIII AQUINAS War, Christians and the clergy Is it always a sin to wage war? VIII. 1 OBJECTIONS: i. It would seem that it is always a sin to wage war. Punishments are meted out onl y for sin. But our Lor d named the punishment fo r people who wage war when he said, 'All who draw th e sword will di e by the sword [Matt . 26.52]. Every kind o f war the n i s unlawful . ii. Moreover , whateve r goe s agains t a divin e comman d i s a sin . Bu t wa r doe s that. Scripture says, 'I say this to you, offe r th e wicked man n o resistance ' [Matt . 5.39]. Also, 'Not revengin g yourselves, my dearly beloved, but giv e place unto wrath' [Rom . 12.19] . War i s always a sin then . iii. Beside s the only thing that stands as a contrary to the act of virtue is a sin. Now war is the contrar y o f peace. Therefor e it i s always a sin . iv. Besides, if an actio n i s lawful, practisin g for i t would b e lawful, a s is obvious i n th e practice involved i n th e sciences . Bu t warlike exercises which go on i n tournaments ar e forbidden b y the Church, since those killed i n such trials are denied ecclesiastica l burial. Consequently war appears to be plainly wrong. VIII.2 ON TH E OTHE R HAN D Augustin e says , i n a sermo n o n th e centurion' s son , 'I f Christian teachin g forbad e war altogether , thos e lookin g fo r th e salutar y advice of th e Gospel would hav e been told to ge t rid of their arms and giv e up soldiering. But instead they wer e told , "D o violenc e t o n o man , b e conten t wit h you r pay " [Lk . 3.14]. I f it ordered the m t o b e satisfied with thei r pay , then i t did no t forbi d a military career.' 208

WAR AN D PEAC E

VIII.3 REPLY: Three things are required fo r any war to be just. The first is the authorit y of the sovereign o n whos e comman d wa r i s waged . No w a privat e perso n ha s n o busines s declaring war; he can seek redress by appealing to the judgment of his superiors. Nor can he summon together whole people, which has to be done to fight a war. Since the care of the commonweal i s committed t o those i n authority they are the ones t o watch over the public affair s o f the city, kingdom o r provinc e in their jurisdiction. And just as they use the sword in lawful defenc e against domestic disturbance when they punish criminals , as Paul says , 'H e bearet h no t th e swor d i n vai n fo r h e i s God' s minister , a n avenge r t o execute wrath upon him that doth evil' [Rom . 13.4], so they lawfully use the sword of war to protec t th e commonwea l fro m foreig n attacks . Thu s i t i s said t o thos e i n authority, 'Rescue the wea k and th e needy , sav e them fro m th e clutche s of the wicked ' [Ps . 81.4]. Hence Augustine writes, 'The natural order conducive to human peac e demands that the power to counsel and declare war belongs to those who hold th e supreme authority' [see Text VII. 7 above]. VIII.4 Secondly, a jus t caus e i s required , namel y tha t thos e wh o ar e attacke d ar e attacke d because the y deserve i t o n accoun t o f som e wron g the y hav e done. S o Augustine, 'We usually describe a just war as one that avenges wrongs, that is, when a nation o r state has to be punished either for refusing t o make amends for outrages done by its subjects, or t o restore what it ha s seized injuriously. ' VIII.5 Thirdly, the right intentio n o f those waging war is required, that is , they must inten d t o promote the good and to avoid evil. Hence Augustine writes, 'Among true worshippers of God thos e war s ar e looke d o n a s peace-makin g whic h ar e wage d neithe r fro m aggrandisement nor cruelty , but wit h th e objec t o f securing peace, of repressing the evil and supporting the good.' Now it can happen that even given a legitimate authority and a just cause for declaring war, it may yet be wrong because of a perverse intention. S o again Augustine says, 'The craving to hur t people , th e cruel thirst fo r revenge, the unappeased and unrelenting spirit, the savageness of fighting on, the lust to dominate, and suchlike all these are rightl y condemned i n wars ' [see Tex t VII.6 above], VIII.6 HENCE: i. Augustine writes,' "To draw the sword" is to arm oneself and to spill blood without command o r permissio n o f superior o r lawfu l authority ' [see Text VII. 2 above]. Bu t i f a private perso n use s th e swor d b y th e authorit y o f th e sovereig n o r judge , o r a publi c person use s it through zeal for justice, and b y the authority, s o to speak, of God, then he himself does not 'draw the sword', but is commissioned b y another to use it, and does not deserve punishment. Stil l even those who d o us e it sinfull y ar e not alway s slain with th e sword. Ye t they will alway s 'die by the sword ' sinc e the y will b e punishe d eternall y fo r their sinfu l us e of it unles s the y repent . ii. These words, as Augustine says, must always be borne in readiness of mind, so that a man mus t alway s be prepare d t o refrai n fro m resistanc e or self-defenc e i f the situatio n calls for it. Sometimes, however, he must act otherwise for the common goo d or even for 209

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

the good of his opponents. Thu s Augustine writes, 'One must do many things with a kind of benign severity with thos e who must be punished agains t thei r will. Now whoever i s stripped o f th e lawlessnes s o f si n i s overcom e fo r hi s ow n good , sinc e nothin g i s unhappier than th e happiness of sinners. I t encourages guilty impunity, and strengthen s the ba d will , the enem y inside us. iii. Even thos e wh o wage a just war inten d peace . They are not the n hostil e t o peace , except that evil peace which our Lor d 'did not com e to send o n the earth'. So Augustine again says, 'We do not see k peace in order to wage war, but w e go to war to gai n peace . Therefore be peaceful eve n while you are at war, that you may overcome your enemy and bring him t o th e prosperit y of peace.' iv. Warlike exercises are not completel y forbidden; only those which are excessive and dangerous and end in killing and looting. I n olden times they presented n o suc h danger. So, as Jerome writes, they were called 'practice s of arms' o r 'war s without blood' . May clerics and bishops engage in war? VIII.7 OBJECTIONS: i. I t woul d see m tha t cleric s an d bishop s ma y engag e i n warfare . No w w e hav e just agreed tha t war s ar e lici t an d jus t i n s o fa r a s the y protec t th e poo r an d th e whol e commonweal fro m a n enemy's treachery. But this kind o f activity above all is the dut y of prelates. As Gregory writes, 'The wolf comes down on the sheep. That happens when any scoundrel or marauder tyrannises faithfu l an d humble people. And the man who looke d like a shepherd, but reall y was not, abandone d th e shee p and fled . H e was frightened at the danger to his own skin, and did not dar e to stand u p agains t the injustice. ' I t is licit, therefore, fo r prelate s and cleric s to fight . ii. Moreover Pope Leo writes, 'Since ominous new s had ofte n com e fro m th e Sarace n side, rumour s were circulating that the y would com e t o th e por t o f Rome covertly an d secretly. Fo r this reaso n w e ordered ou r peopl e t o gathe r together an d g o down t o th e shore.' Bishops , therefore, may go to wa r licitly . iii. Again, it would seem to come to the same thing whether a man does something on his ow n o r consent s t o it s bein g don e b y another. Scriptur e says , 'The y who d o suc h things are worthy of death, and not only they that do them, but the y also that consent t o them tha t do them' [Rom . 1.32]. Now the fulles t consen t lie s in persuading others to d o something; an d bishop s an d cleric s ma y persuad e other s t o fight . W e rea d tha t 'Charlemagne accepte d wa r wit h th e Lombard s a t th e reques t an d entreat y o f Adrian, Bishop o f Rome.' Therefore they are als o allowe d t o fight . iv. Besides, whatever i s virtuous an d meritoriou s i n itsel f is not unlawfu l fo r prelate s and clerics . No w wa r i s sometime s virtuou s an d meritorious . W e rea d [i n Gratian' s Decretum] tha t 'i f a ma n di e fo r th e tru e faith , t o sav e hi s countr y an d t o defen d Christians, h e will receive a heavenly reward fro m God' . VIII.8 ON THE OTHER HAND the words, 'Put your sword back in its scabbard' [Matt . 26.52] were directed to Peter as representing all bishops and clerics. Consequently, they may not fight.

210

WAR AN D PEAC E

VIIL9 REPLY: Man y thing s ar e necessar y fo r th e goo d o f huma n society . No w th e differen t functions ar e better an d mor e efficientl y carrie d out b y different people s than by one, as Aristotle shows. And certain occupation s ar e so inconsistent wit h on e anothe r tha t they cannot be fittingly exercise d together. Thus lesser jobs are forbidden those who are given major things to do. Human laws, for example, forbi d soldier s whose business it is to fight to engag e in commerce . No w fightin g i n wa r i s quite inconsisten t wit h th e dutie s of a bishop o r a cleric, and fo r two reasons . VIII. 10 First i s general, namel y tha t th e operation s o f wa r ar e totall y upsetting ; the y seriously prevent th e min d fro m contemplatin g divin e things , praisin g God , an d prayin g fo r people, whic h i s wha t cleric s ar e calle d t o do . S o jus t a s commercia l enterprise s ar e forbidden t o clerics , since they entangle the sou l too much , so also are warlike pursuits. 'No man bein g a soldier t o Go d entangle s himself with secula r business' [ 2 Tim. 2.4]. VIII. 11 The second reaso n is special. All holy Orders are ordained fo r the ministry of the alta r in which th e passio n o f Chris t i s represente d sacramentally . 'Unti l th e Lor d comes , therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death' [1 Cor. 11.26] . Their office, then , is not t o kill or to shed blood, but rathe r to be ready to shed thei r ow n blood fo r Christ , to d o i n dee d wha t the y portray a t th e altar . Fo r this reason legislation has been enacted making those who shed blood, even if they have done so without sin , irregular. Now no on e given a duty to perfor m can lawfully d o anything which renders him unfi t fo r the office . I t is altogether wrong, then, for clerics to fight in a war, since that i s aimed a t sheddin g blood. VIII. 12 HENCE: i. Prelates ought to resist not only the wolves who bring spiritual death on the flock but also pillagers and oppressors who do physical harm to it . Their arms, however, ought t o be spiritual, not material , as Scripture says, 'Our war is not fough t wit h weapons of flesh, but wit h spiritua l weapons' [ 2 Cor. 10.4] . Suc h are salutar y warnings and solem n plea s and, agains t th e obstinate , sentence s of excommunication . ii. Prelates and clerics may make their presence felt a t war, not b y taking up arms, bu t by spirituall y helping those wh o fight on th e sid e o f justice, exhorting, absolvin g them , and givin g other lik e spiritual assistance . Thus i n the Ol d Testament [i.e . Josh. 6.4] th e priests were commanded t o soun d th e sacre d trumpe t i n battle. This i s why bishops o r clerics were first allowed t o g o to th e front . Bu t fo r an y of them t o tak e up arm s i s an abuse of this permission . iii. We have said that every power, art or virtue directed towards an end has to prepare those element s usefu l fo r th e achievemen t o f tha t end . No w physica l war s shoul d b e considered by Christian people as directed towards a divine spiritua l good a s their end , and to thi s en d clerics are called. Accordingl y they ought t o prepar e and urg e others t o fight in a just war. Clerics are forbidden to fight in war, not because it is a sin, but because it i s unbecoming thei r persons . iv. Althoug h t o wag e a jus t wa r i s meritorious , nevertheles s i t i s wron g fo r cleric s 211

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

because they are deputed to works of higher merit. The marriage act, for example, can be meritorious, but fo r those with a vow of virginity it becomes reprehensibl e since they are committed t o a higher good. CRITIQUE Serious criticism s have been mad e o f the tw o set s o f answers that Aquina s give s to th e questions raise d i n thi s Text : (a) 7 s it always a sin to wage war? A number o f modern just-war theorists hav e argued that: (i ) Aquinas ' thre e criteri a for a 'just' wa r ar e inadequatel y expounded an d (ii ) he ignores othe r vita l criteria. Aquinas' firs t criterio n depend s upo n th e 'authorit y o f th e sovereign' (VIII.3) , but th e problems that this form o f authority raises are not discussed : it means, of course, in a general way, that war must be waged by the person o r persons who hol d appropriat e politica l authority , bu t who , i n th e thirteent h century , suc h persons might be, was a rather delicate question needing serious discussion. To assume that the "prince" is meant, in a society so abounding with princes and petty rulers that they might from a n international point o f view be considered rathe r as private than as public entities , whil e i n fac t a n empero r di d exist , wa s paying tribut e to , o r a t leas t acknowledging the existin g state of affair s a s ideal or acceptabl e rather tha n tryin g t o outline a better one. (Joan D. Tooke, Th e Just Wa r in Aquinas and Grotius, 1965, p. 26) Similarly, the criteri a of a 'just cause ' an d a 'right intention ' ar e only ver y formally and abstractly se t out . The y hav e th e additiona l proble m o f bein g tautological , sinc e the y already contain the ethical terms 'just' and 'right' in what purport t o be requirements for determining whether or no t a war i s 'just'. Tautology is also a problem in the following list of criteria for establishing the justice of a war. However, it does have the merit of supplying the additional criteria that are usually considered necessar y by modern just-wa r theorists: For a war to b e 'just' i t must (i ) have been undertake n by a lawful authority ; (ii ) have been undertake n fo r th e vindicatio n o f a n undoubte d righ t tha t ha s bee n certainl y infringed; (iii ) be a last resort, al l peaceful mean s of settlement havin g failed; (iv ) offe r the possibility of good to be achieved outweighing the evils that war would involve; (v) be wage d wit h a reasonabl e hop e o f victor y fo r justice ; (vi ) b e wage d wit h righ t intention; (vii ) use methods that are legitimate, i.e. in accordance with man's nature as a rational being, with Christian moral principles and internationa l agreements . (Fro m T. R . Milfor d (ed.) , Th e Valley o f Decision, Britis h Counci l o f Churches , 1961 ; fo r a similar lis t se e Extract 17.) In Aquinas (iii), (iv), (v) and (vii ) are notably absent. In the context o f nuclear weapons, (iv) and (vii ) have obviously become considerably more important tha n they could have been i n the thirteenth century . But, in terms of (iii), Aquinas shows no awarenes s of the importance o f exhaustin g peaceful arbitratio n befor e goin g t o wa r (see Extract 17) , o r even o f th e importanc e o f determinin g whethe r victor y i s actuall y possible . Explici t reference t o th e difference s betwee n war s o f aggression/offenc e an d war s o f defenc e i s absent fro m bot h Aquinas and th e abov e list (see Extract 15) . While th e latter doe s no t 212

WAR AN D PEAC E

answer al l th e difficultie s facin g just-wa r theorist s mentione d i n th e sectiona l introduction, i t i s clearly more adequat e tha n Aquinas ' account . (b) Ma y clerics an d bishops engage i n warfare? Aquinas ' defenc e o f hi s positio n raise s many exegetical, ethica l an d theologica l problems . Fe w today workin g i n th e contex t o f critical biblica l scholarshi p woul d suppor t hi s clerica l interpretatio n o f th e Ne w Testament quotation s - eve n the Petrine quotations . Fro m th e scholarly perspective of biblical interpretation , i t i s notabl e tha t Matthe w 26.5 2 meant : fo r Tertullia n tha t Christians shoul d b e pacifist s (see above, pp. 194-6) ; fo r Augustin e tha t unauthorize d private violence was a sin (VII.2) ; and fo r Aquinas that th e clerg y should no t participate fully i n warfar e (VIII.8) . Ethically , Took e argue s that , 'Aquina s overwhelme d Christ' s simple words with natural law morality' (p. 123 ) and, indeed, a s a result of the arguments he used , 'h e cam e extraordinaril y nea r t o forbiddin g Christia n participatio n i n warfar e completely whe n h e forbad e i t outrigh t t o clerics ' (p . 171) . Certainl y i f Luther' s theological attac k o n th e medieva l priest/laity dichotom y i s take n seriously , Christia n pacifism i n some for m or , alternatively , th e ful l participatio n o f clergy in warfare, woul d seem more logical from Aquinas ' position. Ironically , Luther accepted neither alternative : he condemne d th e Pop e an d hi s clergy for engagin g in warfar e an d fo r forgettin g thei r 'spiritual office' (e.g . in O n War Against the Turk) an d supporte d th e right of the state t o wage war and t o compe l it s citizens to fight.

213

TEXT IX LUTHER Whether soldiers, too, can be saved 1. BACKGROUND This Tex t come s fro m th e treatis e Whether Soldiers, too, Can b e Saved o f 152 6 (from Luther's Works, Vol. 46, Fortress Press, Philadelphia , 1967 , trans . Charle s M. Jacobs an d rev. Rober t C . Schulz , pp . 96-9 , 104-6 , 107-11 , 115-1 6 an d 130-2) . Afte r year s o f rebellion agains t feuda l Europe , th e Peasants ' Wa r brok e ou t i n 1525 . A numbe r o f reformers, lik e Thomas Miinzer , sided wit h the peasants an d some of the latter appeale d to Luther. He responded, at first, with the conciliatory Admonition t o Peace - urgin g the princes t o tak e th e rebellio n seriousl y and t o acknowledg e thei r par t i n causin g it , an d urging the peasants to avoid violenc e and to submi t t o authority - bu t then, i n May of 1525, h e wrot e hi s notoriousl y violen t Against th e Robbing an d Murdering Hordes o f Peasants. Shocked b y the violence of the peasants an d by their insurrection , h e urged th e rulers to kil l th e rebelliou s peasants , 'fo r rebellio n i s not jus t simple murder ; i t i s like a great fire , whic h attack s an d devastate s a whol e land. Therefor e let everyon e wh o can, smite, slay , an d stab , secretl y o r openly , rememberin g tha t nothin g ca n b e mor e poisonous, hurtful, o r devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog ...' (Luther's Works, Vol. 46, p. 50). The scandal that this created forced him, in July, to write An Open Letter on the Harsh Book, attempting to reconcile the views expressed i n the two previous works . H e wa s stil l convince d tha t th e peasant s neede d suppressin g throug h force, bu t maintaine d tha t thi s di d no t excus e th e appallin g cruelt y o f th e ruler s i n putting the rebellio n down . B y 1526, h e had considerabl y modifie d his tone, but no t hi s attitude towards rebellion, submission t o authority or the legitimacy of rulers using force. He wrote this Text in response to a request fro m Ass a von Kram of Wittenberg, wh o was disturbed abou t reconcilin g hi s Christia n fait h wit h hi s professio n a s a soldier . Th e rebellion o f the peasant s an d th e radica l innovations o f the Reformatio n had opene d u p afresh th e issu e o f th e legitimac y of war. Miinzer, an d Zwingl i in Zurich , too k u p th e sword, whereas the Anabaptists renounced violence altogether as thoroughgoing pacifists . Luther, somewhere between the two, defended th e right of rulers to use the sword and t o command thei r subjects to d o s o and urge d th e latte r t o obey . 2. KEY ISSUES This Text i s concerned wit h tw o main mora l issue s - wa r and rebellion : (a) War. Luther argues that war and soldierin g are basically concerned wit h punishing wickedness and keeping peace (IX. 1 and IX.8). Terrible though they may be, they serve to prevent mor e terrible things happening (IX.2). Indeed, God actually institutes war as the Old Testament indicate s (IX. 3 and 6) . The seeming contradiction suggeste d by Matthew 214

WAR AN D PEAC E

5.39 is to be explained by the fac t that, in the Spirit, Christians are subject only to Christ, but, i n th e bod y an d insofa r a s their propert y i s concerned, the y are subject to worldly rulers and to their commands t o fight in war (IX.9: i.e. Luther's classic notion o f 'the two kingdoms', se e above, pp. 131-2) . (b) Rebellion. Luthe r thoroughly condemn s an y attemp t t o depos e ruler s excep t i n cases of real insanity (IX . 12). The fac t tha t a ruler i s a tyrant i s no reaso n fo r deposin g him: h e canno t hur t a person' s sou l (IX . 16), hi s positio n i s highly insecur e i n societ y (IX.20-1) and, in any case, it is for God to punish him (IX . 19). Luther adds that he does not inten d t o flatte r rulers , sinc e h e regard s the m a s muc h 'subjects ' a s anyon e els e (IX.22-3). If , however, on e i s certain that a rule r i s wrong, the n on e mus t follo w Go d (IX.25). Finally, Luther considers th e questio n o f a soldier's pay and conclude s that , provide d he is not greedy, he may work for pay and even sell his skills as a soldier to more than on e ruler (IX.26) . 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS Luther was more acutely aware of the moral dilemmas created by war than Aquinas, but he still seemed to regar d war as an inevitable concomitant o f government. Thus, because individuals are always required t o obey their ruler, they are, at the same time, necessarily committed to war. Nonetheless, Luther did allow a conscience clause (IX.25). Further, he made a number o f implicit (IX . 12) and explici t (IX.21 ) appeal s to natura l law. IX.8 als o illustrates a tendency to consequentialism an d to argue about th e ethics of war from th e ethics of individual behaviour: war i s justified fro m th e preceden t o f the punishmen t of wrongdoers and the paradigm of individual punishment, in turn, becomes the paradigm of social punishment . 4. BASES OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS As wit h Augustine' s Tex t VII , the Bibl e play s a crucia l rol e i n Luther' s argument . H e justifies wa r fro m Ol d Testamen t militaris m (IX.6) , fro m Ne w Testamen t figure s lik e John the Baptist and from commands to obey worldly rulers (IX.7). However, his exegesis of John 18.36 seems inverted (IX.6) and hi s interpretation of Matthew 5.39 stands or fall s with hi s notio n o f 'th e tw o kingdoms ' (IX. 9 - se e further, pp . 140-1 , above). Hi s argument, as a whole, is dominated by his theological conviction that obedience to rulers is demanded b y God. 5. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS Luther's genera l attitud e toward s wa r differe d ver y littl e fro m th e medieva l Catholi c position. War was regarded by him a s an inevitable punishment at the disposa l of rulers for wrongdoing - as , indeed, it was by Aquinas. But his own experiences, as a result of the Peasants' War , also clearl y influenced the Text . The y had serve d t o convinc e hi m tha t rebellion brings more evils and suffering than even tyranny (IX.2 and 12) . Further, he had clearly bee n stun g b y th e ver y considerabl e criticis m incurre d a s a resul t o f writin g Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes o f Peasants: for many, he was simply 'a frien d of th e rulers ' (IX.22-3) . Hi s ow n upwar d socia l mobilit y ma y als o hav e had a n effec t upon hi s attitude s her e (see above, p . 21) . On th e othe r hand , th e ver y fac t o f th e Reformation mean t tha t mora l issues , lik e war , had t o b e reconsidere d afresh , eve n though Luther' s conclusions remaine d politicall y conservative .

215

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

6. SOCIAL

SIGNIFICANCE

Luther's church-typ e respons e to war had a majo r influenc e upo n the histor y of Protestantism. H e and other leadin g reformers ensured tha t th e thoroughgoing pacifis m of the Anabaptists remained a minority and sectaria n response . Himsel f protected b y the evangelical Germa n rulers , h e gav e their us e of forc e a new legitimacy and, at th e sam e time, provide d the m wit h a n importan t spu r t o developin g Germa n nationalism . Th e religious, politica l and , indeed , militar y power o f Rom e coul d b e resiste d wit h a clea r Christian conscience . Nevertheless , scholar s ar e divide d a s t o ho w fa r th e atrocitie s committed b y som e rulers , i n suppressin g th e peasant s i n 1525 , wer e influence d b y Luther's writings. FURTHER READING The primary documents hav e all been mentioned unde r Background , except for Luther's On Wa r Against th e Turk o f 1529 . Referenc e shoul d als o b e mad e t o Tex t VI . Th e introductions an d note s t o thes e document s i n Luther's Works Vol . 4 6 are a n essentia l secondary source , as well as works on Luthe r already mentioned i n the Introduction an d in Sectio n 1 .

TEXT I X LUTHER Whether soldiers, too, can be saved IX. 1 Now slaying and robbin g d o not see m to be works of love. A simple man therefor e doe s not thin k it is a Christian thin g to do. I n truth, however , even this is a work of love. Fo r example, a good docto r sometime s find s s o serious an d terrible a sickness that h e mus t amputate or destroy a hand, foot , ear, eye, to save the body. Lookin g at it from th e poin t of view of the organ tha t h e amputates, he appears to b e a cruel and merciles s man; bu t looking a t i t fro m th e poin t o f view of the body , whic h the docto r want s to save , he is a fine an d tru e ma n an d doe s a goo d an d Christia n work , a s fa r a s th e wor k itsel f i s concerned. I n the same way, when I think of a soldier fulfillin g hi s office b y punishing th e wicked, killing the wicked , an d creatin g so much misery , i t seems a n un-Christia n wor k completely contrar y to Christia n love. But when I think o f how it protects the goo d an d keeps an d preserve s wif e an d child , hous e an d farm , property , an d honou r an d peace , then I see how precious and godl y this work is; and I observe that i t amputates a leg or a hand, s o tha t th e whol e bod y ma y no t perish . Fo r i f the swor d wer e no t o n guar d t o preserve peace , everythin g i n th e worl d woul d b e ruine d becaus e o f lac k o f peace . Therefore, suc h a war i s only a very brief lack of peace tha t prevent s a n everlastin g an d immeasurable lac k of peace, a small misfortun e that prevent s a great misfortune .

IX.2 What men write about war, saying that it is a great plague, is all true. But they should als o consider ho w grea t the plagu e i s that wa r prevents . I f people wer e goo d an d wante d t o keep peace , wa r woul d b e th e greates t plagu e on earth . Bu t what ar e you goin g t o d o about the fact tha t peopl e will not keep the peace, but rob , steal , kill, outrage women an d 216

WAR AN D PEAC E

children, and tak e away property an d honour ? The small lack of peace called war or th e sword mus t se t a limit t o thi s universal , worldwide lac k of peace whic h would destro y everyone.

IX.3 This is why God honours th e sword so highly that he says that he himself has instituted it (Rom. 13.1 ) an d doe s no t wan t me n t o sa y o r thin k tha t the y hav e invente d i t o r instituted it . For the hand tha t wields this sword an d kill s with i t is not man' s hand , bu t God's; an d i t i s not man , bu t God , wh o hangs , tortures , beheads , kills , an d fights . All these ar e God's work s and judgments. IX.4 To sum it up, we must, in thinking about a soldier's office , no t concentrate on the killing, burning, striking , hitting , seizing , etc . Thi s i s wha t childre n wit h thei r limite d an d restricted visio n see when they regard a doctor a s a sawbones who amputates but d o no t see that he does this only to save the whole body. So, too, we must look at the office o f the soldier, o r th e sword , with the eye s of an adul t an d se e why this offic e slay s and act s so cruelly. Then it will prove itself to be an office which , in itself, is godly and a s needful an d useful t o th e world a s eating and drinkin g o r an y other work . IX.5 There are some who abuse this office, an d strike and kill people needlessly simply because they want to . Bu t that i s the faul t o f the persons , no t o f the office , fo r where is there a n office o r a work or anything else so good tha t self-willed , wicked peopl e d o no t abus e it? They are like mad physicians who would needlessl y amputate a healthy hand just because they wanted to . Indeed , the y themselves ar e a part o f that universa l lack of peace which must be prevented by just wars and the sword and be forced int o peace. It always happens and always has happened tha t those who begin war unnecessarily are beaten. Ultimately, they cannot escap e God's judgmen t and sword . I n the end God' s justice finds them an d strikes, as happened t o th e peasant s i n the revolt . IX.6 As proof, I quote Joh n the Baptist , who, excep t fo r Christ , wa s the greates t teacher an d preacher o f all. When soldier s cam e to hi m an d aske d wha t the y should do , h e did no t condemn thei r offic e o r advise them t o sto p doin g their work ; rather, accordin g t o Luk e 3[.14], he approved i t by saying, 'Rob no on e by violence o r by false accusation , an d b e content wit h your wages.' Thus h e praised th e militar y profession, but a t the sam e time he forbade its abuse. Now the abuse does not affec t th e office . Whe n Chris t stoo d befor e Pilate h e admitte d tha t wa r wa s not wron g whe n h e said , 'I f m y kingshi p were of this world, the n m y servants would fight that I might no t b e handed ove r t o the Jews ' (John 18.36). Here , too , belon g al l th e storie s o f wa r i n th e Ol d Testament , th e storie s o f Abraham, Moses , Joshua , the Judges , Samuel, David , an d al l the king s o f Israel . I f th e waging o f war an d th e militar y profession were in themselve s wron g and displeasin g t o God, we should hav e to condemn Abraham , Moses, Joshua, David, and all the rest of the holy fathers , kings , an d princes , wh o serve d Go d a s soldier s an d ar e highly praised i n Scripture because of this service, as all of us who have read even a little in Holy Scripture know well, and ther e i s no nee d t o offe r furthe r proo f o f it here . 217

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

IX.7

Perhaps someone wil l now sa y that the hol y fathers were in a different positio n becaus e God had set them apart from th e other nations by choosing them as his people, and ha d commanded the m to fight, and that their example is therefore not relevant for a Christian under the New Testament because they had God's command an d fought i n obedience t o God, whil e w e have n o comman d t o fight , bu t rathe r t o suffer , endure , an d renounc e everything. This objection i s answered clearl y enough by St Peter and S t Paul, who both command obedienc e t o worldly ordinances and to the commandments o f worldly rulers even unde r th e Ne w Testament [Rom . 13.1-4 ; 1 Pet. 2.13-14] . An d w e hav e alread y pointed ou t tha t S t John th e Baptis t instructe d soldier s a s a Christian teache r an d i n a Christian manner and permitted the m to remain soldiers, enjoining them only not to use their positio n t o abus e peopl e o r t o trea t the m unjustly , an d t o b e satisfie d wit h thei r wages. Therefore even under the New Testament th e sword is established b y God's word and commandment , an d thos e wh o use it properl y an d fight obedientl y serv e God and are obedien t t o hi s word.

IX.8 Just think now! If we gave in on this point and admitted that war was wrong in itself, then we would hav e to giv e i n o n al l other point s an d allo w that th e us e of th e swor d wa s entirely wrong. For if it is wrong to use a sword in war, it is also wrong to us e a sword t o punish evildoer s o r t o kee p the peace . Briefly , ever y use of the swor d woul d hav e to b e wrong. Fo r wha t i s just wa r bu t th e punishmen t o f evildoer s an d th e maintenanc e o f peace? If one punishes a thief or a murderer or an adulterer, that is punishment inflicte d on a single evildoer; but i n a just war a whole crowd of evildoers, wh o are doing harm i n proportion t o th e siz e of the crowd , ar e punished a t once. If, therefore, on e work of the sword i s good an d right , they are all good an d right , for the swor d i s a sword an d no t a foxtail wit h which to tickl e people. Roman s 13[.4 ] calls the swor d 'th e wrath of God'. IX.9 As fo r th e objectio n tha t Christian s have not bee n commande d t o figh t an d tha t thes e examples are not enough , especially because Christ teaches us not to resist evi l but rathe r suffer al l things [Matt . 5.39-42] , I hav e alread y sai d al l that need s t o b e sai d o n thi s matter i n m y boo k Temporal Authority. Indeed , Christian s d o no t figh t an d hav e n o worldly rulers among them . Their government i s a spiritual government, and , accordin g to th e Spirit , the y ar e subject s o f n o on e bu t Christ . Nevertheless , a s fa r a s body an d property ar e concerned , the y ar e subjec t t o worldl y ruler s an d ow e them obedience . I f worldly rulers call upon them to fight, then they ought to and must fight and be obedient, not as Christians, but a s members of the state and obedient subjects . Christians therefore do no t figh t a s individual s o r fo r thei r ow n benefit , bu t a s obedien t servant s o f th e authorities unde r whom they live. This is what S t Paul wrote to Titus when he said tha t Christians shoul d obe y the authorities [Titu s 3.1]. You may read more abou t thi s in my book Temporal Authority. IX. 10 That is the sum and substance of it. The office o f the sword is in itself right and i s a divine and usefu l ordinance , whic h God does no t wan t u s to despise , but t o fear , honour , an d obey, unde r penalt y o f punishments a s St Paul says in Roman s 13[.1-5 ] ... 218

WAR AN D PEAC E

IX. 11 Suppose that a people would rise up today or tomorrow and depose their lord or kill him. That certainl y could happe n i f God decrees that i t should, an d th e lords mus t expec t it. But that does not mea n that it is right and just for the people to do it. I have never known of a case in which this was a just action, and even now I cannot imagine any. The peasants who rebelled claime d that th e lords would no t allo w the gospel to be preached and tha t they robbed th e poo r peopl e and , therefore, the lords ha d to be overthrown. I answered this by saying that although the lords did wrong in this, it would no t therefor e be just or right to do wrong in return, that is, to be disobedient an d destroy God's ordinance, which is not our s to do. On the contrary, we ought to suffe r wrong , and i f a prince or lord will not tolerat e th e gospel , the n w e ough t t o g o int o anothe r real m wher e th e gospe l i s preached - a s Christ says in Matthew 10[.23] 'When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next.' IX. 12 It is only right that i f a prince, king, or lord become s insane , he should b e deposed an d put unde r restraint, for he is not t o be considered a man sinc e his reason is gone. 'That is true,' you say, 'and a raving tyrant is also insane; he is to be considered as even worse than an insane man, for he does much more harm.' It will be a little difficult fo r me to respond to that statement, fo r that argument seems very impressive and seems to be in agreement with justice and equity . Nevertheless, i t is my opinion tha t madmen an d tyrant s are no t the same . A madman ca n neithe r d o no r tolerat e anythin g reasonable , an d ther e i s n o hope for him because the light of reason ha s gone out. A tyrant, however, may do things that are far worse than the insane man does, but h e still knows that he is doing wrong. He still has a conscience and his faculties. There is also hope that he may improve and permit someone t o talk to him and instruct him an d follow this advice. We can never hope that an insane man will do this for he is like a clod or a stone. Furthermore, such conduct has bad results or sets a bad example. If it is considered right to murder or depose tyrants, the practice spreads and it becomes a commonplace thing arbitrarily to call men tyrants who are not tyrants , and eve n to kil l them i f the mob take s a notion t o d o so. The history of the Roma n peopl e show s u s ho w thi s ca n happen . The y kille d man y a fin e empero r simply because they did not like him or he did not d o what they wanted, that is, let them be lords and make him their fool. This happened to Galba, Pertinax, Gordian, Alexander, and others .

IX.13 We dare not encourag e th e mob ver y much. It goe s mad to o quickly ; and i t is better t o take te n ells from i t tha n t o allo w it a handsbreadth, o r eve n a fingersbreadt h i n suc h a case. And it is better fo r the tyrants to wrong them a hundred time s than fo r the mob t o treat the tyrant unjustly but once . If injustice is to be suffered, the n it is better for subjects to suffe r i t fro m their ruler s than fo r the ruler s to suffe r i t from thei r subjects. The mo b neither ha s any moderation no r eve n knows what moderation is . And every person i n it has mor e tha n fiv e tyrant s hidin g i n him . No w i t i s better t o suffe r wron g fro m on e tyrant, that is , from th e ruler, than fro m unnumbere d tyrants , that is , from the mob ... 219

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS IX. 14

My reason for saying this is that God says, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay' [Rom . 12.19]. He als o says , 'Judg e not ' [Matt . 7.1] . An d th e Ol d Testamen t strictl y an d frequentl y forbids cursin g rulers or speakin g evi l abou t them . Exodu s [22.28 ] says , 'Yo u shal l no t curse the prince of your people.' Paul, in 1 Timothy 2[.l-2], teaches Christians to pray for their rulers , etc. Solomo n i n Proverbs an d Ecclesiaste s repeatedly teache s us to obe y th e king an d b e subjec t t o him . No w n o on e ca n den y tha t whe n subject s se t themselve s against their rulers, they avenge themselves and mak e themselves judges. This is not onl y against th e ordinanc e an d comman d o f God , wh o reserve s to himsel f th e authorit y t o pass judgment an d administe r punishmen t i n thes e matters , bu t suc h action s ar e als o contrary t o al l natural la w and justice . This i s the meanin g o f th e proverbs , 'N o ma n ought t o judge his own case', and, 'Th e man wh o hits back i s in th e wrong.' IX. 15 Now perhaps you wil l say , 'How can anyon e possibl y endure all the injustic e tha t thes e tyrants inflict o n us ? You allow them too muc h opportunity t o be unjust, an d thus your teaching only makes them wors e and worse . Are we supposed t o permi t everyone' s wif e and child , body an d propert y t o b e so shamefully treate d an d alway s to be i n danger? If we have to liv e under thes e conditions, ho w can we ever begin to liv e a decent life? ' M y reply is this: M y teaching i s not intende d fo r peopl e lik e you who wan t t o d o whatever you thin k i s good an d wil l please you. G o ahead ! D o whateve r you want ! Kil l al l your lords! See what good it does you! My teaching i s intended only for those who would lik e to d o wha t i s right. T o thes e I say that ruler s ar e not t o b e opposed wit h violenc e an d rebellion, a s the Romans , the Greeks , the Swiss , and th e Dane s have done; rather , ther e are other way s of dealing with them . IX. 16 In the first place, if you see that the rulers think so little of their soul's salvatio n that they rage and do wrong, what does it matter to you if they ruin your property, body, wife, and child? They cannot hur t your soul, and they do themselves more harm tha n the y do you because they damn their own souls and that must resul t in the ruin of body and property. Do you thin k tha t yo u ar e no t alread y sufficiently avenged? IX. 17 In th e secon d place , wha t woul d yo u d o i f your ruler s were a t wa r an d no t onl y your goods an d wive s an d children , but yo u yourself were broken, imprisoned , burned , an d killed fo r you r lord' s sake ? Woul d yo u sla y your lor d fo r tha t reason ? Think o f al l th e good peopl e that Empero r Maximilian lost i n the wars that h e waged in his lifetime. N o one did anythin g to hi m because of it. And yet, if he had destroye d the m b y tyranny n o more cruel dee d would eve r have been heard of . Nevertheless, h e was the caus e of thei r death, for they were killed for his sake. What is the difference, then , between such a raging tyrant and a dangerous war as far as the many good and innocen t peopl e who perish in it are concerned ? Indeed , a wicked tyran t i s more tolerabl e tha n a bad war , a s you mus t admit fro m you r ow n reason an d experience . 220

WAR AN D PEAC E IX.18

I can easily believe that yo u would lik e to hav e peace and goo d times , bu t suppos e Go d prevents this by war or tyrants! Now, make up your mind whether you would rathe r have war or tyrants, fo r you are guilty enough t o hav e deserved both from God. However , we are the kind of people who want to be scoundrels and live in sin and yet we want to avoid the punishmen t o f sin, an d eve n resis t punishmen t an d defen d our skin . W e shall have about a s much succes s at that a s a dog has when h e tries to bit e throug h steel . IX. 19 In the third place , if the ruler s are wicked, what of it? God is still around, and h e has fire, water, iron , stone , an d countles s way s of killing. Ho w quickl y h e ca n kil l a tyrant ! H e would do it, too, bu t ou r sin s do not permi t it , for he says in Job [34.30], 'He permits a knave to rul e because of the people's sins.' We have no trouble seein g that a scoundrel is ruling. However, no one wants to see that h e is ruling not becaus e he is a scoundrel, bu t because of the people's sin. The people d o not loo k a t their ow n sin; the y think tha t th e tyrant rule s becaus e h e is such a scoundrel - tha t i s how blind, perverse , and mad the world is ! That i s why things happened th e way they did when the peasants revolted. They wanted to punish the sins of the rulers, as though the y themselves were pure and guiltless; therefore God had to show them the log in their eye so they would forget about th e speck in anothe r man' s eye [Matt. 7.3-5] ,

IX.20 In the fourth place , th e tyrants ru n th e risk that, by God's decree, their subjects may rise up, a s has been said , an d kil l them or expe l them. For here we are giving instruction t o those wh o want t o d o wha t i s right, and the y are very few. The great multitud e remai n heathen, godless , an d un-Christian ; an d these , i f Go d s o decrees , wrongfull y ris e u p against th e ruler s an d creat e disaster , a s th e Jew s an d Greek s an d Roman s ofte n did . Therefore yo u hav e no righ t t o complai n tha t ou r doctrin e give s the tyrant s an d ruler s security to d o evil ; on th e contrary , the y ar e certainly not secure . We teach, t o b e sure , that the y ought to be secure, whether they do good o r evil. However, we can neither giv e them thi s securit y no r guarante e i t fo r them , fo r w e canno t compe l th e multitud e t o follow our teachin g if God does not giv e us grace. We teach what we will, and th e worl d does what it wills. God must help, and we must teach those who are willing to do what is good an d righ t so that the y ma y help hol d th e multitude i n check. The lords are just as secure becaus e o f ou r teachin g a s the y woul d b e withou t it . Unfortunately , you r complaint i s unnecessary, since most o f the crowd does not liste n to us. The preservation of the ruler s whom Go d has appointed i s a matter tha t rest s with Go d and i n hi s hands alone. W e experienced thi s in the peasants' rebellion . Therefor e do no t b e misled by the wickedness o f the rulers ; their punishmen t an d disaster ar e nearer tha n you might wish. Dionysius, th e tyran t o f Syracuse , confessed that hi s lif e wa s like the lif e o f a man ove r whose head a sword hung by a silken thread and under whom a glowing fire was burning.

IX.21 In the fifth place, God has still another wa y to punish rulers , so that ther e is no need fo r you to avenge yourselves. He can raise up foreign rulers, as he raised up the Goths against the Romans , th e Assyrian s agains t th e Jews , etc . Thu s ther e i s vengeance, punishment , and danger enough hanging over tyrants and rulers, and God does not allo w them t o be 221

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

wicked and hav e peace and joy. He is right behind them ; indeed, he surrounds them an d has the m betwee n spur s an d unde r bridle . Thi s als o agree s wit h th e natura l la w tha t Christ teaches in Matthew 7[.12], 'Whatever you wish that me n would d o to you, do so to them.' Obviously, no father would want his own family to drive him out of the house , kill him, or ruin him because he had done things that were wrong, especially if his family did it maliciously and used force to avenge themselves without previously having brought charges against him before a higher authority. It ought to be just as wrong for any subject to treat hi s tyrant i n such a way ... IX.22 At thi s poin t I shal l hav e to paus e an d liste n t o m y critics , wh o cry , 'Se e here , i n m y opinion yo u ar e flatterin g th e princes . Ar e you no w creepin g to th e cros s an d seekin g pardon? Are you afraid? etc. ' I just let these bumblebees buzz and fly away. If anyone can do better, let him. I have not undertake n here to preach to the princes and lords. I think, too, tha t the y wil l no t b e ver y happ y t o receiv e thi s flatter y an d tha t I wil l no t hav e ingratiated myself with them, because it jeopardises their whole class, as you have heard. Besides, I have said often enoug h elsewhere, and i t is all too true , that the majority of the princes and lords are godless tyrants and enemies of God, who persecute the gospel. They are my ungracious lords and sirs, and I am not very concerned about that. But I do teach that everyone should know how to conduct himsel f in this matter of how he ought to act toward hi s overlord, an d shoul d d o wha t Go d ha s commanded him . Le t the lord s loo k out fo r themselves and stan d o n thei r own feet . Go d will not forge t th e tyrants and me n of high rank. God is able to deal with them, and he has done so since the beginning of the world. IX.23 Moreover, I do no t wan t anyon e to thin k that wha t I have written her e applies onl y t o peasants, a s though the y were the onl y ones o f lower ran k an d th e noble s wer e not als o subjects. No t a t all ! What I say about 'subjects ' i s intended fo r peasants , citizen s of th e cities, nobles , counts , an d prince s a s well. Fo r al l of thes e hav e overlord s an d ar e th e subjects of someone else . A rebellious noble, count, or prince should hav e his head cut off the same as a rebellious peasant . The one should be treated like the other, and no one will be treated unjustl y ... IX.24 A question: 'Suppos e my lord were wrong in going to war.' I reply: If you know for sure that he is wrong, then you should fea r Go d rather than men, Acts [5:29], and you shoul d neither fight nor serve , for you cannot have a good conscienc e before God . 'Oh, no,' you say, 'my lord would force me to do it; he would take away my fief and would not giv e me my money, pay , and wages. Besides, I would b e despised and pu t t o sham e as a coward, even worse, as a man who did not keep his word and deserted hi s lord i n need.' I answer: You mus t tak e tha t ris k and , wit h God' s help , le t whateve r happens , happen . H e ca n restore i t t o yo u a hundredfold , a s he promise s i n th e gospel , 'Whoever , leave s house , farm, wife , an d property , wil l receive a hundredfold', etc . [Matt . 19.29] . 222

WAR AN D PEAC E

IX.25 In every other occupatio n w e are also exposed to the danger that the rulers will compel us to ac t wrongly; but sinc e God will have us leave even fathe r an d mothe r fo r his sake, we must certainl y leav e lord s fo r hi s sake . Bu t i f yo u d o no t know , o r canno t fin d out , whether you r lord is wrong, you ought not to weaken certain obedienc e for the sake of an uncertain justice ; rather you should thin k th e best o f your lord, as is the wa y of love, for 'love believes all things' and 'does not thin k evil' , 1 Corinthians 13[.7] . So, then, you are secure and walk well before God. If they put yo u to shame or call you disloyal, it is better for Go d t o cal l yo u loya l an d honourabl e tha n fo r th e worl d t o cal l yo u loya l an d honourable. Wha t goo d woul d i t do you i f the world though t o f you a s a Solomon o r a Moses, an d i n God' s judgmen t yo u wer e considered a s bad a s Saul or Ahab ? IX.26 The (next) question: 'Ca n a soldier obligate himself to serve more than on e lord an d take wages or salar y from each?' Answer: I said above that gree d is wrong, whether in a goo d or an evil occupation. Agricultur e is certainly one of the best occupations ; nonetheless , a greedy farmer is wrong and i s condemned befor e God. So in this case to take wages is just and right , an d t o serv e fo r wage s is also right . Bu t gree d i s not right , eve n thoug h th e wages for the whole year were less than a gulden. Again, to take wages and serv e for them is right i n itself; it does not matter whether th e wages come fro m one , o r two, or three, or however man y lords, s o long a s your hereditary lord o r princ e is not deprive d of what is due hi m an d you r servic e to other s i s rendered wit h hi s will and consent . A craftsma n may sell his skill to anyone who will have it, and thus serve the one to whom he sells it, so long as this is not agains t his ruler and hi s community. I n the same way a soldier ha s his skill i n fightin g fro m Go d an d ca n us e i t i n th e servic e o f whoeve r desire s t o hav e it , exactly as though hi s skill were an art or trade, and h e can take pay for it as he would fo r his work. For the soldier's vocation als o springs from th e law of love. If anyone needs me and call s for me, I am at his service, and for this I take my wage or whatever is given me. This i s wha t S t Pau l say s i n 1 Corinthians 9[.7] . 'Wh o serve s a s a soldie r a t hi s ow n expense?' Thereb y Pau l approve s th e soldier' s righ t t o hi s salary . I f a princ e need s an d requires another' s subjec t fo r fighting , th e subject , wit h hi s ow n prince' s consen t an d knowledge, ma y serve and tak e pa y for it . CRITIQUE Perhaps of all Luther's writings, those o n war and rebellio n hav e been subjecte d to som e of the mos t sever e criticism (hi s views on th e Jew s in Tex t X V did no t receiv e the sam e publicity when published) : (a) War. Luther showed none of the abstractness of Aquinas on war. His writings show that he was well aware of some of the mora l dilemmas an d th e sufferin g tha t wa r brings, particularly t o non-combatants , wome n an d children (IX.2) . Nonetheless, h e articulated none of the safeguards that Aquinas and, before him, Augustine, maintained in a just-war theory. If , i n th e ligh t o f moder n warfare , Aquinas ' theor y i s judge d deficient , the n Luther's writings must be judged to be even more deficient. Rulers were, indeed, warned of God's judgemen t (IX.19 ) and o f the socia l insecurit y of their positio n (IX.20-1) , bu t they were given little advic e on ho w they were to determin e whethe r o r no t i t would b e right t o wag e war. O n th e othe r hand , individua l conscienc e wa s allowed ver y clearly (IX.25) an d Luthe r di d attemp t t o com e t o term s wit h Matthe w 5.3 9 (althoug h man y

223

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

today might reject his exegesis). Again, the professional soldier fighting for more than on e ruler wa s lef t wit h fe w guidelines, othe r tha n a prescriptio n agains t gree d (IX.26) . Few medieval scholastic s approved o f mercenaries (se e Frederick H. Russell , Th e Just Wa r i n the Middle Ages, 1975, p. 277), but Luther , superficially at least, appeare d t o giv e them a degree o f legitimation . (b) Rebellion. I t i s interesting t o debat e ho w fa r a Luthera n like Bonhoeffe r actuall y adhered to Luther's requirement tha t only insanity allowed one to depose a ruler. Did he regard Hitler as insane when he became involved in his attempted assassination , or did he reject Luthe r at this point? There is obviously no way of answering thi s question. In any case, i t highlight s th e difficult y o f followin g Luthe r literall y - a difficult y tha t i s particularly poignan t i n th e socia l contex t o f Bonin o (Extrac t 19 ) or Mirand a (Extrac t 13). Eve n thoug h Luthe r di d no t inten d t o flatte r ruler s (IX.22-3) , hi s positio n di d require subjects to be remarkably subservient to them — dangerously subservient, as many might fee l today .

224

EXTRACTS 15-2 0

WELTY, RAMSEY , AMERICAN BISHOPS, HAUERWAS, BONIN G AN D O'DONOVA N 1. BACKGROUND Eberhard Welty' s Extrac t 1 5 comes fro m A Handbook o f Christian Social Ethics, Vol. 2 (Nelson, 1963 , pp. 408-15 and 417-21, trans. Grego r Kirstein and rev . John Fitzsimons); Paul Ramsey's Extract 1 6 comes fro m Wh o Speaks fo r th e Church? A Critique of th e 1966 Geneva Conference o n Church an d Society (Abingdon , 1967 , pp. 113-1 6 and 152-7) ; th e US Catholic Bishops ' Extrac t 1 7 comes fro m Th e Challenge o f Peace: God's Promise an d Our Response: A Pastoral Letter o n Wa r an d Peace (Nationa l Conferenc e o f Catholi c Bishops, Washington DC , and CTS/SPCK, 3 May 1983, paras 85-121, 331-3 an d 338-9); Stanley Hauerwas' Extract 1 8 comes from 'Pacifism : Some Philosophical Considerations' , Faith an d Philosophy (Vol . 2 , No . 2 , Apri l 1985 , pp . 99-104) ; Jos e Migue z Bonino' s Extract 1 9 comes fro m hi s Revolutionary Theology Comes o f Age (SPCK, 1975, pp . 107-9 , 110-12, 112-1 4 and 114-18 ; American title, Doing Theology i n a Revolutionary Situation, Fortress, 1975) ; an d Olive r O'Donovan' s Extrac t 2 0 come s fro m hi s Th e Just Wa r Revisited (Cambridg e Universit y Press, 2003 , pp. 42-7) . The Dominica n Welty' s Handbook wa s publishe d originall y i n Freibur g i n tw o volumes, wit h th e titl e Herders Sozialkatechismus: Grundfragen un d Grundrafte de s sozialen Lebens i n 195 2 (henc e th e focu s give n t o Piu s XII) . I t expresse s clearl y a traditionalist Roma n Catholi c approac h t o mora l issues . Frequen t us e is made o f papal pronouncements i n th e Handbook an d Welt y explains that , 'th e quotation s fro m papa l documents ar e intended primaril y as verifications of the actual answers given'. However, he als o explain s that , 'th e us e o f th e ter m "Handbook " doe s no t impl y tha t i t i s authoritative, but rathe r refer s to the method of question an d answer that has been used' (p. xvi) . Paul Ramse y (1913-88) wrot e Wh o Speaks fo r th e Church? as a direct resul t o f being a n observe r a t th e 196 6 WCC Conferenc e on Churc h an d Societ y in Genev a at a time o f considerable politica l ferment . He was then Harringto n Spea r Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University - servin g in the faculty from 194 4 until his retirement in 1982. Among his many books wer e Basic Christian Ethics (1951), Nine Modern Moralists (1962) an d Deeds an d Rules i n Christian Ethics (1965) . A much mor e radica l stanc e i s taken by the U S Catholic Bishop s in their now famou s Pastoral Letter on War and Peace. They followe d thi s lette r i n 198 6 wit h Economic Justice fo r All: A Pastoral Letter o n Catholic Social Teaching and th e US Economy, and i n 198 8 with Building Peace: A Pastoral Reflection o n th e Response t o Th e Challenge o f Peace. David Hollenbac h (se e Extract 14 ) was an influenc e upon th e Bishop s here. Stanle y Hauerwas , a Methodist layperso n an d professor o f theology a t Duk e University, is one o f the mos t prolifi c writer s in Christia n ethics today . Amon g hi s man y book s ar e Vision an d Virtue (1974) , Character an d Christian Life (1975) , A Community o f Character (1981), Th e Peaceable Kingdom (1983), Against th e Nations (1985), Suffering Presence (1986) , Naming th e Silences (1990) , After 225

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

Christendom (1991) , Dispatches from the Front (1995), and With the Grain of the Universe (2002). Bonino , a n Argentinea n Methodist , present s a radica l alternativ e fro m th e perspective o f liberation theology . H e was , until 1985 , Dea n o f Postgraduat e Studie s of the Highe r Evangelica l Institut e fo r Theologica l Studie s i n Bueno s Aires . Olive r O'Donovan i s an Anglican priest and Professor of Moral and Pastora l Theology at Oxfor d and the n Edinburg h University . I n Th e Just Wa r Revisited h e show s th e considerabl e influence of his late supervisor, Pau l Ramsey - bot h evangelical theologians explorin g the complexities o f just-wa r theor y i n relatio n t o contemporar y war s an d criticizin g th e simplistic rhetori c o f churc h leaders . Writin g i n th e month s jus t befor e th e Ira q War , O'Donovan contrast s hi s ow n ambiguit y abou t it s legitimac y wit h 'al l th e prephesi c voices raised with perfect foreknowledg e around me' (p. 127) , and deliberately depicts his own positio n a s being 'withou t authority ' (cf . Extract 16) . Amon g hi s othe r book s ar e Resurrection an d Moral Order (1986) , Peace and Certainty (1989) , Th e Desire o f Nations (1996), an d Common Objects o f Love (2002) . 2. KE Y ISSUES Welty respond s t o thre e question s i n a style very reminiscent o f the scholasti c metho d adopted b y Aquinas in Summa Theological (i ) I s war o f aggression lawful ? H e maintain s that i t neve r i s (15.1) , bu t admit s tha t i t ma y b e difficul t t o decid e whethe r o r no t a particular wa r i s a wa r o f aggressio n o r o f defence : it i s not eve n necessaril y th e Stat e which open s hostilitie s tha t i s the aggresso r (15.3) . Th e destructiveness o f modern war s presents particular moral problems (15.5) , as do the use of nuclear weapons as deterrents (15.8-11). (ii) Is defensive war lawful? Fo r Welty, self-defence o f both the individua l and the Stat e ar e legitimate , o n conditio n tha t just-wa r criteri a ar e applie d (15.12-15) . However, thi s doe s no t justif y preventiv e war s (15.16 ) o r ruthles s destructio n (15.17) . (iii) Can a war of liberation be permissible? He maintains that i t can be in the instance of individual nation s unjustl y occupied an d rule d b y another (15.20-1) . In the instanc e of world imperialism, a war of liberation may also be legitimate (15.26), but onl y if there is a prospect o f defeatin g thi s imperialis m (15.28) . However , th e appallin g sacrific e o f lif e involved i n suc h a war raises seriou s moral problem s (15.29-31) . Ramsey criticize s th e positio n o f th e Christia n ethicis t Helmu t Gollwitze r - the n influential i n th e Worl d Counci l o f Churches . H e argue s tha t Gollwitzer' s nuclea r pacifism risk s turnin g th e Churc h int o a sec t (16.1-2 ) an d tha t i n effec t i t destroy s deterrence (16.4) . Nuclea r deterrenc e depend s upo n a credibl e belie f tha t on e migh t actually us e a nuclea r weapo n (16.5) . I f usin g suc h weapon s i s inherentl y evil , the n threatening t o us e the m i s also evi l and , thus , deterrenc e base d upo n the m i s also evi l (16.7). Ramse y believe s tha t i t i s no t th e Church' s busines s t o b e recommendin g o r condemning suc h specific policie s (16.7-9). Churches should b e concerned wit h general perspectives, not with specific policie s - churche s are neither politician s no r magistrates (16.10-12). There is a danger of churches attempting to build u p a consensus establishe d through positio n paper s o n particula r policie s - a misleadin g approac h fo r churches (16.14-15). Instead, Protestant churche s ought constantl y t o re-examin e all ecclesiastical pronouncements (16.16) . Churche s nee d t o be reminde d tha t the y ar e communities i n which anyone may have something significan t t o sa y even against a prevailing consensu s (16.9). Ther e i s a nee d fo r orde r an d responsibl e politica l powe r withou t churche s attempting t o dictat e specifi c politica l policie s (16.22-5) . The U S Bishop s argu e tha t nuclea r weapon s presen t ver y seriou s problem s fo r 226

WAR AN D PEAC E

traditional just-war theory and emphasize the urgent need for peacemaking. Within justwar theory , th e notio n o f 'competen t authority ' i s considerabl y complicate d bot h b y American politic s an d by revolutionary situation s (17.4-6) . The notion of'comparativ e justice' stresse s tha t n o natio n ha s 'absolute justice ' o n its side - moder n propagand a makes thi s particularl y problemati c (17.8-10) . 'Righ t intention ' an d 'las t resort ' als o present problems i n a nuclear age (17.11-13), as do notions of'probabilit y of success' and 'proportionality' (17.14-16) . Justic e withi n warfar e (ius i n bello) demand s a specifi c concern fo r both 'proportionality' and 'discrimination'. Both of these are problematic i n a nuclear ag e - eve n though 'conventional ' weapon s are also deeply destructiv e (17.17 21). Th e nuclear arm s rac e raise s especia l problem s - e.g . exorbitan t costs , increasin g insecurity, possibility of accidents, destruction of non-combatants, etc . (17.22-6). In view of all of this, the Bishop s stress the value of non-violence, relatin g this to the teaching of Jesus, Justin, Cyprian, Franci s of Assisi and other s (17.27-33) . They reaffir m Vatica n II's call for the legal protection o f conscientious objectio n an d a presumption agains t the use offeree a s a means of settling disputes (17.34-6) . Finally, they emphasize their own rol e as pastors not politicians, while still believing that their country is wrong to be producing ever more destructive weapons (17.38-9) : for them peacemaking is a requirement of faith in Chris t (17.40-2) . Even thoug h hi s pape r addresse s a n audienc e o f (Christian ) philosophers , Stanle y Hauerwas insists tha t Christia n non-resistanc e i s essentially a theological position, base d upon a belief that Go d wills to rul e creation no t throug h violenc e an d coercio n bu t b y love (18.1-3). Hauerwas does us e the ter m 'pacifism' , albei t reluctantl y and stressin g its theological root s (18.4) . Examinin g the criticis m tha t pacifist s abando n thei r responsi bility t o car e fo r an d protec t thei r neighbours , h e argue s instea d tha t Christian s ar e obliged t o lov e bot h thos e attacke d an d thei r attacker s (18.5-6) . H e criticize s just-war theories based upon individua l analogies of protecting the innocent (18.7-9 ) and stresses that pacifis m i s a commitment t o a way of living close to a n ethi c o f virtue (18.10-13). However much this might disturb philosophers, fo r Hauerwas pacifism i s not based upo n some genera l trut h abou t humanity , bu t rathe r upo n a particularisti c belie f i n Jesus ' Kingdom of God (18.15-19). He concludes by rejecting a position which regards violence as an essentia l par t o f a state (18.20-1) . Liberation theology, reflecte d her e in Bonino, has often bee n criticized in the West for its tacit, and sometime s explicit , support o f violence in the caus e of political revolution . In fact , liberatio n theologian s ar e themselve s a s divide d a s othe r Christian s i n thei r preparedness to sanction the use of violence (although all tend t o point ou t tha t violence is alread y inheren t i n government s o f oppression) . Bonino' s discussio n o f 'love ' an d 'peace' forms a particularly striking contrast t o the other Extracts . He begins by claiming that Marxis t theor y i s ofte n misunderstoo d b y Christians , wh o ten d t o se e i t a s to o materialistic an d ignor e th e fac t tha t th e biblica l understandin g o f humanit y i s materialistic (19.1-2) . He sees an affinit y betwee n th e Marxis t concept o f alienation an d the Pauline dichotomy betwee n works and fait h (19.3) : the biblical concept o f 'the poor' is also illuminate d b y Marxism, althoug h th e latter' s concep t o f th e proletaria n clas s is scientific and theoretical, whereas the former's i s not (19.4-5) . Further, 'love ' in the New Testament i s inextricably connected wit h socio-structura l concepts (19.6) . Peac e can be understood i n tw o ways . I n th e first , i t i s relate d t o a convictio n tha t th e universe is rational an d ordere d an d tha t violenc e threaten s t o distur b a divinel y appointed orde r and, in the second, i t is set in the context o f humanity as liberator an d creator, who must 227

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

use some violence against the status quo (19.7-9) . For the first, peace is seen as order an d lack of conflict, whereas , for the second , peace is dynamic and propheti c and sometime s necessitates conflict (19.10) . The biblical notion i s less concerned with abstract principles than with God's concrete acts and commands, wherein violence appears as a breaking out of unfre e an d unliberate d condition s (19.11-12) . Thi s whol e understandin g mus t b e related to th e ne w humanity made know n i n Jesus Chris t (19.13) . O'Donovan argue s tha t 'discrimination ' i n just-wa r theor y i s concerne d wit h th e primary intentio n no t t o attac k non-combatant s directl y (20.1-3) . Usin g the notio n of double-effect, h e argues that damage to non-combatants may sometimes be foreseen, but it mus t b e avoide d i f possible an d shoul d no t intende d (20.4-7) . Thi s applie s t o bot h those attackin g and those bein g attacked - i n some recen t insurgencie s non-combatant s have deliberatel y bee n use d a s 'hostag e shields ' (20.8-9) . O'Donova n believe s tha t we have a specifi c huma n dut y t o discriminat e carefull y i n wa r an d 't o respec t th e limit s which Go d sets upo n ou r invasio n o f other people' s lives ' (20.10) . 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS Welty, Ramse y and O'Donova n stan d firml y withi n a deontologica l just-wa r position. However, ther e i s also considerabl e evidenc e of pragmatism an d consequentia l type s of ethical argumen t i n Welt y - internationa l tribunal s ar e to b e use d a s moral arbiter s (15.3), the dimension s o f modern warfar e ar e considered t o affec t thei r moralit y (15.5) , the risk s o f nuclea r weapon s ar e assesse d consequentiall y (15.8 ) and , abov e all , th e prospect o f successfu l victor y is treated a s a central and essentia l criterion o f a just war (15.12, 18 , 2 8 an d 30—1) . Ramsey , i n contrast , i s suspiciou s o f attempt s t o establis h theological consensus (16.14) and remind s churches o f the significanc e of lone voices of protest (16.19) . And O'Donovan contrast s the consequentialism of'proportion' wit h the deonotology of discrimination (20.2) . The U S Bishops , Hauerwa s an d Bonin o al l demonstrat e basi c deontologica l commitments - th e first to non-violence (thoug h not necessarily, in all of its members, to thoroughgoin g pacifism) , th e secon d t o a radica l understandin g o f th e Kingdo m of God in the teachin g of Jesus, and th e thir d t o th e poo r an d oppressed . Clearly , Bonino shares the same basic commitment a s Miranda in Extract 13 - 'solidarit y with the poor' (19.5). Eve n hi s relatively impartial analysis of the two concepts of'peace ' link s the idea of 'liberation ' with that o f 'creation' itself . 4. BASES O F CHRISTIAN ETHICS Welty an d th e U S Bishops' dependenc e upo n Roma n Catholi c traditio n i s apparent a t every poin t i n thei r arguments , despit e th e fac t tha t the y reac h rathe r differen t conclusions. Welty' s Handbook i s punctuated throughout with long excerpts from papa l pronouncements (as in 15.2. , but reduce d fo r brevity elsewhere i n this Extract), yet with comparatively few biblical references (e.g . 15.13) . Th e US Bishops, in contrast, conclud e with a long quotation fro m Revelatio n 21 (again omitted her e for brevity) and punctuat e their argument s with both biblica l an d papa l quotations . The writings of Ramsey, Hauerwas and O'Donovan frequentl y contain biblical exegesis - althoug h the Extracts here might suggest otherwise i f taken in isolation. Althoug h the stances on war of Ramsey and O'Donovan, on the one hand and Hauerwas, on the other , are radicall y opposed , the y shar e a Reforme d suspicion o f ecclesiastica l consensus . I f Ramsey was deeply at odds with man y other theologian s i n his support o f the Vietnam 228

WAR AN D PEACE

War, a s i s O'Donova n i n hi s (albei t ambiguous ) suppor t o f th e Gul f an d Ira q Wars , Hauerwas' radica l Christia n pacifis m ha s continue d t o separat e him fro m man y othe r Christian ethicists . I n thi s sense , al l three ar e independent Christia n ethicists . Bonino too tends to be critical in his citation of tradition - fo r example, in his analysis of the two theological understanding s of'peace' (19.10) . Even his direct quotation fro m Earth - importan t a s it undoubtedly was in the light of Earth's personal commitment to socialism - i s selective . I n Bart h ther e wa s a muc h stronge r sens e o f obedienc e t o appointed power s (see Extract 8). However, as in Miranda, it is the Bibl e that is the basic authority i n Bonino . Bot h men believ e that a correlation ca n be mad e between certai n fundamental Marxis t concept s an d biblica l concepts . Mirand a seek s t o achiev e thi s correlation by a detailed citation of particular biblical texts, whereas Bonino tends, rather, to refer to general biblical notions, such as that of the Kingdom of God (19.6 and 11 ) an d that o f poverty (19.4) . 5. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS Welty, O'Donova n an d Ramse y confor m t o church-typ e response s t o war . Welly' s Handbook i s concerned throughou t t o accor d with traditional Roman Catholic teaching (as his frequent citatio n o f papal pronouncements indicates). O'Donovan ha s articulated his understanding of Church and Stat e most clearly in Th e Desire of Nations (1996). And, despite its radically Protestant stance, Ramsey's Who Speaks for th e Church? has frequentl y been cite d b y thos e opposin g direc t politica l involvemen t b y churches . I n contrast , Hauerwas ha s o n severa l occasion s bee n accuse d o f 'sectarianism ' ( a charg e which h e strenuously resists). His radica l rejectio n o f a 'commo n rationality' , hi s 'particularistic ' stress upo n Christia n communitie s i n formin g Christia n virtue s (18.19) , an d eve n hi s phrase 'residen t aliens ' depictin g Christians in the moder n world , have all been cite d as evidence of his sectarianism. Although seldo m depicte d a s 'sectarian' , th e U S Catholi c Bishop s cause d a considerable sti r wit h thei r Pastora l Letters . Critic s argue d tha t the y ha d bee n to o influenced b y their socia l contex t i n th e Unite d States , pointing ou t tha t severa l of th e Bishops had in the 1960 s been actively involved in peace protests. The politico-economic frustrations o f Sout h Americ a are als o eviden t i n Bonin o (see above, p. 149) . Bonino's position i s somewhat ambiguous, reflecting som e of the tensions on thi s issue present in the movement . 6. SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE Several of the Extract s in this Section can clai m to b e highly influential. Th e Challenge of Peace wa s discusse d ver y widel y indee d i n th e 1980s . Writin g i n 198 8 th e Bishop s reported that : in diocese s an d parishes , th e lette r launche d a n unprecedente d proces s o f prayer , preaching, education , reflection , discussio n an d actio n .. . I n man y o f ou r schools , colleges an d universitie s th e messag e o f th e lette r ha s bee n integrate d int o courses , conferences an d curricula . In secula r college s an d universities , in researc h institute s and i n th e specialise d literature on nuclea r issues, Th e Challenge o f Peace is used on a frequent basis . (Building Peace, p. 4 )

229

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

It has already been noted tha t Ramsey's Who Speaks fo r th e Church? has also been widely cited within churches. Since the death of Paul Ramsey, Stanley Hauerwas has become one of the most widely cited Christian ethicists in the United States. However, neither of them can clai m th e sor t o f politica l influenc e o f Reinhol d Niebuh r - indeed , Hauerwas ' radically theologica l stanc e probabl y preclude s suc h influenc e (i n hi s Giffor d Lectures , With th e Grain o f th e Universe (2001) , he i s also highly critical of Niebuhr) . FURTHER READING An extensiv e literatur e ha s analyse d Th e Challenge o f Peace, includin g th e following : Philip J . Murnion (ed.) , Catholics an d Nuclear War: A Commentary on Th e Challenge of Peace (1983) ; Judith A. Dwyer (ed.) , Th e Catholic Bishops an d Nuclear War: A Critique and Analysis o f th e Pastoral: Th e Challenge o f Peace (1984) ; Dea n C . Curr y (ed.) , Evangelicals and the Bishops' Pastoral Letter (1984). Liberation theology is still developing, but th e readers edited by Alistair Kee, A Reader in Political Theology (1974 ) and Th e Scope of Political Theology (1978) , ar e usefu l guide s t o som e o f th e differen t approache s apparent within it. However , his Marx an d th e Failure o f Liberation Theology (1990 ) i s a major critiqu e o f th e sam e theology . M y ow n Churchgoing an d Christian Ethics (1999) offers a critical analysis of Hauerwas' work .

EXTRACT 1 5 WELTY Wars o f aggression an d defence Is war of aggression lawful? 15.1 'War o f aggression, no matte r o n wha t ground s i t i s waged, today mus t b e considere d immoral an d b e rejected. '

15.2 PIUS XII (C.B., 1944 : N.C.W.C., pp . 10-11) . There i s a duty , besides , impose d o n all , a dut y whic h brook s n o delay , n o procrastination, n o hesitation , n o subterfuge . It i s a duty t o d o everythin g to ba n onc e and fo r al l wars of aggression a s a legitimate solution of international dispute s an d a s a means towards realising national aspirations . Man y attempts i n this direction hav e been seen in the past . They have all failed. And they will all fail always , until the sane r sectio n of mankin d ha s th e fir m determination , th e hol y obstinacy , lik e a n obligatio n i n conscience, t o fulfi l th e missio n whic h pas t age s hav e no t undertake n wit h sufficien t gravity and resolution . If ever a generation ha s had t o appreciat e in the depths of its conscience the call: 'war on war', it is certainly the present generatio n ... Unquestionably th e progres s o f man' s inventions , whic h shoul d hav e heralde d th e realisation of greater well-being for all mankind, has instead been employed t o destroy all that ha d been buil t u p throug h th e ages . But by that very fact th e immorality of the war of aggression has been mad e ever more evident. 230

WAR AN D PEAC E

15.3 (i.) I t i s difficul t t o stat e exactl y which war s shoul d b e considere d war s o f aggression. Wars o f aggressio n ar e no t confine d t o unjust , wilfu l attacks , fo r the y ma y hav e just causes, suc h a s th e infringemen t o r th e denia l o f essentia l rights . Thos e wh o ope n hostilities canno t i n ever y case be describe d a s the aggressors , for a State or a group of States may be forced int o a situation when it has to anticipate the attack of the opponent . It i s simplest t o conside r a s a war o f aggressio n one tha t i s declared t o b e suc h b y a n international tribunal . Bu t this definition is strictly speaking of a merely formal nature; it states nothin g concernin g th e tru e natur e o f wa r o f aggression . Nevertheless , i f th e tribunal fulfil s al l the condition s fo r a reall y unbiased an d objectiv e judgment, the n it s decisions must be recognised as valid and be obeyed by all States and by the community of nations. This seems the only practical solution. In view of the new situation today there would seem t o be only one way of defining war of aggression; we must proceed from its opposite and say that today every war that is not force d o n States or on the community of nations i n order t o protec t themselve s and thei r mos t sacre d right s must be considered one of aggression. Thus we distinguish between the lawful, tha t is, the just war of defence and th e unlawfu l wa r of aggression (n o matte r o n wha t grounds i t i s fought) . 15.4 Most Catholi c moralist s wh o hav e expresse d a n opinio n o n th e matte r agre e i n unreservedly condemning ever y modern wa r of aggression ... The greatest difficulty lie s in th e questio n whethe r th e so-calle d 'wa r o f liberation ' i s t o b e considere d a wa r o f aggression o r o f defence. 15.5 (ii.) Th e reason s fo r the immoralit y of a war o f aggression lie in th e essentia l nature of modern warfare. The convulsions, losses and dangers are out of all proportion t o the gain which a war of aggression may achieve. Of special consequence are: i. the terrible sacrific e and destruction o n ever y side caused by weapons of destruction i n a modern war ; losses among the civilia n population, a s witness Hiroshima, Dresden , and Korea ; the deca y of morality; ii . th e menac e t o worl d peace ; ever y region toda y eve n i n th e mos t remot e corner o f th e eart h lie s within th e spher e o f interes t o f th e fe w big powers ; th e mos t senseless loca l conflict ca n easil y develo p int o a worl d war . Eve n before a n organise d community o f nations ha s been formed , the State s are obliged i n justice and charit y t o preserve the commo n goo d o f mankind fro m bein g gravely endangered. 15.6 (iii.) With the banning of wars of aggression States and nation s are called on not onl y to refrain fro m al l war of conquest, but even patiently to endure injustice rather than to seek redress b y force . Fo r i t canno t b e maintaine d tha t th e customar y internationa l provocations constitute an extreme case of self-defence whic h alone may still justify war. 15.7 (iv.) Th e questio n whether , an d t o wha t extent , moder n weapon s ar e controllabl e o r uncontrollable i s on e o f fac t tha t ca n b e answere d onl y b y th e experts . Scientist s ar e working with succes s on th e productio n o f 'clean' bombs, th e effect s an d after-effect s o f which coul d b e controlled . 231

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

15.8

It is irresponsible and morally wrong to neglect the production o f conventional weapons and to restrict rearmamen t to nuclear weapons 'as a deterrent'; for the risk is that, when nuclear weapons are the onl y means of defence, States will be compelled t o us e them i n order t o repe l an attack even by conventional weapons .

15.9 The decisive factor i s not th e scientifi c an d technical but th e 'moral' control. Wha t is to be defende d must stan d i n som e relatio n t o th e inevitabl e evi l and losses . I f the othe r conditions for waging just war are fulfilled, eve n unusually great damage can be justified. 15.10 We must distinguis h between the mora l justification o f nuclear war and tha t o f nuclear weapons. I t i s quite possible tha t certai n types of nuclear weapons ma y be controllabl e and henc e thei r employmen t justifie d fo r reason s o f defenc e an d o n th e condition s already mentioned . Bu t a nuclea r wa r canno t b e justifie d if , an d because , i t i s no t restricted t o thes e weapons , bu t include s th e us e o f all , eve n uncontrollable , nuclea r weapons. 15.11 States ar e strictl y obliged: i . t o agre e to effectiv e measure s o f control , tha t i s t o allo w independent inspectio n o f thei r ow n territor y fo r thi s purpose ; ii . t o mak e timel y provision fo r extensiv e measures o f air-rai d protection , s o tha t a s fa r a s possibl e th e danger to the population may be reduced; according to the latest scientific investigation s a very considerable reduction o f this danger is possible, though a t grea t financia l cost . Is defensive war lawful? 15.12 'A purely defensive wa r i s lawful eve n today unde r th e followin g conditions: (i). There mus t be an unjust , actual attack that canno t otherwis e be met . (ii). The aggressor must no t b e harmed mor e than i s necessary. (iii). Th e defenc e mus t hav e a prospec t o f success , an d n o highe r good s mus t b e jeopardised tha n those which have to b e defended. '

15.13 Catholic moralist s ar e practically unanimous o n thi s issu e ... The right of self-defenc e exists not onl y for the individual, but als o for nations an d States . For brute forc e woul d otherwise be placed above right, and predatory war and armed aggression would have to be regarded as 'just'. In certain circumstances the State is even more obliged to resist than the individua l who ma y be responsibl e onl y fo r hi s own lif e an d conduct , whereas th e State is entrusted with the protection of many individuals and groups, especially families, of goods and values such as justice, tradition, civilisation. Moreover, i t ought in the name of God to protect th e sanctity of the moral order i n the world against injustice and harm (cf. Rom. 13.4) . The conditions tha t apply to any just self-defence mus t be applied correspondingly t o defensive war: 232

WAR AN D PEAC E 15.14

(i.) Defenc e i n the for m o f armed resistance , which may involv e heavy sacrifices i n live s and property , is only permissible if an unjust attac k is threatening or already in progress, and i f all other mean s have been tried; i n short, i t must be a case of the ultimat e resort .

15.15 What is essential i s that th e aggressor must be in the wrong, the defender in the right. A State tha t i s attacked becaus e of an injustic e which it ha s itsel f committed an d ha s no t made good, must bow to the justice that is meted ou t to it. Pius XII expressly stated that there ar e som e huma n value s whic h woul d justif y a defensiv e wa r eve n today . Suc h human value s ar e th e existenc e o f a n ordere d politica l communit y an d man' s fundamental right s an d libertie s an d especiall y Christia n fait h an d morality . Befor e arms ar e take n u p al l other solution s mus t hav e been tried . Defensiv e wa r i s only a n ultima ratio, a last resort, if neither negotiations nor threat s nor th e intervention of other powers o r o f th e communit y o f nation s ar e successful . Aggressio n must b e actual ; th e State must be 'threatened with an unjust aggression , or already its victim' (Pius XII). Like an individual , th e Stat e nee d no t wai t unti l i t i s to o late ; 'actuality ' exist s whe n i t i s morally certain that the aggressor is making final preparations fo r an attack and does no t desist in spite of sufficient warning ; usual indications are troop concentrations; suddenl y increased pres s campaigns which suggests that a fittin g caus e for wa r i s being invented etc. 15.16 It follow s fro m wha t ha s bee n sai d tha t so-calle d preventiv e wa r i s not permissible . A preventive war is waged i n orde r t o war d of f a later, possible , perhap s probabl e attack . There is reason, or so it is thought, to fea r that a State is preparing for war and will in the near futur e begi n the wa r as soon a s a favourable opportunity present s itself . 15.17 (ii.) T o defend, t o repel , ought no t t o impl y ruthless destruction. Self-defenc e doe s no t entitle on e to ruthles s severity. Modern wa r in itself is hard an d crue l enough. The on e who ha s been unjustl y attacked mus t d o wha t h e ca n t o en d th e conflic t a s quickly as possible an d no t t o inflic t mor e wound s o n th e opponen t tha n i s necessary. 15.18 (iii.) Th e third conditio n i s that ther e must b e a prospect o f success, a solid probabilit y (Pius XII, C.B. 1948,1.U.A., p. 96) that the defence will succeed in repelling the aggressor. The defenders may not jeopardise higher values in order to sav e lesser ones. Precisel y in the cas e of a war of defence i t is often difficul t t o forese e success , since the Stat e attacked must ofte n ac t with the utmost spee d .. . Can a war of liberation be permissible?

15.19 'If i t i s of defensive , not o f aggressive character, a war o f liberation i s permissible an d perhaps even a duty.' This is one of the most delicate questions in the whole ethics of war. By wa r o f liberation , includin g wha t i s calle d wa r o f invasion , i s mean t on e tha t i s undertaken i n order to liberate countries from unjus t foreig n rul e or occupation, or fro m 233

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

an extremel y grav e menace . I n som e case s i t ma y resembl e a wa r o f aggressio n o r a preventive war , since it i s begun i n orde r t o driv e out a foreig n power , or t o preven t i t from continuin g th e menace . I s suc h a wa r o f liberatio n t o b e considere d a wa r o f aggression o r a preventiv e war ? Th e questio n ha s t o b e answered ; fo r th e totalitaria n powers are not onl y causing widespread confusion by their completely unjust claims and methods, bu t als o materia l an d eve n worse intellectua l an d mora l misery . Ma y the fre e world tur n th e col d int o a ho t wa r i f ther e i s n o othe r wa y ou t tha n slavery ? Tw o possibilities wil l be dealt wit h here: The liberation of individual nations 15.20 (i.) Le t u s suppos e tha t a countr y i s unjustl y occupie d an d rule d b y another . Th e occupation ma y take place in th e cours e o f an unjus t wa r or fo r preventive reasons (for the 'protectio n of neutrality'); authority is exercised without an y consideration fo r right and justice : terror , suppressio n o f th e nation' s individualit y an d self-government , political partie s tha t ar e subservien t t o foreig n dictator s an d parties , denia l o f huma n rights, suppression o f liberty, etc .

15.21 (ii.) Such a situation is clearly unjust; i t is a continuous aggressio n against th e nation, its existence, honour an d most sacre d rights. The methods o f such a 'system' or occupatio n are in fac t no t differen t fro m unjus t militar y attacks . Certainl y th e principle s governin g just resistanc e t o th e Stat e apply; for this i s a matter o f foreign interference , of usurper s invading foreign territor y an d coercin g a foreign nation . Therefore it i s clearly a case of self-defence agains t actual, unjus t aggression . 15.22 The sens e o f mutual dependenc e amon g th e nation s ough t t o suppor t th e struggl e for liberation o f a people subjugate d in this manner. Th e common goo d o f the whole world may be involved; and apar t fro m thi s there exists an obligation o f the nations an d state s to help . The war of liberation for peace and freedom in the world 15.23 (i.) Le t u s suppos e tha t totalitaria n power , completel y materialis t i n outloo k an d consciously atheistic , i n theor y an d practic e professe s worl d imperialism . Thi s grea t power ha s suc h enormou s resource s i n powe r an d s o man y powerfu l supporter s i n satellite States and amon g its allies and follower s i n other countries that it constitutes th e world danger. Its ideological basis is a ruthless collectivism recognising no human dignity and rights . W e ar e awar e tha t thi s grea t powe r disturb s worl d peac e whereve r an d whenever i t can , an d wit h al l it s strengt h i s preparin g a n arme d struggl e fo r worl d domination; tha t whereve r it ha s establishe d it s rule , th e peopl e ar e forcibl y robbe d o f their mos t sacre d right s by oppression an d terror ; educatio n o f youth t o atheism ; fight against God , Chris t an d th e Church ; uniformity of thinking, absenc e o f any legal orde r and security .

234

WAR AN D PEAC E

15.24 This great power is at work enslaving other nations (adjoinin g territories and satellites) or undermining them , fo r example, b y means of fifth columns, politica l partie s influence d and commanded b y the financial, intellectual support o f the major power in question etc . There are occasional strikes , acts of sabotage, includin g political murder , and , abov e all, local wars are unleashed. These wars, as the major power openly admits or by its actions clearly shows, are in reality waged against the community of nations an d agains t the free world; consequently the y have the characte r of acts of aggression against world peace . 15.25 The question no w i s this: Unde r thes e circumstance s has the worl d th e righ t t o arme d self-defence, t o a war of liberation? Or must humanity, tha t is , all the othe r nation s a s a whole, wait until the great power has struck? And if the nations foresee with certainty that due t o th e inequalit y o f force s the y migh t soo n n o longe r b e i n a positio n t o defen d themselves, ought the y to resig n themselves to th e inevitabl e fat e o f defeat late r on an d the enslavemen t t o follow ? 15.26 (ii.) Som e consider a war o f liberation i n thes e circumstance s a defensive wa r impose d upon th e fre e worl d an d therefor e lawful. The y argue that sinc e mankind ha s a natural, God-given right to its existence, fundamental freedoms, to peace and order, it has a right also to protect itsel f and its most sacred rights in good time against unjust attacks. It may not allow these rights to be flagrantly wrested from it. Unjust aggressio n by the other side against worl d peac e and th e mos t sacre d righ t o f mankin d i s already taking place with weapons not onl y o f the cold , bu t als o o f the ho t war ; nations ar e held i n subjugation, there i s subversion, ther e ar e local wars etc. 15.27 This state of affairs ha s no precedent. The very existence not onl y of an individual nation but o f mankind a s a whole is at stake , an d th e cas e of self-defenc e i n extrem e necessity exists not onl y when the majo r arme d offensiv e i s already in progress, but alread y when this majo r offensiv e i s inevitabl y approachin g an d throug h individua l act s ha s alread y begun. Failur e to ac t must no t b e allowed t o lea d to th e loss of all rights. Responsibility for th e resultin g worl d wa r an d it s victim s clearl y lie s wit h tha t grea t powe r whic h systematically aims at the enslavement of the world. In order that this great power should realise it s responsibility, an d a t th e sam e time i n orde r tha t everythin g possible ma y be done t o avoi d war , w e deman d tha t i t shoul d firs t b e calle d upo n t o desis t fro m it s unlawful activities ; otherwise the nations as a whole would consider themselves forced t o take action . Whe n th e officia l orga n o f th e communit y o f nation s ha s expresse d thi s warning and has forbidden further preparation s for war, the great power concerned may, and unles s it submits, mus t b e considered an d treated a s an unjus t aggressor . When an d where pressure can be exerted an d i s likely to be successful, i t must be used, for example by breaking off diplomatic relations , imposin g economic sanction s etc . 15.28 To be permitted such war of liberation too must have prospects of success. Since the good and il l of all humanity is at stake, all States and group s of States are obliged to participate 235

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

if necessary , an d th e organise d communit y o f nation s ha s undoubtedl y th e righ t t o impose thi s obligation . Rea l interdependenc e amon g th e nation s shoul d for m th e mos t effective defenc e and be most likely to avert such a war of liberation. Powe r that tends t o disrupt ca n only be kept i n check by the threa t an d th e readines s for defence o f a bigger power.

15.29 (iii.) Others , in direct opposition t o the first opinion, quit e definitely den y that a war of liberation of the kind mentioned coul d be legitimate; they consider i t an unlawful wa r of aggression o r a preventiv e war . The y woul d argu e tha t a wa r o f thi s kind , a n unjus t aggression involves the deliberate murder of innumerable innocent persons on both sides. We may never kill or har m fo r preventive reasons, not eve n when we fear tha t we might be attacked at some later time and would no t the n be strong enough to withstand it . In such a case , ther e i s onl y on e wa y out , whic h i s t o b e cautiou s an d t o invok e th e protection o f a higher authority . 15.30 Such a war o f liberation canno t compensat e fo r th e frightfu l sacrifice s whic h i t entails , and its prospects o f success are too slight . In other words, we do not kno w if the conflic t will be brought to a victorious conclusion , an d eve n if it is, then i t would b e only at th e price o f proportionatel y grea t losses ; an d finally , wha t good s an d institution s wort h defending wil l th e equall y de-christianise d an d materialisti c 'liberators ' brin g i n thei r train? 15.31 The fat e o f mankind mus t b e entrusted t o Go d i n a n heroi c attitud e of endurance an d hope. Go d ca n s o arrang e thing s tha t th e totalitaria n powe r wil l liste n t o reaso n an d abandon it s aggressiv e plans, tha t th e situatio n wil l i n on e for m o r anothe r radicall y change, tha t ne w weapon s wil l b e invente d whic h wil l dete r th e aggresso r fro m hi s purpose. I n short , i t i s possible, bu t no t inevitable , tha t th e aggressio n will take place .

EXTRACT 1 6 RAMSEY Who speaks for the church? 16.1 In [Helmut ] Gollwitzer's view, Christians must so 'unanimously and unconditionally' say No t o nuclea r war tha t thi s bring s everythin g nuclear indiscriminatel y unde r condem nation. 'Whoeve r ha s recours e t o atomi c warfar e .. . wil l hav e Go d agains t him . N o government and n o individua l must mak e use of this menac e [wha t does thi s mean fo r the question of deterrence to which we will come in a moment?], no one must participate in its use. At any rate we Christians ... refuse t o participate ... for we can only do what can be done in the name of Jesus Christ.' This is certainly a position to which many may resort unde r th e anguis h of the nuclea r dilemma . 236

WAR AN D PEAC E

16.2

However, Professo r Gollwitze r di d no t se e th e consequenc e o f thi s fo r th e Christia n church i n that i t mus t the n becom e completel y a sect i n regard t o the modern stat e selectively no doubt, but not at all selectively in regard to nuclear weapons or in regard to the deterren t state . Instea d o f saying this forthrightly , h e picture d th e churche s urging their governments 'to regard possession o f these weapons as a mandate entrusted to them by the international community o f nations;' and many another proposition havin g to do with 'cooperating with politicians i n finding a way out' - eve n though th e Christian has already, presumably, found his way out b y renouncing an y use of nuclear weapons an d even though, presumably , n o Christia n coul d b e a politician .

16.3 In a compact phrase, Gollwitzer thought of the absolute commitment h e called for as the first task , an d doin g somethin g abou t th e peac e base d o n a precariou s balanc e o f deterrence as the second tas k - bot h Christian tasks , not contradictions: 'I t is only when the churc h undertake s th e firs t o f these task s that th e secon d tas k becomes urgent, ' h e said. 'And it is only if the church undertakes the second of these tasks that its rejection of the use of weapons of mass destruction will be more than an empty phrase, a comfortable ethical attitude which involves no concrete responsibility.' Here still speaks the traditio n of the great churches, although i n the first place it had been affirme d that , with regard to these moder n weapon s o f war, that traditio n wa s no longe r applicable . 16.4 I shoul d say , rather , tha t i f th e churc h undertake s t o sa y thi s N o unanimousl y an d unconditionally, th e proble m o f deterrence wil l no t the n becom e urgent . Instea d ther e will immediatel y be n o mor e proble m o f deterrence a s at al l a problem fo r Christians . And if politicians with whom we might be still wanting to cooperate in finding a way out really listened t o the church, there would immediately be no deterrence and therefore no urgent problem fo r them; and no moral proble m remaining in regard to it for Christians or for politicians, not fo r one moment afte r government s came to believe what Gollwitzer wants the churc h to sa y in th e first place. 16.5 The actuality o f deterrenc e depend s upo n a credibl e belief , mutuall y shared , tha t on e might us e a nuclea r weapon . I f th e governmen t o f on e o f th e grea t power s wer e persuaded b y th e churche s neve r t o b e willin g t o us e an y nuclea r weapo n unde r an y circumstances, and this were known, there would instantly be no deterrence and therefore no practica l problem o f finding a way out. Likewise , the morality o f deterrence depend s upon it not being wholly immoral for a government ever to use an atomic weapon unde r any circumstances . I f those wh o us e an y nuclears i n an y way in an y war will have God against them, God is against the possession o f all these weapons right now for deterrence. It would be inexcusable even to be ambiguous about it, or ambiguous about the use to be made o f dual-purpose weapon s (upo n legitimat e militar y targets or upo n cities) , or t o temporize i n dismantlin g deterrenc e o r t o dela y resignin g fro m offic e o r withdrawin g from helpfull y cooperatin g wit h politicians, i f no us e of any nuclear weapon coul d ever possibly be justified . 237

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

16.6 This i s th e cas e wit h regar d t o anythin g sai d t o b e inherentl y immoral . T o remai n conditionally willin g o r to threate n o r to see m to be ready to d o a n immoral ac t is of a piece with the immorality of that act itself. No one ever said that a n act of adultery is not an evil in addition to the adulterous thought, but we have it on rather high authority that the adulterous thought partake s of the same intrinsic wrong that i t may lead to. S o with acts o f wa r usin g a nuclea r weapon . I f tha t woul d b e i n itsel f alway s unde r an y circumstances and i n any manner, a n evil thing to do to which we must unconditionall y say No (le t us say , because this would b e a n ac t o f murder), the n threatenin g t o d o s o would b e th e sam e sort o f evi l (thoug h no t th e sam e evil) , an d deterrenc e rest s upo n murderous thinking , an d thi s would no t fo r one momen t b e justifiable. On e coul d no t too quickl y resig n fro m offic e afte r acceptin g Gollwitzer' s verdict ; ther e woul d b e n o second task , and no more cooperating wit h politician s for Christians t o undertake . The only thin g remainin g t o b e sai d woul d b e tha t th e 'peac e o f a sort ' whic h deterrenc e maintains fo r the people s o f the worl d amon g who m Christian s dwel l makes ou r peac e also a guilty peace. 16.7 The foregoing ha s had one purpose only : to poin t ou t again , as was done i n connectio n with th e Genev a statemen t o n nuclea r war , th e crucia l issue s tha t remai n eve n t o b e formulated i n ecumenical social ethics in dealing with questions o f war and peac e in th e nuclear age. If the statemen t o n nuclea r war was meant t o sa y what Gollwitzer said o r is understood t o sa y this; if that were the conclusion Christian s addresse d t o th e world, i n saying so flatly that 'nuclear war is against God's will' (an d I believe that i t was not), the n these issue s simpl y canno t aris e a s problem s fo r Christians , no r coul d w e hav e an y standing t o proffe r guidanc e upo n them , o r upo n man y anothe r proble m o f war an d peace i n th e presen t ag e t o whic h w e continu e t o speak . O n th e othe r hand , i f th e statement o n nuclea r wa r ha d no t bee n s o seemingl y particula r an d lackin g i n discrimination concernin g the kind of thing that was meant to be condemned, the n these issues would hav e opened u p .. . 16.8 If churchmen want to pu t a n en d to th e moralis m tha t onl y confuses politica l decision , we wil l nee d t o d o mor e tha n oppos e th e persona l ethic s o f Protestan t individualis m when mad e int o standard s fo r officia l conduct . W e will also hav e to pu t a n en d t o th e political ethics of the 'liberal consensus' - buil t up by a great number of position paper s and resolution s o n specific policy decisions - tha t attac h th e label s 'right ' o r 'wrong, ' 'moral' o r 'immoral, ' t o innumerabl e particular choice s o f th e statesma n abou t whic h churchmen a s such know less than he . 16.9 It is not the church's business t o recommend but only to clarify the grounds upon which the statesman must put fort h hi s own particular decree. Christia n politica l ethics canno t say what should or must be done but only what may be done. It can only try to make sure that fals e doctrin e doe s no t unnecessaril y trammel polic y choices o r preclud e decision s that migh t better shap e and gover n events. 238

WAR AN D PEAC E

16.10 In politics the church is only a theoretician. The religious communities as such should be concerned with perspectives upo n politics , with political doctrine , wit h the directio n and structures of the common life, not with specific directives. They should seek to clarify an d keep wid e ope n th e legitimat e option s fo r choice , an d thu s nurtur e th e mora l an d political etho s o f the nation . Thei r tas k is not th e determinatio n o f policy. Their special orientation upo n politic s is , i n a sense , a n exceedingl y limited one ; ye t a n exceedingly important one . Still , i n thi s the y nee d t o stan d i n aw e befor e peopl e calle d politica l 'decision makers,' o r rathe r befor e th e majest y o f topmost politica l agency. 16.11 Political decisio n an d actio n i s a n imag e o f th e majest y o f God , wh o als o rule s b y particular decrees . God says, 'Let there be ...;' and his word becomes deed and actuality . So also earthly magistrates have the high and lonely responsibility o f declaring what shall actually be done. Allowing for the limitations that surroun d eve n the highes t magistrate of a great nation, it is still the case that he creatively shapes events by decisions that must be particula r decision s goin g beyon d doctrine . H e mus t actualiz e what i s t o b e fro m among a number o f legitimate choices. 16.12 The majest y o f politica l rulershi p i s tha t i t i s always a triump h ove r doctrin e throug h right doctrine, a victory over generalities through the proper generalities and through the proper directio n o f policy . Politica l rulershi p make s life-giving , o r a t leas t actualitygiving, deeds out o f words. This does not mean that the magistrates, or Christians acting as citizens, are always wise. It means only that the y are magistrates, which the churc h is not. 16.13 The religious communities have a less awe-full responsibility ; their task is a less- or a nonmagisterial one : i t i s t o se e t o i t tha t th e wor d ove r whic h an d throug h whic h statesmanship o r governmen t win s it s victor y i s no t a n inadequat e word . Whe n th e churches turn thei r primar y attention t o tryin g to influenc e particula r polic y decisions , they do what the y ought not t o do . 16.14 Churches toda y ar e becomin g ver y legalistic about wha t the y regard a s a consensu s o f moral an d religiou s opinio n buil t u p b y the precedent s establishe d throug h a serie s of position paper s o n particular polic y questions . I thin k i t canno t b e denie d tha t thes e resolutions hav e exceedingl y questionabl e foundatio n i n eithe r theologica l ethic s o r political doctrine. Thi s is Protestant casuistry, and it s fault i s not t o be excused by virtue of its exclusion o f conservative personal ethic s fro m importatio n int o politics . 16.15 In adopting a casuistry of building u p Christia n social teachings out o f the preceden t of past particula r decisions, th e churches are in danger o f leaving undone what they ought to do . The y shoul d clarif y th e groun d o n whic h governmen t mus t rest . The y ought t o open wid e th e articulatio n o f structura l element s i n tha t huma n realit y whic h 239

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

statesmanship must govern and th e rang e of alternatives it is legitimate for statesmen t o have in mind as they rule by specific decree. They should infor m the ethos and conscienc e of the nation , an d thu s ai d i n formin g th e conscienc e of its statesmen .

16.16 Moreover, by doing wha t they ought no t t o do an d leavin g undone wha t the y ought t o have done, the churches may well contribute to the formation of particular decisions tha t ought neve r t o b e done . Thi s sometime s happen s whe n previou s ecclesiastica l pronouncements, themselve s to o specific , ar e legalisticall y cited . Christia n politica l ethics ha s a contribution t o mak e precisely by keeping open th e rang e of multifactora l principles o r objective s tha t imping e upo n a statesman' s choices . Surel y Protestan t Christians, whose consciences are not bound b y either pope or church councils, ought to be engage d constantl y i n goin g t o th e theoretica l root s i n th e examinatio n an d re examination o f any and al l ecclesiastical pronouncements, instea d o f using these as legal instruments fo r keeping in repai r som e suppose d consensu s o n particula r policies . 16.17 I have stressed the implicit wisdom and moral direction the churches might contribute t o a statesman's enormously difficult decision s if they paid attention t o that which they may know somethin g abou t instea d o f addin g t o th e confusio n o f particula r decisions , o r weakening his hand o r strengthenin g it in the wrong direction, b y pronouncing directl y upon th e choice s befor e a magistrate as he rules by particular decrees . Thi s is , finally, a rectification o f no little importance fo r the church' s ow n inner life . 16.18 Professor Joh n C . Bennett received a number o f letters fro m obviousl y sincer e and no t unintelligent o r immora l peopl e wh o fel t the y had bee n practicall y un-churched b y th e way a consensu s o f churc h pronouncement s ha d bee n use d o n the m i n th e 196 4 presidential campaign . Writing i n Christianity an d Crisis (Decembe r 28 , 1964 ) afte r th e election, D r Bennet t 'emphasize d tha t a distinctio n mus t b e mad e betwee n th e basi c Christian conviction s tha t bin d a membe r t o hi s churc h an d th e opinion s o f churc h bodies o n particula r issues.' Ca n anyone doub t tha t thi s distinctio n wa s made to o littl e during the campaig n by liberals and conservative s alike? 16.19 Can anyon e doub t tha t w e hav e a lon g wa y t o g o befor e th e churc h give s itsel f th e machinery (o r get s ri d o f some ) b y whic h i t ca n becom e a communit y o f unlimite d discussion an d discours e abou t wha t Scriptur e an d soun d reaso n require o f u s i n th e general direction of political affairs i n the present day ? A community in which the 'littlest he' or the mos t conservativ e one ha s his Christian lif e t o lead as well as the res t of us. A community i n which someone - anyon e - ma y have something significan t t o say to us contrary to anything that has yet been said, correcting or increasing the light we think we now have or directin g it upon som e a s yet unexposed par t o f the pat h me n an d nation s must no w tread. 240

WAR AN D PEAC E

16.20 At th e momen t thi s natio n stil l ha s befor e i t agonizin g decision s i n regar d t o South Vietnam. Not only the topmost magistrat e but ever y citizen (including every churchman) has to mak e u p hi s mind o n thi s urgen t question . Bu t what ca n th e churc h a s church know about this ? Moreover, whatever is wise or foolis h i n our specifi c militar y actions or political and negotiating posture in this particular instance is not goin g to help us decide similar questions the next time we confront insurgency warfare or in deciding where and how to make our presenc e felt i n Asia. There is no point i n trying to compile a Christian social ethic by leapfrogging fro m on e proble m t o another . 16.21 The politica l conscienc e o f th e natio n woul d b e aide d more , an d particula r decision s more instructed , if ther e wer e fewe r judgment s emanatin g from the churche s upo n specific cases , delivere d a s i f thes e wer e th e onl y conclusion s t o b e reache d fro m considerations o f morality . Th e natio n an d th e statesma n woul d b e mor e edifie d b y currents o f discussio n abou t th e immoralit y an d probabl e ineffectivenes s o f non intervention t o balanc e th e tal k abou t th e immoralit y an d probabl e ineffectivenes s o f intervention. Ther e shoul d b e discussio n o f the responsibilitie s of a nation becaus e the United Nation s i s suc h a wea k reed , a s wel l a s tal k o f ou r dut y t o strengthe n worl d organizations. Moreover , n o on e shoul d tal k abou t th e difficultie s an d failure s confronting purposefu l interventio n withou t als o talkin g abou t th e difficultie s an d failures o f 'coalition' government s (Laos). 16.22 Christians should b e speaking more abou t orde r as a terminal political value along with justice, without the naive assumption that these are bound t o go together without weight given to both. More about the need for the rule of law as well as revolutionary change. Of serving human liberty as well as the war on poverty , without th e presumption that there is an 'invisible hand' that links these together in the absence of specific attention to each. About the individua l and communit y value s at stak e in destroyin g the illusio n tha t government wil l provid e a solutio n fo r ever y irritan t o r distress , a s wel l a s wha t government ca n an d shoul d do . O f the responsibl e us e of political powe r a s well as th e limits upo n it . Of how involvement i n the world's problem s mean s tragi c involvement. 16.23 And there needs to be among Christians a consensus that in the concrete life of charity we should neve r aspire or even imagine that we are going to get rid of our neighbor' s need in such wis e as to ge t ri d o f our enduringl y needy neighbors . 16.24 As a citize n on e ma y lea n t o on e extrem e o r th e othe r i n thi s rang e o f options . As churchmen, however , our concer n shoul d b e that the rang e of relevant principles be no t narrowed, an d that the conscience of the nation an d of the statesman be not deprive d of perspectives and wisdom that ma y be needed element s in the decision s magistrate s have to make . 241

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

16.25 Let the church be the church and let the magistrate be the magistrate. Let both kee p their distances. Ma y there be less confusio n o f these roles. Le t the Presiden t advanc e policie s without playin g priest-king to the people in exercising his ruling under God' s overruling . Let th e churche s advis e th e magistrate s unde r thei r car e i n les s specifi c terms , whil e always renewing in them the perspectives - al l the perspectives - upo n the political orde r that Christianity affords . And let us pray more for those in authority (no t the churches as such) wh o mus t shap e th e futur e b y what the y decree, an d wh o i n doin g s o mus t ste p creatively into an uncertain future beyond th e range of any light that has been or can ever be thrown upo n thei r pathway.

EXTRACT 1 7 US CATHOLIC BISHOP S The challenge of peace lus ad Bellum [Justice in Going to War] 17.1 Why and whe n recours e to wa r i s permissible.

17.2 a) Just Cause: Wa r i s permissibl e onl y t o confron t ' a rea l an d certai n danger, ' i.e . t o protect innocen t life , to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence, and t o secure basic human rights. As both Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII made clear, if war of retributio n wa s ever justifiable, th e risk s of modern wa r negat e such a claim today . 17.3 b) Competent Authority. In th e Catholi c tradition th e righ t t o us e force ha s always been joined to the common good ; war must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not b y private group s o r individuals . 17.4 The requiremen t tha t a decision t o g o to wa r must b e mad e b y competent authorit y is particularly importan t i n a democratic society . I t need s detaile d treatmen t her e sinc e it involves a broad spectru m of related issues . Some of the bitteres t division s o f society in our ow n nation's history, for example, have been provoked ove r the question of whether or not a president of the Unite d States has acted constitutionally an d legally in involving our countr y in a de facto war , eve n if - indeed , especiall y if - wa r was never formally declared. Equall y perplexin g problem s o f conscienc e ca n b e raise d fo r individual s expected or legally required t o go to war even though our dul y elected representative s i n Congress have , in fact , vote d fo r war .

17.5 The criterio n o f competen t authorit y i s o f furthe r importanc e i n a da y whe n revolutionary wa r ha s becom e commonplace . Historically , th e just-wa r traditio n ha s been open to a 'just revolution' position, recognizing that an oppressive government may 242

WAR AN D PEAC E

lose its claim t o legitimacy . Insufficien t analytica l attention ha s been give n to th e mora l issues of revolutionary warfare. The mere possession o f sufficient weaponry , fo r example, does no t legitimiz e th e initiatio n o f wa r b y 'insurgents ' agains t a n establishe d government, an y mor e tha n th e government' s systemati c oppressio n o f it s peopl e ca n be carried ou t unde r th e doctrin e o f 'national security.'

17.6 While th e legitimac y of revolutio n i n som e circumstance s canno t b e denied , just-war teachings mus t b e applie d a s rigorously to revolutionary-counterrevolutionar y conflict s as to others. The issue of who constitutes competent authorit y and ho w such authority is exercised i s essential. 17.7 When w e conside r i n thi s lette r th e issue s o f conscientiou s objectio n an d selectiv e conscientious objection , th e issu e of competent authorit y will arise again. 17.8 c) Comparative Justice: Questions concernin g the means of waging war today, particularly in vie w o f th e destructiv e potentia l o f weapons , hav e tende d t o overrid e question s concerning th e comparativ e justice of the position s o f respective adversaries or enemies . In essence: which side is sufficiently 'right ' in a dispute, and are the values at stake critical enough to overrid e th e presumptio n agains t war? The question i n its most basi c form i s this: do the right s and values involved justif y killing ? For whatever the mean s used, war, by definition, involves violence, destruction , suffering , an d death . 17.9 The categor y of comparativ e justic e i s designed t o emphasiz e th e presumptio n agains t war whic h stand s a t th e beginnin g o f just-war teaching . I n a world o f sovereign state s recognizing neithe r a commo n mora l authorit y no r a centra l politica l authority , comparative justic e stresse s tha t n o stat e shoul d ac t o n th e basi s tha t i t ha s 'absolut e justice' o n it s side . Ever y part y t o a conflic t shoul d acknowledg e th e limit s o f it s 'jus t cause' an d th e consequen t requiremen t t o us e onl y limite d mean s i n pursui t o f it s objectives. Fa r from legitimizin g a crusade mentality , comparativ e justice is designed t o relativize absolute claim s an d t o restrai n th e us e of forc e eve n i n a 'justified' conflict . 17.10 Given techniques o f propaganda an d th e eas e with which nations an d individual s either assume or delud e themselves int o believing that Go d or righ t is clearly on thei r side, th e test o f comparative justice may be extremel y difficul t t o apply . Clearly , however, this is not th e cas e i n ever y instance o f war. Blatan t aggressio n fro m withou t an d subversio n from withi n ar e ofte n enoug h readil y identifiable by all reasonably fair-minde d people. 17.11 d) Right Intention: Right intentio n i s relate d t o jus t caus e - wa r ca n b e legitimately intended onl y fo r th e reason s se t fort h abov e a s a just cause . During the conflict , right intention mean s pursui t o f peac e an d reconciliation , includin g avoidin g unnecessaril y destructive acts o r imposin g unreasonabl e condition s (e.g . unconditional surrender) . 243

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

17.12 2

e) Last Resort. For resor t t o wa r t o b e justified, al l peaceful alternative s must hav e been exhausted. Ther e ar e formidabl e problem s i n thi s requirement . N o internationa l organization currentl y i n existenc e ha s exercise d sufficien t internationall y recognize d authority to b e able either to mediat e effectivel y i n most case s or t o preven t conflic t by the intervention of United Nations or other peacekeepin g forces . Furthermore , there i s a tendency for nations or peoples which perceive conflict betwee n o r among other nation s as advantageou s t o themselve s to attemp t t o preven t a peacefu l settlemen t rathe r tha n advance it .

17.13 We regret the apparent unwillingnes s of some to se e in the United Nations organizatio n the potentia l fo r world orde r whic h exist s and to encourag e it s development. Pop e Paul VI calle d th e Unite d Nation s th e las t hop e fo r peace . Th e los s o f thi s hop e canno t b e allowed to happen . Pop e John Paul II is again instructive on this point: ' I wish above all to repea t m y confidenc e i n you , th e leader s an d member s o f th e internationa l Organizations, an d i n you, the internationa l officials ! I n the cours e o f the las t ten years , your organization s hav e too ofte n bee n th e objec t o f attempts a t manipulatio n o n th e part o f nations wishing to exploi t suc h bodies. Howeve r i t remains true that th e present multiplicity of violent clashes , divisions an d block s on which bilateral relation s founder , offer the grea t Internationa l Organization s the opportunit y to engag e upo n the qualitative chang e i n thei r activities , eve n t o refor m o n certai n point s thei r ow n structures in order to take into account new realities and to enjoy effective power' [World Day of Peace Message 1983]. 17.14 f) Probability o f Success: This is a difficult criterio n t o apply , but it s purpose i s to preven t irrational resort to force o r hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will clearly be disproportionate o r futile. The determination include s a recognition that at times defense of key values, even against great odds, ma y be a 'proportionate' witness . 17.15 g) Proportionality. I n term s o f the ius ad bellum criteria, proportionality mean s tha t th e damage to be inflicted an d the costs incurred by war must be proportionate t o the goo d expected by taking up arms. Nor should judgments concerning proportionality b e limited to the temporal order without regar d to a spiritual dimension i n terms of 'damage,' 'cost,' and 'th e good expected. ' In today's interdependent worl d eve n a local conflict ca n affec t people everywhere ; this i s particularly the cas e whe n th e nuclea r power s ar e involved . Hence a nation canno t justl y go to war today without considerin g th e effec t o f its action on others an d on th e international community . 17.16 This principle of proportionality applie s throughout th e conduct o f the war as well as to the decision to begin warfare. During the Vietnam war our bishops' conference ultimately concluded tha t th e conflict ha d reache d suc h a level of devastation t o th e adversar y and damage to ou r ow n society tha t continuin g i t coul d no t b e justified . 244

WAR AN D PEAC E

lus in Bello [Justice within Warfare] 17.17 Even when th e stringen t condition s whic h justify resor t t o wa r are met , th e conduc t o f war (i.e., strategy, tactics, an d individua l actions) remain s subject to continuous scrutin y in ligh t o f two principle s which hav e special significanc e toda y precisel y because o f th e destructive capability of modern technologica l warfare . Thes e principles are proportion ality and discrimination. I n discussing them here , we shall apply them t o the questio n of ius ad bellum as well as iu s in belter, for toda y i t becomes increasingl y difficult t o mak e a decision t o use any kind of armed force , howeve r limited initiall y in intention an d i n the destructive powe r o f th e weapon s employed , withou t facin g a t leas t th e possibilit y o f escalation t o broader , o r eve n total , wa r an d t o th e us e o f weapon s o f horrendou s destructive potential. Thi s is especially the case when adversaries are 'superpowers,' as the council clearly envisioned: 'Indeed , if the kind of weapons no w stocked i n the arsenals of the grea t power s wer e t o b e employe d t o th e fullest , th e resul t woul d b e th e almos t complete reciproca l slaughte r o f one sid e b y the other, no t t o spea k o f the widesprea d devastation tha t would follo w in the world an d the deadly after-effects resultin g from th e use of such weapons' [Pastoral Constitution para. 80] .

17.18 It should no t b e thought, o f course, that massiv e slaughter an d destructio n woul d resul t only fro m th e extensiv e us e o f nuclea r weapons . W e recal l wit h horro r th e carpe t an d incendiary bombing s o f World Wa r II , the death s o f hundreds o f thousands i n various regions of the world throug h 'conventional ' arms , the unspeakabl e us e of gas and othe r forms of chemical warfare, the destruction o f homes an d o f crops, the utter sufferin g wa r has wrough t durin g th e centurie s befor e an d th e decade s sinc e th e us e o f th e 'ato m bomb.' Nevertheless , ever y hones t perso n mus t recogniz e that , especiall y give n th e proliferation o f modern scientifi c weapons, we now fac e possibilitie s which are appalling to contemplate . Today , a s never before, we must as k not merel y what wil l happen, bu t what ma y happen , especiall y i f majo r power s embar k o n war . Pop e Joh n Pau l I I ha s repeatedly pleade d tha t worl d leader s confron t thi s reality : '[In ] vie w of th e differenc e between classica l warfare and nuclear or bacteriological wa r - a difference s o to speak of nature - an d in view of the scandal of the arms race seen against the background o f the needs o f th e Thir d World , thi s righ t (o f defense) , whic h i s very real i n principle , onl y underlines the urgency of world society to equip itself with effective mean s of negotiation . In thi s wa y th e nuclea r terro r tha t haunt s ou r tim e ca n encourag e u s t o enric h ou r common heritag e with a very simple discovery that i s within ou r reach , namely that war is the mos t barbarous an d leas t effectiv e wa y of resolving conflicts ' [Worl d Da y of Peace Message 1982] . 17.199 The Pontifical Academy of Sciences reaffirmed th e Hol y Father's theme, in its November 1981 'Statement on the Consequence s o f Nuclear War.' Then, in a meeting convoked b y the Pontifical Academy, representatives o f national academies of science from throughou t the worl d issue d a 'Declaratio n o n th e Preventio n o f Nuclear War ' whic h specifie d th e meaning o f Pop e Joh n Pau l II' s statemen t tha t moder n warfar e differ s b y natur e fro m previous form s o f war. Th e scientist s said : 'Throughou t it s histor y humanit y ha s bee n confronted wit h war, but sinc e 1945 the nature of warfare has changed so profoundly that 245

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

the futur e o f the huma n race , o f generations yet unborn, is imperilled ... For the first time it is possible to cause damage on such a catastrophic scale as to wipe out a large part of civilizatio n an d t o endange r it s ver y survival . Th e large-scal e us e o f suc h weapon s could trigge r major an d irreversibl e ecological an d geneti c changes whose limits canno t be predicted.'

17.20 And earlier , wit h suc h thought s plainl y i n mind , th e counci l ha d mad e it s ow n 'th e condemnation o f total wa r already pronounced b y recent popes. ' This condemnation i s demanded b y th e principle s o f proportionalit y an d discrimination . Respons e t o aggression mus t no t excee d th e natur e o f th e aggression . To destro y civilizatio n a s we know i t b y waging a 'tota l war ' a s toda y i t coul d b e wage d woul d b e a monstrousl y disproportionate response to aggressio n o n the part of any nation. 17.21 Moreover, th e live s of innocen t person s ma y neve r b e take n directly , regardles s o f th e purpose allege d fo r doin g so . T o wag e trul y 'total ' wa r i s b y definitio n t o tak e hug e numbers o f innocent lives . Just response t o aggressio n must b e discriminate; i t must b e directed against unjus t aggressors, no t agains t innocen t people caught u p in a war not of their making . Th e counci l therefor e issued it s memorabl e declaration : 'An y ac t o f war aimed indiscriminatel y at the destructio n o f entire cities or of extensive areas along with their populatio n i s a crim e agains t Go d an d ma n himself . I t merit s unequivoca l an d unhesitating condemnation ' [Pastoral Constitution para. 80] . 17.22 When confrontin g choice s amon g specifi c militar y option s th e questio n aske d b y proportionality is : once we take into account not only the military advantages that will be achieved by using this means but als o all the harm s reasonably expecte d t o follo w fro m using it, can it s use still be justified? W e know, o f course, tha t n o en d ca n justify mean s evil in themselves, suc h as the executin g of hostages or the targetin g of non-combatants . Nonetheless, eve n i f the mean s adopte d i s not evi l i n itself , it i s necessary t o tak e int o account th e probabl e harm s tha t wil l resul t fro m usin g i t an d th e justic e o f acceptin g those harms . I t is of utmost importance , i n assessing harms and th e justice of accepting them, to think about the poor and the helpless, for they are usually the ones who have the least t o gai n and th e mos t t o los e when war's violence touche s thei r lives . 17.23 In term s o f th e arm s race , i f th e rea l en d i n vie w is legitimat e defens e agains t unjus t aggression, and the means to this end are not evi l in themselves, we must still examine the question o f proportionalit y concernin g attendan t evils . D o th e exorbitan t costs , th e general climate of insecurity generated, the possibilit y of accidental detonation o f highly destructive weapons , th e dange r o f erro r an d miscalculatio n tha t coul d provok e retaliation and war - d o such evils or others attendant upon and indirectly deriving fro m the arms race make the arms race itself a disproportionate respons e t o aggression ? Pope John Pau l I I i s very clear i n hi s insistenc e tha t th e exercis e o f th e righ t an d dut y o f a people t o protec t thei r existenc e and freedo m is contingent o n th e us e of proportionat e means. 246

WAR AN D PEAC E

17.244

Finally, anothe r se t o f question s concern s th e interpretatio n o f th e principl e o f discrimination. Th e principle prohibits directly intended attacks on non-combatants an d non-military targets . I t raise s a serie s o f question s abou t th e ter m 'intentional, ' th e category of 'non-combatant,' an d th e meanin g of 'military.'

17.255 These question s meri t th e debat e occurrin g wit h increasin g frequenc y today . W e encourage suc h debate , fo r concis e an d definitiv e answer s stil l appea r t o b e wanting . Mobilization o f forces i n modern war includes not onl y the military , but t o a significan t degree the political, economic, an d socia l sectors. I t is not alway s easy to determine who is directly involved i n a 'war effort ' o r t o wha t degree. Plainly, though, no t eve n by the broadest definition can one rationally consider combatant s entire classes of human beings such as schoolchildren, hospita l patients, the elderly, the ill, the average industrial worker producing good s no t directl y relate d t o militar y purposes , farmers , an d man y others . They may never be directly attacked . 17.26 Direct attack s o n militar y target s involv e simila r complexities . Whic h target s ar e 'military' one s an d whic h are not? To what degree , for instance , doe s the us e (by either revolutionaries o r regula r military forces) o f a village or housin g i n a civilian populate d area invit e attack ? What o f a munitions factor y i n th e hear t o f a city ? Wh o i s directly responsible fo r the deaths of non-combatants shoul d th e attack be carried out ? To revert to th e questio n raise d earlier , ho w man y death s o f non-combatants ar e 'tolerable' a s a result o f indirect attack s - attack s directe d agains t comba t force s an d military targets, which nevertheles s kil l non-combatant s a t th e sam e time ? These tw o principles , i n al l their complexity , mus t b e applie d t o th e rang e o f weapons - conventional , nuclear , biological, an d chemical - wit h which nations ar e armed today . The value of non-violence 17.27 Moved by the exampl e of Jesus' life an d b y his teaching, some Christian s have from th e earliest day s o f th e Churc h committe d themselve s t o a non-violen t lifestyle . Som e understood the gospel of Jesus to prohibit all killing. Some affirmed th e use of prayer and other spiritua l method s a s means of responding to enmit y and hostility .

17.28 In th e middl e o f th e secon d century , S t Justi n proclaime d t o hi s paga n reader s tha t Isaiah's prophec y abou t turnin g sword s int o ploughshare s an d spear s int o sickle s had been fulfille d a s a consequence o f Christ's coming : 'An d we who delighted i n war, in th e slaughter o f on e anothe r an d i n ever y other kin d o f iniquit y hav e i n ever y part o f th e world converted our weapons into implements of peace - ou r swords int o ploughshares, our spears into farmers' tools - an d we cultivate piety, justice, brotherly charity, faith and hope, which we derive fro m th e Fathe r through th e crucifie d Savio r ...' [Dialogue with Trypho 20] . 247

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

17.299

Writing i n th e thir d century , S t Cypria n o f Carthag e struc k a simila r not e whe n h e indicated tha t th e Christian s o f his day did no t figh t agains t thei r enemies . H e himsel f regarded their conduct as proper: 'They do not eve n fight against those who are attacking since it is not grante d to the innocen t t o kill even the aggressor, bu t promptl y t o delive r up their souls and blood that, since so much malice and cruelty are rampant in the world, they ma y mor e quickl y withdra w fro m th e maliciou s an d th e cruel ' [Collected Letters: Cornelius].

17.30 Some of the early Christian opposition t o military service was a response to the idolatrou s practices which prevailed i n the Roma n army. Another powerful motive was the fac t tha t army service involved preparatio n fo r fightin g an d killing . W e se e this i n th e cas e of St Martin o f Tours durin g the fourt h century , who renounced hi s soldierly professio n with the explanation : 'Hithert o I hav e serve d yo u a s a soldier . Allo w me no w t o becom e a soldier o f God ... I am a soldier o f Christ. I t i s not lawfu l fo r me to fight. ' 17.31 In th e centurie s betwee n th e fourt h centur y an d ou r ow n day , th e them e o f Christia n non-violence an d Christia n pacifis m ha s echoe d an d re-echoed , sometime s mor e strongly, sometimes mor e faintly. On e of the great non-violent figures in those centuries was St Francis of Assisi. Besides making personal effort s o n behal f o f reconciliation an d peace, Franci s stipulated tha t layperson s wh o became members o f his Third Orde r wer e not 't o tak e u p letha l weapons, o r bea r the m about , agains t anybody. ' 17.32 The vision of Christian non-violence i s not passiv e about injustic e and th e defense of the rights of others; it rather affirm s an d exemplifie s what it means to resist injustice through non-violent methods . 17.33 In th e twentiet h century , prescindin g fro m th e non-Christia n witnes s o f a Mahatm a Gandhi and its worldwide impact, the non-violent witnes s of such figures as Dorothy Day and Marti n Luthe r King has had a profound impac t upo n th e lif e o f the Churc h i n th e United States . Th e witnes s o f numerou s Christian s wh o ha d precede d the m ove r th e centuries was affirmed i n a remarkabl e way at th e Secon d Vatica n Council . 17.34 Two of the passage s which were included i n the final version of the Pastoral Constitution gave particula r encouragemen t fo r Catholic s i n al l walks o f lif e t o asses s their attitude s toward wa r and militar y servic e i n th e ligh t o f Christia n pacifism . I n paragrap h 7 9 th e council father s calle d upo n government s t o enact laws protecting th e rights of those who adopted th e position of conscientious objectio n t o all war: 'Moreover, it seems right that laws make humane provision s fo r the cas e of those wh o fo r reason s o f conscience refus e to bea r arms , provided , however , tha t the y accep t som e othe r for m o f servic e t o th e human community. ' Thi s wa s the firs t tim e a cal l fo r lega l protectio n o f conscientiou s objection ha d appeare d i n a documen t o f suc h prominence . I n additio n t o it s ow n 248

WAR AN D PEAC E

profound meaning this statement took on even more significance in the light of the praise that the council fathers had given in the preceding section 'to those who renounce the use of violenc e an d th e vindicatio n o f thei r rights. ' I n Human Life i n Ou r Da y (1968 ) w e called fo r legislative provision t o recogniz e selective conscientious objector s a s well.

17.35 As Catholic bishops i t is incumbent upo n us to stress to our ow n community and to th e wider society the significanc e of this support fo r a pacifist optio n fo r individual s i n th e teaching o f Vatican I I an d th e reaffirmatio n tha t th e pope s hav e give n t o non-violen t witness since the tim e o f the council . 17.36 In th e developmen t o f a theolog y o f peac e an d th e growt h o f th e Christia n pacifis t position amon g Catholics , thes e word s o f th e Pastoral Constitution hav e specia l significance: 'Al l thes e factor s forc e u s t o undertak e a completel y fres h reappraisa l of war.' Th e counci l father s ha d referenc e to 'th e developmen t o f armaments b y moder n science (which ) has immeasurably magnifie d the horror s an d wickednes s of war' [para . 80], While the just-war teaching has clearly been in possession fo r the past 1,50 0 years of Catholic thought, the 'new moment' in which we find ourselves sees the just-war teaching and non-violenc e a s distinc t bu t interdependen t method s o f evaluatin g warfare. The y diverge on some specific conclusions , bu t the y share a common presumptio n agains t the use of forc e a s a means of settling disputes . 17.37 Both fin d thei r root s i n th e Christia n theologica l tradition ; eac h contribute s t o th e ful l moral visio n w e nee d i n pursui t o f a huma n peace . W e believ e th e tw o perspective s support an d complement on e another, each preserving the other from distortion. Finally, in a n ag e o f technologica l warfare , analysi s fro m th e viewpoin t o f non-violenc e an d analysis fro m th e viewpoin t o f th e just-wa r teaching ofte n converg e an d agre e in thei r opposition to methods of warfare which are in fact indistinguishable from total warfare... In conclusion 17.38 Why do we address these matters fraught with such complexity, controversy and passion? We speak as pastors, not politicians . We are teachers, not technicians . W e cannot avoi d our responsibilit y t o lif t u p th e mora l dimension s o f the choice s before our worl d an d nation. Th e nuclea r ag e is an er a o f mora l a s well as physica l danger. W e ar e th e firs t generation sinc e Genesis with the powe r to virtuall y destroy God's creation . W e canno t remain silent i n the fac e o f such danger. Why do we address thes e issues? We are simply trying to liv e up t o th e cal l of Jesus to be peacemakers in our ow n time an d situation .

17.39 What ar e w e saying ? Fundamentally , w e ar e sayin g tha t th e decision s abou t nuclea r weapons are among the most pressin g moral questions o f our age . While these decision s have obvious militar y an d politica l aspects , the y involve fundamental moral choices . I n simple terms, we are saying that good ends (defending one's country, protecting freedom, etc.) canno t justif y immora l mean s (th e use of weapons which kill indiscriminately an d 249

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

threaten whol e societies). We fea r tha t ou r worl d an d natio n ar e heade d i n th e wron g direction. Mor e weapons with greater destructive potential are produced ever y day. More and more nations are seeking to become nuclear powers. In our quest for more and more security, we fear w e are actuall y becoming les s and les s secure.

17.40 In th e word s o f our Hol y Father, we need a 'moral about-face. ' Th e whole world mus t summon th e moral courag e and technical means to sa y 'no' t o nuclea r conflict ; 'no ' t o weapons o f mas s destruction ; 'no ' t o a n arm s rac e whic h rob s th e poo r an d th e vulnerable; and 'no' to the moral danger of a nuclear age which places before humankind indefensible choice s o f constan t terro r o r surrender . Peacemakin g i s no t a n optiona l commitment. It is a requirement o f our faith . We are called t o b e peacemakers, not b y some movement o f the moment, but b y our Lor d Jesus. The content an d contex t o f our peacemaking i s set , no t b y som e politica l agend a o r ideologica l program , bu t b y th e teaching of his Church ... 17.41 For the community of faith th e risen Christ is the beginning and end of all things. Fo r all things were created throug h hi m an d al l things will return t o th e Fathe r throug h him . 17.42 It is our belief in the risen Christ which sustains us in confronting the awesome challenge of the nuclea r arms race. Present i n th e beginning a s the word o f the Father , present i n history as the word incarnate, and with us today in his word, sacraments, and spirit, he is the reaso n fo r ou r hop e an d faith . Respectin g our freedom , h e doe s no t solv e ou r problems bu t sustain s us a s we take responsibilit y fo r hi s wor k o f creatio n an d tr y t o shape it i n th e ways of the kingdom. W e believe his grace will never fai l u s .. .

EXTRACT 1 8 HAUERWAS Pacifism: some philosophical considerations

18.1

A pacifist speaking to philosophers faces a temptation that is almost impossible to resist namely to tr y to defen d pacifis m philosophically . Ye t I think suc h a temptation mus t b e resisted, fo r t o tr y t o provid e a philosophica l foundatio n fo r pacifis m woul d b e a philosophical mistake . I t i s the sam e kind o f mistake tha t thos e mak e wh o tr y t o sho w that God must have created the universe if he is to be God - i.e . to make a metaphysical necessity ou t o f wha t mus t remai n contingen t relation . I d o no t wis h t o b e misunderstood, however, a s such a claim migh t b e interpreted t o sugges t that pacifism is a position without relational appeal, being based on theological convictions that canno t stand th e ligh t of critical scrutiny. I certainly do no t believ e that. Rathe r I am trying to make th e simple r poin t tha t pacifism , a t leas t th e kin d o f Christia n non-resistanc e t o which I a m committed , i s at th e beginnin g an d en d a theologica l position . A s such i t 250

WAR AN D PEAC E

raises philosophica l issue s which cannot b e avoided , bu t i n an d o f itself , it s integrit y is theological.

18.2 Given the interest of this group it would be inappropriate for me to try to develop to any great extent m y understanding o f Christian pacifism . However I must a t least try to say enough t o substantiat e a s well a s exemplif y ho w i t draw s o n fundamenta l theological convictions fo r it s intelligibility . Th e reaso n I believ e Christian s hav e bee n give n th e permission, that is, why it is good news for us, to live without resort to violence is that by doing s o we live as God lives. Therefore pacifism i s not firs t o f all a prohibition, bu t a n affirmation tha t Go d wills to rule his creation no t throug h violence and coercio n bu t b y love. Moreover he has called u s to be part of his rule by calling us into a community that is governed by peace . 18.3 Therefore pacifism i s not simpl y one implication among others for Christians. Pacifism is not just another wa y that som e Christian s thin k they should live . Rather pacifism i s the form o f lif e tha t i s inheren t i n th e shap e o f Christia n conviction s abou t Go d an d hi s relation to us. Though it counts individual passages of scripture such as Matthew 5.38-48 important, pacifis m doe s no t deriv e it s sol e justificatio n fro m them . Rathe r pacifis m follows fro m ou r understandin g o f Go d whic h w e believ e ha s bee n mos t decisivel y revealed i n th e cros s o f Jesu s Christ . Jus t a s God refuse d t o us e violence t o insur e th e success of his cause, so must we. Therefore Christia n pacifis m i s not base d on an y claims about the proximate or ultimat e success of nonviolent strategies , though we certainly do not tr y t o fai l a s i f failur e i n an d o f itsel f i s a n indicatio n o f th e truthfulnes s o f ou r position. Faithfulness, however , rather than effectiveness , i s the ultimate test of Christian pacifism. 18.4 Even though for the purposes of this presentation I am willing to be designated a pacifist, I a m extremel y unhapp y with suc h a descriptio n o f m y position . Fo r t o sa y one i s a pacifist give s the impressio n tha t pacifis m i s a position tha t i s intelligible apart fro m th e theological convictions that form it . But that is exactly what I wish to deny. Christians are nonviolent no t becaus e certai n implication s ma y follo w fro m thei r beliefs , bu t becaus e the ver y shap e o f thei r belief s for m the m t o b e nonviolent . Moreove r whe n th e designation, pacifism, is used to describe Christian non-resistance th e impression is given that Christians in the fac e of violence are primarily passive in the face of evil. Yet that is at odds with Jesus ' active engagement wit h th e powers . Th e pacifis t i s no les s obligated t o resist injustice, for not to resist means we abandon our brother o r sister to their injustice. Pacifists, however , conten d th e crucia l question i s how we are to resist . 18.5 There are obviously many objections that such a position mus t meet, but I think that for those tha t ar e philosophically traine d on e challenge is particularly interesting - namely , pacifism seem s contradictory sinc e in the name of nonviolence Christians must abando n their responsibilit y t o car e fo r an d protec t thei r neighbor . Christians , i t i s alleged, ar e obligated t o lov e those i n nee d an d Christia n pacifis m canno t hel p but acquiesc e in th e 251

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

face o f injustice an d violence. Therefore w e must at times take up th e mean s of violence to preven t greate r injustice. This objection is often extremel y appealing to philosophers , as it seem s to pu t th e issu e in conceptua l term s that allow s for , if not demand , furthe r nuance. Th e issu e i s no t faithfulnes s t o th e figur e o f Jesus , bu t ho w lov e i s t o b e understood an d ho w its implications are to b e displayed when we seem caught between contending values; or wh y justice is more basi c than love , an d s o on .

18.6 However this way of putting the 'problem ' i s a refusal t o accep t the radica l implication s of the kin d o f love Jesus demanded o f those wh o would b e part o f God's kingdom. Fo r the 'problem' presupposes that we should only love the one being attacked unjustly; such an account is far too restrictive . The attacker, who may well be unjust, is no less an object of God's love than the on e being attacked . Th e pacifist, n o less than those who suppor t violence in the name of the defense of the innocent, cannot abando n thos e who are being attacked. Bu t the pacifis t refuse s t o accep t an y account o f what suc h 'help ' would loo k like if it requires us to witness to the one being attacked that they are any less obligated t o love th e enem y tha n we . To b e sure , w e are require d t o lov e th e attacked , but w e are equally obligate d t o lov e th e attacker . Tha t w e ar e s o ma y surel y mea n tha t certai n situations may end tragically, but I do not se e how those who support th e use of violence provide any less tragic 'solution.' 18.7 There is one issu e worth highlightin g i n this respect, a s it i s often misse d b y many who assume some for m o f just-war logic for th e legitimatio n o f violence. Fo r i t i s too ofte n assumed that the logic of the just-war position i s determined on analogy with self-defens e rather tha n defens e o f the innocent . Bu t the tw o are not th e same , though admittedl y a defense o f sel f ca n possibl y be justifie d a s a defens e o f th e innocent . Ye t i f just wa r i s defended o n analogy of defense o f the innocent , then a t the very least it would seem that those wh o us e just war to justif y resor t t o violenc e must no t b e so quick to assum e the legitimacy of a violent respons e simpl y because their sid e i s attacked. O r perhap s mor e accurately put , the y need t o b e muc h mor e critica l of the assumptio n tha t the y have a 'side.' 18.8 Much mor e need s t o b e sai d abou t suc h matters , bu t I hop e I hav e sai d enoug h t o indicate tha t thos e tha t defen d jus t war need t o b e muc h mor e candi d abou t ho w th e basic analogie s underwritin g just-war logic work. The y nee d t o sho w us , fo r example , how one move s fro m individua l analogies, whether they be of self-defense o r defens e o f the innocent , t o underwritin g wa r a s a vali d respons e b y Christians . O r the y nee d t o illumine why just war i s better understoo d a s a form o f state craft rathe r tha n a general theory o f th e justifiabl e us e o f violence . Onl y whe n suc h matter s ar e clarifie d ca n w e better understan d whic h criteri a ar e t o determin e whethe r a war i s justifiable an d th e priority relations between th e criteria. 18.9 By raisin g thes e kin d o f issue s I a m no t tryin g t o defen d pacifis m b y showin g th e incoherence o f just-wa r theories . I a m simpl y tryin g t o illumin e ho w man y o f th e 252

WAR AN D PEAC E

challenges brought against pacifism wor k equally in relation to just-war thinking. At this point, however, I think it best not to try to defend pacifis m but rather to indicate some of the philosophical issue s I think pacifis m entails . In other words I want to tr y to indicate how pacifis m ma y engender som e philosophicall y fruitfu l problem s an d perspectives .

18.10 For example I think it is interesting that the kind o f pacifism I defend doe s not neatl y fit into th e curren t philosophical option s fo r understanding normative ethics . That is , it is neither consequentia l o r deontologica l eve n though i t may well involve aspects of both . For th e emphasi s i s not o n decisio n o r eve n a se t o f decision s an d thei r justification . Rather this kind o f pacifism force s u s to conside r th e kind o f persons we ought to b e so that certain kinds of decisions are simply excluded fro m ou r lives. Thus pacifism is not so much a strategy for how we should deal with violence as it is a way of life that forces u s to live free from violenc e as an option . The pacifis t i s someone committe d t o neve r facin g the questio n o f whether to us e or no t us e violence as a means of securing some good . 18.11 Of course that i s easier said than done. No r a m I suggesting that such a task is ever over. Indeed I suspect fe w of u s ever 'decide' t o b e a pacifist . I t i s even no t clea r to m e ho w anyone could make such a decision since we could hardly know what kind of decision we had made since one no more becomes a pacifist al l at once than one becomes a Christian all at once. Rather pacifism i s a willingness to accept the slow training necessary to rid th e self o f the presumptio n tha t violenc e i s necessary for livin g life well. 18.12 From thi s perspectiv e the proble m wit h th e just-wa r rationale fo r violenc e i s that i t s o seldom place s a limit o n th e us e of violence. The just warrior assumes that violenc e can only be used as a last resort, but th e very meaning of 'last resort' becomes elastic exactly because it is assumed that if things become rough we can resort to the gun we keep handy for jus t suc h emergencies . A s a resul t w e fai l t o becom e th e kin d o f peopl e whos e very commitment t o nonviolenc e make s it possible fo r u s to liv e nonviolently . 18.13 Put i n the language of philosophical ethics I am suggesting that pacifism i s much closer to an ethic s o f virtu e tha n t o thos e position s tha t ten d t o limi t ethic s t o question s concerning the justification of decisions. For the pacifis t doe s not accep t descriptions of situations as constant. Question s of what we are to do are determined b y what we are or should be . Virtue s o f courage , temperance , justice , humility , patienc e ar e n o les s necessary fo r th e pacifis t tha n anyon e else . Howeve r thes e virtue s assum e a differen t intentionality an d priorit y for thos e who woul d b e pacifist . Fo r exampl e th e pacifist , I suspect, has a much greater stake in the significanc e o f learning to b e patient than thos e who would defen d justifiabl e us e of violence. Just to the extent we are patient, moreover, we are forced t o redescrib e ou r world - e.g . we must entertai n th e possibility that ou r enemy is also on e o f God's creatures . 253

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S 18.144

I a m no t suggestin g that pacifis m an d a n ethi c of virtue rise or fal l together , bu t rathe r that pacifis m force s u s t o thin k muc h harde r abou t a n ethi c o f virtu e tha n ha s bee n characteristic of recent philosophy. Indee d I would put th e matter mor e strongly and say philosophers' general assumption o r acceptance of violence as legitimate has been one of the reason s the y have paid such scant attentio n t o question s o f virtue and character . An emphasis o n th e significanc e o f th e virtue s doe s no t conceptuall y requir e a pacifis t position, but suc h an emphasis might at least make one more receptive to some accounts of pacifism .

18.15 The kin d o f pacifis m I a m willin g t o defend , I think , als o challenge s som e o f th e prevailing assumptions about mora l rationalit y as it has been depicte d b y contemporar y philosophers. Fo r her e w e hav e a positio n tha t i s clearl y derive d fro m particularisti c convictions; ye t I woul d argu e the y appl y t o anyone . Th e 'universality ' o f thes e convictions however, is not i n thei r for m bu t i n their substance . Al l people ough t t o b e nonviolent no t becaus e o f some genera l trut h abou t humanity , bu t becaus e al l people have been calle d t o b e part o f the kingdo m initiate d by Jesus of Nazareth. 18.16 This kind of claim cannot help but make philosophers nervous. For it seems that, in order to convinc e other s o f th e plausibilit y o f thi s position , w e mus t as k the m t o accep t particularistic religious convictions. I n such a situation the possibility of argument seems next t o impossibl e and , eve n worse , mora l relativis m i s threatened . I ca n sa y little t o assuage fea r o f suc h results , bu t I ca n a t leas t sugges t tha t th e kin d o f positio n I hol d about pacifis m i s no t withou t resource s t o respon d t o thi s se t o f concerns . Ye t these resources requir e th e philosophe r t o accep t concept s an d languag e i n matter s dealin g with rationalit y that the y usually wish to avoid . 18.17 For example, it means that the philosopher might have to take sin seriously, not simpl y as a general statement abou t th e human condition , bu t a s a serious claim about ou r mora l and rationa l capacity . Fo r i t i s th e pacifis t clai m tha t ou r unwillingnes s t o liv e nonviolently is but a n indication of our unwillingnes s to live in a way appropriate to ou r being creature s of a goo d creator . T o liv e rightly , t o sa y nothing o f reasonin g rightly , requires a transformatio n o f ou r lives . W e ca n onl y begi n t o appreciat e th e trut h o f nonviolence whe n we begin t o liv e nonviolently . 18.18 Put differently , th e kin d o f claim s Christian s mak e fo r nonviolenc e requir e livin g representatives i f the y ar e t o b e convincing . Th e rationa l powe r o f nonviolenc e a s a morality fo r anyon e depend s o n th e existenc e o f examples , tha t is , peopl e wh o hav e learned to live nonviolently. Suc h a claim is not peculia r to pacifism, however, but rathe r denotes how any substantive account of the moral lif e mus t work in a world determine d by sin. Indee d pacifis m i n such a world i s the very form o f moral rationalit y since it is a pledge that w e can com e t o commo n agreemen t o n th e basi s o f discussion rathe r tha n violence. Wha t th e nonviolen t witnes s denie s i s tha t suc h agreemen t i s possibl e b y 254

WAR AN D PEAC E

argument abstracte d fro m th e kin d o f peopl e wh o hav e learned tha t eve n thei r enemy may be speaking the truth. We cannot exhaus t moral rationality with a formal account of reason i n and o f itself, thoug h suc h accounts promis e t o teac h u s much, but rathe r we must atten d t o th e actua l proces s o f peopl e wh o lear n t o b e presen t t o on e anothe r without fear. Pu t simply, what has been missing from most accounts of moral rationality is a consideration o f why courage is integral to those that would want to know the truth.

18.19 The particularistic convictions tha t sustai n nonviolence , therefore , d o no t preten d tha t others alread y share the sam e set of convictions that mak e nonviolence rational . Indeed the fac t tha t w e know th e worl d i s divided int o hostil e camp s i s exactly the reaso n we believe that nonviolence i s true. I do not mea n to impl y that nonviolence is a strategy for resolution o f differences , thoug h I certainl y d o no t thin k i t i s withou t strategi c importance. Rathe r I a m suggestin g that nonviolenc e ha s a stron g clai m t o bein g true exactly because it helps us understand th e nature of our existenc e without acceptin g the limits o f ou r worl d a s final . Nonviolenc e i s a pledge , a promis e base d o n th e wor k of Christ, that moral rationality is not just an ideal but a possibility in a world shaped by the sinful illusio n tha t w e are peopl e who lov e the truth . 18.20 There i s on e fina l se t o f philosophica l issue s raise d b y pacifis m tha t I thin k mus t b e considered - namely , questions of political obligation. It is often allege d that anyone who holds the kind of absolutist positio n I do must be an anarchist. Yet I refuse to accept such a characterization , fo r i t seem s t o assum e that th e state , i n essence , is violent. I do no t deny that th e ris e of the moder n stat e ha s ofte n bee n describe d and/o r justifie d b y th e claim tha t th e stat e i s that bod y tha t claim s hegemony ove r violence i n a n identifiabl e geographic area . Ye t 1 see no compellin g philosophica l reaso n wh y tha t accoun t o f th e state mus t be accepted. 18.21 Indeed I simply refuse a s a pacifist t o think I need any account of the state at all. In other words I do not think that one needs a theory of legitimacy in order to determine how one will o r wil l no t relat e t o one' s socia l orde r o r governmenta l authority . Rathe r I simply take societie s an d th e stat e a s I fin d them . A s a pacifis t I wil l cooperat e i n al l thos e activities of the state that contribute to the common good . Put simply, I do not see any in principle reason wh y I cannot b e a good citizen , but muc h depends o n ho w a particular social order determines what being a citizen entails. If citizenship means that we can only serve others throug h societa l function s i f we are willing to kill , then indee d th e pacifis t cannot b e a citizen . Bu t a t leas t tha t tell s u s much , fo r suc h a state , whethe r i t b e democratic o r not , mus t surel y deserve to be described a s the beast .

255

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

EXTRACT 1 9 BONING Liberation theology and peace 19.1 The idea s o f confrontation , struggle , an d violenc e see m particularl y repugnan t t o th e Christian conscience . Befor e dealin g wit h th e are a o f ethica l question s w e must , nevertheless, dwell briefly on the concept of class. The phenomenon o f classes in society is analysed by Marx in relation to the way in which people relate to the productive process , particularly i n th e capitalis t for m o f organising production . I t i s well known tha t Mar x finds the mai n distinctio n hingin g on whethe r a man own s th e mean s o f production o f whether h e ha s t o sel l hi s labou r t o thos e wh o ow n them , i.e . th e capitalis t an d th e proletarian. Marx and his followers are, of course, aware that this particular configuration of classe s i s dependen t o n th e existin g form s o f th e capitalis t economy , an d therefor e cannot b e projecte d bac k t o othe r societies . Moreover , the y ar e awar e that eve n i n th e capitalist industria l societie s severa l form s o f productio n an d consequentl y differen t forms o f social organisation coexis t an d therefor e that ther e ar e groups and segment s of society tha t d o no t fi t neatl y int o thi s dominan t pattern . On e coul d ad d tha t triba l societies in Africa o r ethnic groups in Latin America as well as changes in the structure of capitalist productio n pos e comple x problem s whic h ma y requir e rethinkin g certai n elements i n th e Marxis t conception o f class. Both Marxist an d non-Marxis t sociologist s are awar e of these question s an d ther e i s at presen t a very significant literatur e dealin g with th e problem . Ther e i s no nee d fo r u s to belabou r thi s point. We are here dealin g with the alway s provisional result s of a scientific investigation . As such, a Christian nee d not accep t i t o r questio n i t excep t i n term s o f its scientifi c verifiability .

19.2 There are , nevertheless , tw o theologica l question s whic h deserv e t o b e mentioned . Th e first ha s t o d o wit h Marx' s poin t o f departur e (whethe r itsel f a resul t o f hi s scientific analysis or no t i s at this point a moot question) , namely , that ma n i s to be basically and radically understoo d a s a worker , a s th e bein g wh o appropriates , transforms , an d humanises th e worl d throug h hi s wor k an d wh o himsel f come s t o hi s ow n identity , becomes man through this same work. If this is so, it is only to be expected that the form s of relationships an d organisation s i n which ma n work s will be the privilege d mean s fo r understanding huma n life and society and that changes in one area will be closely related to change s i n th e other . Christia n anthropology , o n th e othe r hand , ha s traditionall y sought t o understan d ma n i n term s of his intellectual, moral , an d spiritua l endowmen t or, i n a more dynami c way, in term s of his relations t o himsel f (self-understanding), to his neighbour , an d t o God . Th e theologica l understandin g o f man, therefore , ha s bee n predominantly - i f not exclusively - philosophical , cultural , and religious. T o such an approach, Marxis t anthropology naturall y smacks of materialism. Suc h an accusatio n is very widespread i n Christian circles . Bu t one may wonder whether i t does not res t o n a twofold misunderstanding . O n th e on e hand , i t read s Mar x i n term s o f a mechanisti c determinism whic h woul d se e th e spiritua l lif e o f ma n a s a mer e refle x o f materia l conditions. Ther e i s n o doub t tha t som e Marxis t thinkers , an d particularl y man y popularisers, hav e amply justified suc h interpretation . I n Mar x himself, and i n th e bes t 256

WAR AN D PEAC E

contemporary interpreters , th e dialectical relations o f material and cultural conditionings are muc h mor e subtl y an d carefull y assessed . I t may , nevertheless , b e necessar y t o challenge and correc t eve n more drasticall y Marx's conception a t this point. I am, at th e same time , mor e concerne d wit h th e othe r misunderstanding : th e theologica l substitu tion o f a n idealis t fo r th e biblica l understandin g o f man . Whethe r on e deal s wit h th e creation stories , wit h th e law , o r wit h th e propheti c message , ther e seem s t o b e i n th e Bible n o relatio n o f ma n t o himself , t o hi s neighbour , o r eve n t o Go d whic h i s no t mediated i n term s o f man's work. Hi s dignit y i s located i n hi s missio n t o subdu e an d cultivate the world. Hi s worship i s related t o th e fulfilmen t o f a law in which the whol e realm o f his economic an d politica l activit y i s taken u p (an d not t o a n imag e or ido l i n which he could find a private and direc t acces s to th e deity) ...

19.3 Marxism ha s understoo d th e alienate d characte r o f wor k i n ou r capitalis t society , i n which man i s estranged fro m hi s work; work is objectified a s something alie n to hi m an d bought throug h a salary. There i s a striking similarity between thi s view and th e Pauline rejection of'the works of the law' in which man's actions are also objectified a s something Valuable in themselves', apart fro m th e doer and the neighbour, as a 'work' which can be merchandised i n orde r t o bu y 'justification' . Th e wor k o f faith , o n th e othe r hand , i s never objectified - i t is the believer himself in action i n terms of love. The Christian will, therefore, understan d an d full y joi n th e Marxis t protes t agains t th e capitalis t demoni c circle of work-commodity-salary. Bu t out o f the justification by faith alone , h e will have to ask whether alienation doe s not hav e deeper roots than the distortions of the capitalist society, even in the mysteriou s original alienation , i n man's denial o f his humanity (his attempt t o know outside the relation o f trust and work) which we call sin. This question , nevertheless, ca n onl y b e aske d i n th e contex t o f a servic e ( a leitourgeia, a n abodah, a service, an d a work whic h ar e a t th e sam e tim e worship ) freel y rendered , a work don e 'out of faith', outsid e th e real m o f worth an d reward , in the anticipation o f the real m of creative love which i s the Kingdom ! 19.4 If the biblica l view of man's humanit y a s realised in work is recovered, an d a t th e sam e time we are aware of the distortion introduce d b y sin into the life of society, the existence of classes and their conflict emerge s as a possible major category for our understandin g of history; a possibl e one , I say , becaus e w e mus t b e concerne d her e wit h empirica l observation an d it s interpretatio n an d no t wit h a philosophica l o r theologica l axiom . 'Class' is a sociological concept and mus t be verified a s such. All we have tried to indicate in the preceding pages is that the view of man which emerges in the Marxist discussion of class - namely , man as worker - i s also fundamenta l fo r biblical anthropology . Anothe r significant elemen t appear s i n relatio n t o th e discussio n o f class: the biblica l concep t o f 'the poor'. A number o f studies hav e appeared recently , particularl y i n connectio n wit h the emphasis in Roma n Catholic circles on ' a Churc h of the poor'. The result of biblical research o n thi s point i s aptly summarised b y Gustavo Gutierrez. The notion o f poverty in th e Scripture s i s a n ambivalen t one . O n th e on e han d i t designate s th e weak , th e destitute, th e oppressed, an d i s as such 'a scandalous situation' which must be redressed . On the other hand it indicates 'spiritual childhood', humility before God, and as such it is a - perhap s th e - basi c virtue ... 257

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

19.5 Now, i s there a transition fro m th e biblica l ide a o f the poo r t o th e Marxis t vie w of an oppressed class ? Can the Christia n cal l to solidarit y with the poor and th e revolutionar y convocation t o clas s struggle be equated? There seem s t o b e both a genuine and soun d discernment bu t als o som e dangerou s misunderstanding s an d short-cuttin g i n thes e identifications. As to the first, there seems to be no serious possibility to argue on biblical and theologica l ground s agains t Kar l Earth' s dictum : 'Go d alway s take s hi s stan d unconditionally and passionately on this side and on this side alone: against the lofty an d on behalf of the lowly ...' The misunderstandings aris e from a n insufficien t recognitio n of th e necessar y analytical mediations betwee n th e Marxis t category of th e 'proletaria n class' an d th e biblica l on e o f 'th e poor' . Thi s latte r on e - insofa r a s i t refer s t o th e oppressed an d disinherited - i s a pre-scientific, simpl y empirical designation arisin g out of direct observation of a situation of oppression an d injustice . When Christians in Latin America (o r elsewhere ) denounc e th e har d an d movin g realitie s o f hunger, unemploy ment, premature death, exploitation, repression, and torture, they are — as Old Testamen t prophets - movin g at the level of empirical observatio n an d ethical and religious (quit e justified) judgment . Thi s i s n o doub t als o present , althoug h i n a humanis t form , i n Marxism. A revolutionary theory , nevertheless , move s a t leas t tw o step s further : (1 ) I t purports t o give a rational, verifiable, an d coheren t accoun t o f the causes, dynamics, an d direction of the process and (2 ) it offers a correspondingly rational , calculated, organised , and verifiabl e strateg y for overcoming th e present situation . W e have already noted tha t the theor y mus t b e constantl y checke d an d corrected . But , quit e apar t fro m thes e corrections, it s existence poses theological questions which we dare not evade if we aim to overcome mer e good wil l and irrelevan t generosity . 19.6 One theologica l issu e whic h claim s ou r attentio n i n thi s respec t i s th e questio n o f efficacious love . Tw o point s nee d t o b e mentione d briefly . Th e firs t i s tha t th e commandment o f love must evidently be read in the context of Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom o f God . I t cannot , therefore , b e reduce d t o a purel y interpersona l o r inter subjective dimension , bu t mus t be set in relation t o the eschatological an d cosmic scope of the Kingdom . This means that lov e is inextricably interwoven wit h hop e an d justice. The secon d poin t follows . Lov e i s no t exhauste d i n th e are a o f intentionalit y an d demonstration bu t i t is other-directed an d demand s efficacy . I t is not conten t t o expres s and demonstrate , i t intends t o accomplis h ... 19.7 A second theologica l issu e that needs to be clarifie d i s the background o f the concep t o f peace a s i t i s commonl y use d an d th e proble m o f violence . A t th e ris k o f oversimplification, I want t o sketc h th e tw o theological perspective s whic h see m t o m e to fin d expressio n i n the curren t discussio n o f these issues . One of them i s built o n th e principle o f th e rationalit y o f th e univers e - th e convictio n tha t a universa l orde r penetrates the world. Heaven and earth , natur e and society , moral an d spiritua l lif e seek the equilibriu m tha t correspond s t o thei r rationa l place , an d th e preservatio n o f thi s order i s the supreme value. Whatever perturbs i t becomes ' a trampling of reason'. In its most cras s form , thi s concep t simpl y become s a n ideologica l scree n (t o us e Ricoeur' s expression) t o hid e th e injustic e o f th e statu s qu o b y identifyin g i t wit h cosmi c 258

WAR AND PEAC E

rationality. Violenc e i s understoo d i n th e ligh t o f thi s order : whateve r disturb s i t i s irrational an d evi l and ough t t o b e countere d throug h a rationa l us e of coercion . Thi s logic, undoubtedl y plague d wit h fallacies , nevertheless , flourishe s i n th e 'Christian ' rhetoric of the right. The will of God coincides with the ordering of things, which in turn coincides with the present order, threatened by 'the violent ones'. To resist the threat is to obey God .

19.8 This is not th e plac e to engag e in a detailed analysi s of this theological point o f view. It can, of course, be formulated in a more guarde d way, avoiding a direct identificatio n of the rational order of things with the existing one and positing a normative order - suc h as the concept of a natural law in its various older and newer forms - whic h can even justify a certai n 'subversiv e violence' . Nevertheless , th e questio n remain s a s t o th e historica l roots o f both th e ide a and th e conten t o f such natural law. As to the former , i t seems to me possible to trace it to the philosophical rationalisation o f a mythology of the 'cosmos' which i n turn sacralise s a static and stratifie d society. As to th e content s o f such natural law, it has often been noted that it reproduces some set of historical conditions - whethe r of th e pas t o r o f th e present . Th e historicall y undeniabl e fac t tha t thi s theologica l perspective came to dominat e Christianit y at the tim e when thi s latte r was co-opted a s the religiou s under-girdin g an d sanctio n o f th e empir e i s i n itsel f a ver y significan t comment. 19.9 The other perspective conceives man a s a project of liberation tha t constantly emerges in the figh t agains t th e objectification s give n i n nature , i n history , i n society , i n religion . Man is a creator, and creation is always, in some measure, a violence exerted on things as they are. It is an affirmatio n o f the ne w against 'that which is'; it is an eruption that ca n only make room fo r itself by exploding the existing systems of integration. Violence plays a creativ e role i n thi s schem e a s the 'midwife' (eve n though I don't thin k tha t Marx' s famous dictum can be totally interpreted in this perspective). This conception ca n also be escalated to th e extreme , elevating violence as an ultimat e principle of creation, valid in itself becaus e i t is , pa r excellence, th e destructio n o f al l objectifications . Only i n th e destruction o f everything that limits him - nature , social order, ethica l norm, divinity can man find his freedom, i.e. his humanity. But even without looking for these extreme formulations, i t i s possibl e t o conceiv e histor y a s a dialecti c i n whic h th e negatio n through whic h the ne w can emerg e implies always a certain measur e of violence. 19.10 As theological positions , bot h perspective s find support i n the biblica l and ecclesiastical tradition. The y ar e frequentl y identifie d respectivel y wit h th e priestl y an d propheti c streams an d i t would no t b e difficul t t o trac e both current s i n th e histor y o f Christian theology. The y hav e given ris e t o tw o differen t understanding s o f peac e which deserv e mention i n connectio n wit h our subject . The first one equate s peac e with order, lac k of conflict, harmoniou s integratio n - on e would almos t sa y 'ecological balanc e i n natur e and society' . The German theologian Han s P. Schmidt finds its roots i n the Babylonian myth o f society a s a living organism an d think s tha t i t find s expressio n i n th e wisdo m tradition i n th e Bible . I t dominate s th e Graeco-Roma n conceptio n o f peac e an d ha s 259

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

shaped th e theologica l traditio n sinc e Augustine. The othe r vie w of peac e i s typically represented by the prophets but can be shown, I think, to be the predominant on e in the Bible. Peace is a dynamic process through which justice is established amid the tension s of history. Th e Catholi c Lati n American Conference of Bishop s at Medelli n (1968 ) ha s summarised well this view of peace as a work of justice, an ever renewed task, and a fruit of active love. It is quite evident that the possibility of conflict will be differently viewed in these two conceptions. For the first it will be in itself negative, a rupture in harmony; for the secon d i t ma y be a positive manifestatio n of th e situatio n whic h requires righting. Violence i n th e mor e specifi c sens e o f physica l compulsio n o r destructio n ma y b e accepted or rejected in either of the two views, but acceptanc e or rejection will be viewed in a different way . In the first it will be judged in terms of order; in the second, in terms of the struggl e for justice.

19.11 Recent discussion s ten d t o b e polarise d alon g thes e two theologica l traditions . Whil e I think that the y represent significan t dimension s o f Christian thought , I want to suggest that thei r approac h i s seriousl y distorte d an d need s correction . I n makin g orde r an d rationality on the one hand or freedom and conflict on the other the basic starting points for theologica l reflection, they miss, I think, the biblical starting point, which is never an abstract notio n o r principle , but a concrete situation. Th e Bible does no t conceiv e ma n and society as a function o f reason or freedom but i n concrete historical relations of manthings-God. Eve n i f we tr y t o understan d th e basi c biblica l notion s o f justice , mercy, faithfulness, truth , peace, we are always thrown back to concrete stories, laws, invitations, commandments; they are defined as an announced action or commandment of God in a given historica l situation. Thi s doe s no t mean , t o b e sure , that thes e word s ar e empt y sounds covering a number of capricious and heterogeneous events but i t does mean that ethical criteria are not define d a-temporally but i n relation t o the concrete condition s of existence of men historicall y located. These facts taken together do represent a direction — the Kingdom of God - i n terms of which one may speak of worthy or unworthy actions. But this direction cannot b e translated into a universal principle - reason , order, liberty, conflict. 19.12 Against thi s background, violence appears in the Bible , not a s a general form o f human conduct whic h ha s t o b e accepte d o r rejecte d a s such , bu t a s a n elemen t o f God' s announcement-commandment, a s concrete acts which must be carried out o r avoided in view o f a result , o r a relation , o f a projec t indicate d b y th e announcement commandment. Thus , th e la w forbids certai n form s o f violence to person s an d thing s and authorise s and eve n commands others. There are war s that ar e commanded — even against Israel - an d wars that are forbidden - eve n on behalf of Israel. If one tries to find some coherenc e i n thes e indications , a firs t an d simpl e formulatio n might b e tha t th e invitation to exercise or renounce conflict an d violence tends to open the space in which men (concretely as foreigner, widow, orphan, poor, family) ca n be and do, on earth, that which belong s t o thei r particula r humanity . I n general , i t seem s possibl e t o sa y tha t conflict an d violenc e ar e mean s t o brea k ou t o f condition s (slavery , vengeance , arbitrariness, oppression , lac k o f protection , usurpation ) tha t leav e a man , a grou p o f people, o r a peopl e unabl e t o b e an d ac t a s a responsibl e agen t ('a s a partne r i n th e 260

WAR AN D PEAC E

covenant') in relation to the others, to things, to God. If this is so, it will not be surprising that, i n genera l terms , peac e i s preferabl e t o hostility , generosit y t o vindictiveness , production t o destruction, trus t and harmony to threat and fear. At this point, the idea of order an d rationalit y ha s it s significan t plac e i n Christia n reflection . But , give n th e conditions i n whic h - accordin g t o Scriptur e - huma n lif e develops , i t i s also no t surprising that God's announcement-commandment come s almost always as a call to th e creation of a new situation, to a transformation and righting of the status quo. This is the priority to which the insistence on liberation legitimatel y points. Nevertheless , liberation and order , conflic t and integratio n ar e no t conceptua l key s for a philosophy o f histor y but heuristic elements for a reflection on God's Word in a given historical situation. They are not, moreover , symmetrica l elements ; th e biblical perspective , centre d i n the perso n and wor k o f Jesu s Christ , alway s incorporate s order , rationality , preservatio n i n a dynamics o f transformation an d no t th e reverse .

19.13 If w e try t o brin g togethe r th e tw o theologica l theme s develope d i n th e las t page s efficacious lov e an d th e condition s o f peac e an d conflict - i n orde r t o retur n t o ou r specific proble m o f clas s struggle , w e ca n sa y tha t thi s questio n canno t b e debate d abstractly, bu t i n relatio n t o God' s announcement-commandmen t i n Jesu s Chris t o f a new man an d a new humanity which must be witnessed to an d prolepticall y anticipated in history .

EXTRACT 2 0 O'DONOVAN Discrimination and double-effect 20.1 What doe s i t mea n t o intend discrimination ? Discriminatio n i s fro m th e star t a n intentional concept , an d th e developmen t o f just-war principles was at faul t i n trying to treat o f a 'just intention ' that wa s conceived a s something differen t fro m it . There is, in fact, only one 'just intention' in armed conflict, and that is to distinguish innocence fro m guilt by overcoming direct co-operation i n wrong. To search for a pure intention behind this intention i s to chas e a will o' th e wisp. An act of war, like any other act , is inserted into a dense weave of practical purposes and intentions , mos t o f which will inevitably be peculiar to th e circumstanc e and th e particula r agents. Anyone of these, i f drawn out i n such a way as to suggest that it is the 'real' purpose, ca n appear ulterior an d irrelevan t to the pursui t o f justice , a corrup t motiv e underminin g th e mora l pretension s o f th e enterprise. N o on e eve r oppose d a war withou t disclosin g t o th e worl d tha t i t ha d a n ulterior motiv e whic h wa s it s 'real ' intention . Oil , i t appears , i s usuall y th e favoure d candidate. Bu t the point i s not tha t belligerent parties should hav e no furthe r intention s or purposes. Th e point i s that this one intention shoul d shap e the practical rationality of all tha t i s actuall y undertake n i n conflict , an d tha t al l othe r intention s shoul d b e subordinated t o it s demands an d restraints .

261

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

20.2

The traditional formulation of the principle of discrimination requires that 'direct attack' should b e restricte d t o combatan t objects . I t i s not breache d b y the bare fac t tha t non combatants ar e killed, fo r it would require unusua l conditions t o avoi d non-combatan t casualties altogether. I t i s breached whe n the y are attacke d 'directly' . This distinctio n i s valid for acts of judgment of every type, not onl y i n armed conflict . Whe n a man i s sent to prison, a family is deprived of a father, a wife of a husband, perhaps elderly parents of a son, with consequences that may be the more terrible because they can be anticipated. Yet this is very different fro m th e court s punishing families directly, by depriving relatives of convicted criminal s o f their jobs , fo r instance , a s use d t o happen , w e were told, i n th e Soviet Union. The indirect suffering s o f non-combatants shoul d figure in any estimation of th e justice of an attac k - bu t the y belong unde r th e headin g o f proportion, no t of discrimination. Proportion is elastic, a matter o f more or less. It makes sense to ask how many non-combatan t casualtie s can be incurre d without makin g the actio n dispropor tionate. It makes no sense to ask how many non-combatants may be attacked directly, for the answe r is, not a single one .

20.3 The poin t whic h thi s traditiona l formulatio n leave s unclea r i s tha t 'direct ' i s a n intentional notion . T o attac k an y objec t 'directly ' i s t o inten d t o damag e it . 'Direct ' material co-operation wit h wrong is to participate in acts which intend t o damag e what should no t intentionall y b e damaged . Th e differenc e betwee n 'direct ' an d 'indirect ' damage, then , ca n b e expresse d a s th e differenc e betwee n 'intended ' an d 'unintended ' damage. Th e intentio n t o damag e onl y thos e force s tha t inten d materia l co-operatio n with wrong is what makes an action discriminate; the intention to do any other damage is what make s a n actio n indiscriminate , alway s remembering tha t th e 'intention ' i n eac h case is not the whole range of purposes and motive s that agents may bring to the act, but the practica l rationality of the actio n itself . 20.4 As the traditiona l theory o f double-effect wel l understood, i t make s no mora l differenc e to th e intentiona l characte r o f a n ac t whethe r th e har m i s intende d a s a n en d o r a s a means. 'Regrettably,' the military spokesman may say, 'it has been necessary to eliminat e the residential areas', and we rightly view him a s a hypocrite, even though the regret may be perfectly genuine and the assault on non-combatants strictl y necessary to the military purpose. It s necessity , indeed , wa s proof tha t i t wa s intentional: th e cours e o f military action propose d woul d hav e been incoheren t withou t it . Th e hypocris y lie s not i n th e feigning of regret, but i n pretending that an intentional attack on non-combatants coul d be a matte r fo r regre t rathe r tha n repentance . A militar y purpos e subjec t t o suc h necessities should b e abandoned. Quit e differently fro m this , on e ma y foresee damag e to non-combatants, whic h is not intende d as a means to the military purpose but canno t be avoided. The military goal does not impl y the non-combatant damage , but th e damage is an unavoidable accompanimen t to the pursuit o f the goal. A military installatio n has to be disabled ; thi s wil l involv e damag e t o surroundin g residentia l areas , but th e damag e contributes nothin g as such to th e disabling of the militar y installation. I t i s 'collateral', i.e., a 'side effect': i t lies to one side of the path of means and end s which the intention is following. 262

WAR AN D PEAC E

20.5 This distinction , morall y compellin g a s it is , has sometime s invite d prevarication . Th e allied forces that bombed Hiroshima in 1945 claimed to have intended to destroy military installations; bu t ha d that been their true intention, the y had other mor e suitable means at their disposal for doing so. A correct understanding of what intention mean s will allow an important corollary : the foresight that disproportionate non-combatan t damag e will be done, combined wit h a failure t o intend t o avoid that disproportionate damage , presumes an intention t o do that damage . Foreseen damage is not a s such intended; bu t whe n the foreseen damage is also gratuitous, it is presumed to be intended. So discrimination is not solely a matter o f selecting a military object fo r attack , or simpl e 'targeting'. It i s also a matter o f attackin g th e targe t discriminatingly , i.e. , proportionin g th e mean s t o th e object. 20.6 The mos t difficul t practica l dilemma s arisin g fro m thi s corollar y concer n aeria l bombardment. 'Target-are a bombing ' i s a nam e give n t o th e prohibite d practic e o f treating 'as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinc t military objectives located i n a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilian s o r civilia n objects' . I f th e precis e destructio n o f separat e militar y targets requires separat e attacks , on e shoul d no t tr y t o mak e d o wit h on e all-encompassin g attack a t a cos t t o non-combatan t lives . Fo r mos t practica l purpose s thi s rul e make s excellent sense . Ye t one coul d imagin e circumstances of acute urgency which made th e delay involve d i n separat e attack s exceptionall y perilous : fo r example , agains t separat e missile launching sites, fro m anyon e of which an enem y might launch majo r attack s o n centres o f population . Urgenc y coul d mak e th e separat e destructio n o f eac h sit e impracticable; in which case the destruction of non-combatants woul d not be gratuitous; and if not gratuitous , not presume d t o be intended; and i f not presume d to be intended, genuinely collateral . 20.7 The point of noting such a possible exception is not t o undermine a clear, and for almost all purposes binding , rul e o f warfare: don' t attac k target s where there ar e lot s o f non combatants! I t i s t o explor e th e meanin g o f th e phras e 'intendin g har m t o non combatants' an d t o sho w wh y i t i s no t synonymou s wit h an y othe r phrase , suc h a s 'bombing cities', 'destroying residential areas', etc. One can test for the intention to harm non-combatants b y putting a simple hypothetical question : i f it were to chanc e that b y some unexpected interventio n o f Providence the predicted har m to non-combatant s di d not ensue , would the point o f the attack have been frustrated? If on 6 August 194 5 all the citizens o f Hiroshima , frightene d b y a rumou r o f what was to occur , ha d fle d th e city , would the attac k have lost it s point? If the answer is 'yes', then there was an intention t o harm them , an d thei r death s wer e no t collateral . I f i n th e operatio n t o separat e th e conjoint twins , Mary and Jodie, Mary's own heart and lungs had unforeseeably sprung to life as she was separated from Jodie's , and sh e had lived, would th e operation have been deemed a failure? I f the answe r i s 'no', Mary' s deat h wa s collateral. Th e trul y collateral damage in war is that which, if it could hav e been avoided, would have left th e intende d attack on a combatant objec t uncompromised. That i s what is meant by calling it a 'side effect'. 263

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S 20.8

To understand the intentional character of discrimination is to see how responsibility for discrimination ma y rest as much with the party attacked as with the party attacking. To locate potential combatant targets in deliberate proximity to non-combatant populations is to be guilty of those Postage shield' policies that have been such a deplorably constan t feature o f fighting in the Middl e East. The First Geneva Protocol accordingl y requires all parties t o 'endeavou r t o remov e th e civilia n populatio n fro m th e vicinit y o f militar y objectives' and to 'avoid locating military objectives in densely populated areas ' as well as explicitly prohibiting 'huma n shield ' policie s to protec t militar y installations. Ye t as we have seen , a t th e leve l of infrastructur e targets, commo n t o civilia n an d militar y uses , separation ma y be har d t o achieve . I f even post office s ar e legitimate targets because of their significance for military communications, not much separation from civilian centres of population ca n be looked for . It would be interesting to see a map of Britain indicatin g where we have located installation s tha t wer e regarded a s legitimate objects o f attack in the bombin g o f Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan .

20.9 Nevertheless, such difficultie s d o no t mak e the principl e inoperable, and ther e are som e flagrant breaches of it which must unquestionably be condemned. Th e tactics of guerrilla warfare rais e the issue in its sharpest form, since they require the assimilatio n of fighting forces t o th e surroundin g community . Th e enem y i s permitted t o mov e ove r friendl y territory to an extent which would, in conventional warfare, secur e victory, but continue s to mee t damagin g opposition fro m force s camouflage d in the society around. Fe w types of warfar e ar e s o dreadfu l i n thei r implication s fo r non-combatants , who , precisel y because they have daily contact with the enemy, are exposed to constant terro r in order to secure their loyalty . The world communit y urgentl y needs human e convention s fo r th e conduct o f suc h struggles , whic h wil l allo w mor e detachmen t o n th e par t o f non combatants an d wil l especially ensure the exclusio n of children fro m arme d combat . 20.10

Some thinkers have held tha t discrimination add s nothing significan t t o th e principle of proportionate har m in governing the methods use d in war. Are not al l the restraint s on warfare reducible to this one, that the extent of the harm we do should b e justified by the extent o f th e threa t w e hav e t o repel ? The y ar e not . Discriminatio n introduce s a n altogether mor e demandin g restraint : i t forbid s u s t o aggregat e damage don e t o non combatants with damage done to combatants. I n the eyes of God the soul of a soldier is of no les s valu e tha n th e sou l o f a milkman : wh y hesitate , w e ma y wonder , t o kil l th e milkman, if we do not hesitat e to kill the soldier? But then, in the eyes of God the soul of a crimina l i s o f n o les s valu e tha n th e sou l o f a n innocen t citizen : wh y hesitat e t o imprison the innocent citizen , if we do not hesitat e to imprison th e criminal? In enacting judgment we are not invite d to assume the all-seeing view of God, before whom n o ma n living is justified, thoug h we may never forget tha t Go d does, i n fact, hav e that view. We have a specific human dut y laid upon us, which i s to distinguis h innocence and guil t as far a s is given us i n th e conduc t o f human affairs , no t i n orde r t o pu t i n questio n th e equality of all human person s befor e God, but i n order to respec t the limit s which God sets upon ou r invasio n of other people' s lives . To lose the will to discriminat e i s to los e the will to d o justice. 264

WAR AN D PEAC E

CRITIQUE One of the problems involved , in comparing the Texts with the Extracts in this Section, is that their perceptions o f war are radically different. Fo r the modern era , war involves the possibility of human total self-destruction: nuclear weapons present Christia n ethics with horrific dimensions , quit e beyond th e concepts o f Augustine, Aquinas or Luther . In this sense, there is a crucial hiatus between the Texts and the Extracts, despite the attempts of Welty t o understan d moder n warfar e i n term s o f traditiona l just-wa r concepts . Th e American Bishop s an d Hauerwa s sugges t a radica l alternativ e and , indeed , rais e th e crucial question , i n term s o f a just-wa r theory , o f whethe r i t ca n eve r b e sai d tha t al l peaceful mean s hav e bee n exhausted , i n conflic t situations , befor e recours e i s made t o violence. Bu t the overall problem remain s of whether they present a serious alternative to nuclear deterrence . Welty's relianc e upo n internationa l tribunal s t o determin e whethe r o r no t particula r wars ar e war s o f aggressio n (15.3 ) ma y itsel f b e somewha t Utopian . O'Donovan , i n contrast, was less than sanguine about the role of the United Nations in the run-up to the Iraq War, notin g causticall y that 'th e quickes t wa y to mak e the grea t U N experimen t a memory of past history is to tr y to us e it as an icepac k to freez e th e nation s o f the world into inactivity ' (The Just Wa r Revisited, p . 136) . Further , Welty' s centra l notion s o f 'justice', 'defence ' an d 'liberation ' remain difficul t t o objectify : i t is , indeed, n o eas y task to se t out a just-war theory which is not, a t some point , tautological . Finally, his style of argument - dependen t a s it is on papal authority - to o severely limits its usefulness t o a traditional Roma n Catholic context . Ramsey's critique i s rather cleare r than hi s proposals. Man y might conced e bot h tha t church bodie s ofte n lac k th e specifi c politica l expertis e require d t o engag e seriously i n political realitie s and tha t churc h members inevitabl y remain pluralisti c o n man y moral and politica l issues . However , Ramsey' s critiqu e seem s t o g o furthe r tha n thi s suggesting t o man y tha t churche s hav e n o propheti c rol e a t al l i n pluralisti c societies . Such a position i s difficult t o maintain i n Christian ethics faced wit h the egregious legacy of weapons o f mass destruction i n th e moder n world . The U S Bishop s wer e criticize d fro m a mor e conservativ e perspectiv e b y th e la y Catholic theologia n Michae l Novak : 'Jus t whe n th e Wes t neede d a cal l t o discipline d deterrence, the net geopolitical impact of the Bishops' letter was to contribute to illusions. The Bishop s di d resis t pacifism ; tha t i s t o thei r credit . The y di d not , despit e muc h activism, destroy deterrence; that , too, i s to their credit. Bu t they failed t o strengthen th e clarity of soul necessary to mak e deterrence work, and that marks a grave religious as well as political failure ' (i n Judit h Dwye r (ed.) , Th e Catholic Bishops an d Nuclear Wa r 1984 , p. 84). Others, however, have applauded Th e Challenge o f Peace as a prophetic documen t that wa s one o f the contributor s t o th e en d o f the Col d War . The peacemakin g stanc e o f th e U S Bishops appears mil d compare d wit h th e radica l pacifism o f Hauerwas . Som e fin d th e latte r to o shor t o n detail s abou t whethe r o r no t radical non-violen t resistanc e i s a practical stance in a dangerous an d militaristi c world. Hauerwas adopts a position o f theological defiance. If the world is committed t o violence, then that is too bad for the world: the Christian cannot meet violenc e with violence. He rejects a consequentialis t stanc e - fo r example , claimin g tha t non-violenc e ca n be as effective a s violence , a s argue d i n th e Unite d Reforme d Group' s Non-Violent Action (1973). Instead h e sees the claim s of the Kingdo m of God a s absolute. H e even concede s

265

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

elsewhere that 'the peace of God, rather than making the world mor e safe, onl y increases the danger s w e have to negotiate ' (The Peaceable Kingdom 1983(1984] , p . 142) . Many might regar d this a s worrying advice in a fragil e world . A numbe r o f crucia l difficultie s als o fac e Bonino . Lik e Miranda , h e claim s tha t 'scientific', Marxis t concepts ca n be used to clarif y biblica l concepts . Som e of the point s that the y bot h make , i n defenc e o f Marxis m an d agains t simplisti c attack s b y othe r Christians, are convincing and, i n the contex t o f the economi c an d politica l oppressio n that has, at times, characterized South America, the central focus of liberation theolog y is highly important . Nonetheless , Bonino' s contentio n tha t ther e i s 'a strikin g similarity ' between Paul' s notio n o f 'works ' an d th e Marxis t concep t o f 'alienation ' require s fa r more analysi s an d justificatio n (19.3) . I t i s als o difficul t t o accept , withou t furthe r evidence, tha t th e Marxis t concep t o f th e 'proletariat' , derive d a s i t i s fro m a n urba n industrial context, has much t o d o with th e biblical concept of the 'poor' (see above, p. 188). Further , ther e i s a certai n lac k o f clarit y i n th e concep t o f 'peace ' tha t Bonin o proposes t o replac e the two traditional theologica l concepts . Despite th e ver y real difference s o f opinio n betwee n thes e Extracts , i t i s possibl e t o identify a number of points that most Christians hold in common. All the Extracts would agree that, if modern warfar e is to be justified a t all, it is only to be justified with extreme reluctance an d a s a ver y las t resort . Eve n th e possessio n o f a nuclea r deterren t i s a concession to an evil world. And, in the context o f liberation struggles, violence is only to be justifie d becaus e i t i s already implici t i n a n oppressiv e statu s quo . Thi s present-da y reluctance represent s a n importan t retur n t o Augustine' s position. I t ha s alread y been seen that, in Aquinas' writings, Augustine's reluctance in condoning warfare at all is often absent. Th e justifiability o r otherwis e o f wars becomes a matter o f formal presentation . However, face d wit h th e horrifi c dimension s o f modern warfare , mos t Christian s toda y might agree that war is in principle evil and i s to be resisted, either with a very reluctant use of violence, o r wit h a use of non-violent means . There ar e tw o importan t element s her e whic h migh t differentiat e present-da y Christianity fro m certai n othe r religiou s or secula r positions. Firstly , war i s regarded a s evil: there is no concep t her e of a 'holy war'. Secondly, i t is an evi l that i s to b e resiste d (violently or otherwise) : there is no sanctio n fo r acquiescence or refusin g t o tak e action . Christianity i s seen a s eirenic, but no t quietistic : i t involve s a n uneas y tension betwee n 'peace' and 'justice' . One practica l approac h incorporatin g bot h element s i s pioneere d b y th e America n theologian Gle n Stasse n i n hi s collectio n Just Peacemaking: Te n Practices for Abolishing War (1999) . Contributor s shar e a commo n convictio n tha t bot h pacifis t an d just-wa r Christians should mak e a sustained effort t o promote practica l strategies of peacemaking, including the following: • Suppor t non-violen t direc t actio n • Tak e independent initiative s to reduce threat • Us e cooperativ e conflic t resolutio n • Acknowledg e responsibilit y fo r conflic t an d injustic e an d see k repentanc e an d forgiveness • Advanc e democracy, huma n rights , and religious liberty • Foste r just and sustainable economic developmen t • Wor k wit h emerging cooperative force s i n the international syste m 266

WAR AN D PEAC E

• Strengthe n the United Nation s and international effort s fo r cooperation an d human rights • Reduc e offensive weapon s an d weapons trad e • Encourag e grassroots peacemakin g groups .

267

This page intentionally left blank

SECTION 4

The Environment

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction t o th e Environment

Within th e las t tw o decade s thre e distinc t mora l criticism s of Christianity hav e become more prominent . I f a previous generation o f sceptical academics was inclined t o dismis s Christianity o n logica l o r theoretica l ground s (whethe r thos e o f Marxism , Darwinism , Freudianism, o r Logical Positivism), today it is moral grounds for dismissing Christianity that ar e frequentl y used . Th e thre e critiques , separatel y o r together , accus e historica l Christianity o f bein g responsibl e fo r present-da y anti-Semitism , patriarchy , an d environmental destruction . The first of these critiques - namel y that Christianity has consciously or unconsciously fostered anti-Semitis m ove r th e centuries - wil l be represented i n the next Section . The second critiqu e - claimin g in its most striden t for m tha t Judais m and Christianity (an d indeed Islam ) are inescapably committe d t o patriarchy - ha s featured i n several parts of this Textbook (includin g the present Section). The third critique - claimin g that Christian belief has legitimated an d fostered environmenta l destructio n - wil l be considered here . Each o f thes e critique s wa s firs t develope d withi n Christianit y b y Christian s wh o ha d been informe d b y a wide r debat e an d wishe d t o refor m Christia n institution s an d thinking. Today, however, they are often use d as a way of dismissing Christianity entirely - i n th e interest s eithe r o f secularis m o r o f alternativ e form s o f religiou s belongin g (frequently neo-paganism) . An y adequate accoun t o f Christia n ethic s toda y mus t tak e them seriously . The environmenta l critiqu e o f Christianit y frequently cite s Lyn n White' s 196 7 article for th e journal Science, 'The Historical Roots o f our Ecologi c Crisis'. Fo r this reason th e central par t o f this seminal article form s Extrac t 21. White claime d that 'especiall y in its Western form , Christianit y i s the mos t anthropocentri c religio n th e world ha s seen'. He argued tha t thi s resulte d fro m it s dual inheritanc e fro m Judais m of a linea r concep t o f time and a striking story of creation which gave to human s 'dominion' over all animals. Reinforced b y the doctrine o f incarnation, Wester n Christianit y ha s as a result tended t o believe that humanit y 'shares , in great measure, God' s transcendenc e o f nature' (21.17). Lynn White migh t hav e been surprise d tha t hi s article has been quit e so influential i n the las t decades . No t everyon e ha s heede d hi s warning that: 'whe n on e speak s i n suc h sweeping terms , a not e o f cautio n i s i n order . Christianit y i s a comple x faith , an d it s consequences diffe r i n differin g contexts ' (21.20) . Making overall claim s about th e socia l significance of religious ideas is a risky business - a s has been noted severa l times already in this Textbook. Indeed , fro m White' s ow n argument i t is not clea r why he should hav e particularly single d ou t Wester n Christianit y fo r hi s critiqu e (se e 24.2) . Judais m an d Islam hav e just a s emphatic notion s of creation an d monotheism . Perhaps th e underlyin g argumen t i n White' s critiqu e i s linked t o anothe r frequentl y ignored factor . Writin g primaril y as a professional historian, h e nevertheles s conclude d 271

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

his articl e fro m a perspectiv e withi n Wester n Christianity . H e wa s emphaticall y no t writing a n externa l polemi c agains t Christianit y and , perhaps , therefor e fel t free r t o criticize his own for m o f religious belonging. I n both o f these respect s h e differe d fro m some present-da y writers who hav e been strongl y influence d by his thesis . At the hear t o f the theologica l debat e i s the questio n o f how Western Christian s have understood th e Genesi s accounts o f creation, an d especiall y the crucia l verse: 'And Go d said, Let us make man i n our image , after ou r likeness : and let then hav e dominion over the fish of the sea , and ove r al l the fow l o f the air , an d ove r th e cattle , an d ove r al l the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth' (Gen. 1.26). Augustine, Aquinas and Luthe r provide a fascinating contrast i n their interpretations o f 'dominion'. Together the y serve to illustrat e tha t Christianity , even i n its Western form , is indeed as complex a s White warned . Whe n compare d the y do no t suppor t an y simplistic notio n that 'dominion ' i s to b e treated a s a synonym o f 'exploitation'. From hi s exegesi s o f Genesi s 1.2 6 i n Tex t FV. 4 i t migh t b e possibl e t o argu e tha t Augustine regarded human dominatio n of the non-huma n a s always justified. However , Text X shows that he was conscious that it makes little sense to believe that everythin g in the world has been created directly to serve human beings. He was not anthropocentric i n this sense. He was aware of 'the thorns an d th e thistles' an d argue s that, while they may serve to punish humans after th e Fall, they had a wider (non-human) functio n before th e Fall. 'Dominion' as such is not an issue in this Text. Rather, Text X concentrates upo n th e feature tha t distinguishe s humans from non-human s - namel y intelligence. It is human intelligence which i s a reflection o f the imag e of God an d i t i s this which give s humans 'dominion' (X.6). Both Aquina s and Luthe r follow Augustin e in isolatin g intelligenc e a s the distinctiv e feature that differentiate s human s from othe r animal s and that reflect s the image of God. All thre e expres s thes e crucia l link s and , no t surprisingly , hav e ha d a considerabl e influence upon Western culture. Indeed, anthropocentrism i n this limited sense may be a prerequisite of an ethic that is committed t o human justice. The reduction to absurdity of an ethica l position tha t reject s even this form o f anthropocentrism woul d b e one which could se e n o mora l distinctio n betwee n th e Holocaus t an d th e exterminatio n o f five million ants - o r even five million bacteria. If intelligent or sentient lif e is given no higher value statu s tha n non-sentien t life , the n i t i s difficul t t o se e ho w suc h a positio n i s avoided. Certainl y withi n th e Extract s bot h K . C . Abraha m an d Salli e McFagu e ar e emphatic tha t ecolog y needs t o b e correlated wit h human justice. But wha t abou t anthropocentris m i n a stronge r for m - tha t is , in th e for m whic h supposes that th e existence of everything in the world ca n only be justified i n relation t o human needs ? Neither Augustin e nor Luthe r were anthropocentri c i n thi s sense . Bot h were conscious that , at least before the Fall , non-human lif e i s not simpl y present i n th e world to serv e human beings. Luther, in particular, deplored man y of the human uses of nature afte r th e Fall . Ever conscious of his health, he could argu e that: 'Adam would no t have eate n th e variou s kind s o f meat , a s th e les s delightfu l food , i n preferenc e to th e delightful fruit s o f the earth , whereas fo r u s nothing i s more deliciou s tha n meat . From the us e of these fruit s ther e would no t hav e resulte d tha t leprou s obesity , bu t physica l beauty and healt h an d a sound stat e o f the humors ' (XII.20) . There ar e obviou s difference s her e betwee n Augustin e an d Luther . Th e latte r i s distinctly bleaker in his overwhelming sense of sin. At times he seems to sugges t that sin has quite obliterate d th e imag e of God i n humans apar t fro m Christ . At other time s h e 272

THE ENVIRONMEN T

seems to see a flickering of the divine image still present. It will be suggested later that this bleakness i s curiously well suited t o muc h o f the secula r ecological debat e today . Whil e his Christocentris m an d hi s literalisti c understandin g o f th e Fal l i s a t odd s wit h thi s secular debate , hi s blea k vie w o f contemporar y natur e a s a produc t o f huma n si n fit s surprisingly well . In contrast t o Augustine and Luther, Aquinas' position seem s to be anthropocentric i n both th e weake r an d th e stronge r sense . Hi s rigorou s logi c seem s t o brin g hi m t o a position tha t accords no value to non-human lif e other tha n the value that humans place upon it . In a hierarchical world Go d is pure intellect; men, and to a lesser extent women , reflect tha t intellect ; bu t othe r animals , lackin g intellect, ar e i n th e worl d onl y t o serv e human beings . Th e resul t o f thi s understandin g i s a s follows : 'Therefore , intellectua l creatures ar e s o controlle d b y God , a s object s o f car e fo r thei r ow n sakes ; whil e othe r creatures ar e subordinated , a s i t were , t o th e rational creatures ' (XI.3) . Furthermore , while it might be imprudent t o be cruel to non-human animal s - eithe r because it might encourage cruelty to other hurnans or because it might damag e their property - i t is not inherently wrong . It is at this point tha t Aquinas ' logic seems particularly anachronistic today . Viewed as a defence of the value of human lif e it might still be regarded as relevant. However viewed as an adequate defenc e of non-human animal s it appears considerably mor e dubious (see Clark's Extrac t 24.4-5) . It ma y be importan t t o remembe r tha t deontologica l position s against cruelt y t o non-huma n animal s ar e mor e typica l o f th e moder n tha n th e pre modern world . Eve n Kan t an d Descarte s hel d view s on thi s issu e deepl y a t odd s wit h those hel d fo r the most par t i n th e Wes t today . An increasing consciousness o f human responsibilit y i n relation t o the natural world is a relatively recent phenomenon. However , it has informed each of the writers represented in the Extracts in this Section. Two Christian ethicist s fro m Indi a have deliberately been chosen, since it is here that the often conflictin g demands o f ecology and social justice can be most sharpl y heard. And two radical voices from th e West - sacramenta l and feminist respectively - hav e also been added . Togethe r the y suggest that th e ecological challeng e and White's critique are being increasingl y hear d within Christianit y today. Certainly it is a challenge which has been take n u p by the World Counci l of Churches as severa l o f th e Extract s poin t out . Paulo s Ma r Gregorios ' Extrac t 2 2 wa s i n fac t a preparation pape r fo r th e Vancouve r Assembl y in 1983 . Alread y ecologica l issue s were firmly on the agenda. He was Moderator of the Issues Grou p o n 'Confronting Threats to Peace an d Survival ' a t tha t Assembly . I n it s final repor t th e Issue s Grou p expresse d it s 'hopes for a world wher e life i s not threatene d b y nuclear holocaust , o r slo w starvation, for a world wher e justic e and peac e embrac e eac h other , ar e base d i n Jesu s Christ , th e Crucified an d Rise n On e wh o ha s triumphe d ove r th e power s o f evi l an d death ' (Par t A:l). Th e issue s o f nuclea r escalation , increasin g militaris m an d ecologica l destructio n were firml y linke d i n th e report . I t argue d tha t 'nuclea r deterrenc e i s morall y unacceptable becaus e it relies on th e credibility of the intention t o us e nuclear weapons : we believe tha t an y intention t o us e weapons o f mass destruction i s an utterl y inhuma n violation of the mind and spirit of Christ which should be in us' (Part A: 14). Aware of the potential destructiv e powe r o f modern technology , th e group se t out th e followin g fou r principles gaine d fro m dialogue s wit h scientist s se t up b y the WCC : 1.) th e growin g consensus i n theology that we must understan d God , humanity an d 273

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

nature in relation to on e another, a relation whic h finds its central expression i n Christ; 2.) th e increasin g recognitio n by scientists that science is not a value-free or neutra l activity, but take s place in a world o f ethical decision s an d values; 3.) theolog y an d scienc e operat e wit h differen t language s whic h continu e t o rais e problems fo r th e dialogue , whic h nee d t o b e tackle d throug h a deepe r understanding, b y each discipline, of the other' s approaches an d limitations ; 4.) humanit y ha s to recogniz e the tw o pole s aroun d whic h an d betwee n whic h lif e develops and evolves - th e Creator an d the Creation. The attempt t o ignore one of the pole s has disastrous consequence s (Par t B:20) . K. C. Abraham's Extrac t 23 does no t conflict directl y with Gregorios , although th e tw o authors d o writ e wit h ver y differen t constituencie s i n mind . I f th e Syria n Orthodo x Gregorios writes with the ecumenica l context i n mind, th e Protestan t Abraha m i s more concerned wit h liberation theology and its relation to ecology. He develops the notion of 'eco-justice' t o depic t a n approac h tha t take s bot h huma n liberatio n an d th e natura l environment seriousl y - believin g that i n the end this i s in the interests o f the world's poor. He insists that: 'The life of the planet i s endangered. The ecological crisi s raises the problem o f surviva l itself . Moreover , ther e i s a growin g awarenes s o f th e organi c lin k between th e destruction o f the environment an d socio-economi c an d politica l injustice ' (23.2). However, ther e i s a potentia l conflic t betwee n Stephe n Clark' s Extrac t 2 4 an d Salli e McFague's Extrac t 25. Clark has become increasingly critica l of the most radical feminist approaches t o ecology . H e does acknowledg e tha t h e has learned muc h fro m feminism , arguing for example that 'i t i s now a truism i n developmenta l circle s that i t i s better t o involve the women o f agrarian society in discussions abou t ho w to liv e in the land: it is they who may remember how, and they who will put th e new advice into practice' (How to Think about the Earth, 1993 , pp . 155-6) . Yet he believes th e neo-paganis m whic h i s sometimes associate d with radical feminism (albei t not i n McFague), tends to forget tha t a rigorou s inhumanis m ca n result fro m i t - a s it di d unde r th e Nazi s - a s well as romanticism. H e is also suspicious of what he sees as the selective scientism o f such form s of religion . Jus t a s he argue s in Extrac t 24.2, elsewhere he warns : The impuls e t o blam e ou r situatio n o n Christians , Hebrews , Greek s or , generally , patriarchs i s one tha t mos t seriou s environmentalist s woul d normall y see k t o curb . Selecting villains, and identifyin g ourselve s with their historica l victim, i s just the sor t of 'dualism' we should see k to avoid . Supposing that event s have simple, linear causes is to forge t ho w complex history is. Supposing that human beings do things because of their beliefs, and not because their material situation determine s that result , is perhaps a little too idealistic. These failing are compounded by romantic fantasies of some place far awa y or long ago when people lived in 'harmony with nature'. Perhaps they did, or do. Bu t the suspicion, or my suspicion, mus t be that thi s was because they lacked th e power t o d o muc h els e (How to Think about the Earth, p. 10) . Clark doe s no t cite McFague in his criticisms - bu t his position suggest s that h e might regard som e o f her position s a s too dependen t upo n wha t h e terms 'romanticism ' (e.g . 25.11 and 18) . 274

THE ENVIRONMENT

For McFagu e new theologie s hav e 'th e opportunit y t o vie w divine transcendenc e i n deeper, mor e awesom e and mor e intimat e way s than eve r before' (25.19) . I n a series of influential book s sh e ha s develope d som e o f thes e ways herself with model s o f Go d a s 'mother', 'lover' and 'friend'. And in her more recent writings she has also developed th e models o f 'procreation ' rathe r tha n 'creation ' an d o f th e worl d a s 'God' s Body' . Sh e claims tha t thes e model s sugges t fo r Christia n ethics : ' a ne w vision , a ne w shap e fo r humanity and for our world, a vision that changes the way we see everything and, hence, the way we decide any specific issue and concern ... For instance, we become aware of the deep a s wel l a s subtl e relationship s amon g issue s tha t i n th e moder n individualistic , anthropocentric paradigm are not connected, such as those involving economic priorities and environmenta l health ' (The Body o f God: An Ecological Theology, 1993 , pp . 202-4) . In contrast , Clar k looks to th e les s intimate term s o f what h e identifie s elsewhere as 'sacramental theism', accordin g to which we live in a world o f 'incarnating Beauty ' - a world whic h we do no t own , but whic h we can enjo y as long as we leave it as good fo r others: 'th e Bible expects u s to accep t ou r plac e within the creation , t o liv e by the rules God imposes , t o tak e what we need, n o more , an d t o giv e u p ou r demand s s o that lif e may go on' (24.9) . Within Christia n ethic s environmental concer n i s still developing. I t would , then, b e premature t o expec t clea r agreement s an d alliances . Wit h th e explosio n o f scientifi c knowledge taking place in genetics and biotechnolog y considerabl y more ethica l work is clearly needed. However , it is at least evident that n o single naive reading of Genesis 1- 3 can be attributed to th e discipline .

275

TEXTX

AUGUSTINE The literal meaning of Genesis 1. BACKGROUND This Text comes fro m D e Genesi a d Litteram (The Literal Meaning o f Genesis, translated and annotate d b y John Hammond Taylor , SJ, Vol. 1 , Book 3, Newman Press, ch. 18-24, pp. 93-102) . Augustine' s ambivalen t relationshi p t o Manichaeanis m i s reflecte d i n hi s long-standing concern with Genesis. In 388 he wrote De Genesi contra Manichaeos which he subsequently destroyed. H e analysed Genesis at length in his Confessions an d returne d to i t repeatedl y i n hi s mature work Th e City o f Go d (see Text IV) . In 40 1 he starte d th e present work, completing it in 415. He wrote about th e latter: 'The title of these books is The Literal Meaning o f Genesis, tha t i s no t accordin g t o allegorica l meaning s bu t according to the proper historical sense. In this work there are more questions raise d than answers found , an d o f the answer s foun d no t man y hav e been establishe d fo r certain . Those tha t ar e no t certai n hav e bee n propose d fo r furthe r study' (Retractiones 2.50) . Despite its title, the work covers only the first three chapters of Genesis: Part 1 (Books 1 5) is concerned with Creation; Part 2 (Books 6-11) with Adam's body, Eve , and th e Fall; and Par t 3 (Book 12) with Paradise . 2. KE Y ISSUES Augustine puzzles about wh y there are thorns an d thistle s in the world alongsid e plant s that benefi t human s (X.I) . As part o f hi s respons e h e use s the lega l notion o f usufruct [Justinian sa w this a s 'th e righ t o f usin g another' s propert y fo r one' s ow n advantag e without impairin g th e substanc e o f tha t property' , Institutiones 2.4]. Augustin e insist s that such things as thorns and thistle s are not simply a punishment fo r humans afte r th e Fall, althoug h the y ma y become that , bu t ma y als o hav e a functio n fo r othe r creature s (X.2-3). H e argue s tha t th e accoun t o f creatio n i n Genesi s implie s a trinitaria n Go d (X.5). He also sees the 'dominion' of humans over other creatures as an indication that it is the uniqu e rational mind s o f human beings that reflec t th e imag e of God (X.6-8) . As rational beings , humans, unlik e other creatures , are renewe d i n th e knowledg e of Go d (X.9-10). A problem arise s fo r Augustin e abou t huma n physica l appetites . I f human s were immorta l befor e th e Fal l why , he wonders , did the y need foo d (X.ll) ? H e i s also conscious tha t befor e th e Fal l sexua l intercours e i n orde r t o propagat e seem s t o contradict huma n immortalit y - bu t h e speculate s her e tha t thi s migh t hav e bee n achieved a t this stage without concupiscence (X.I2). He supports the positio n tha t bot h men an d wome n reflec t th e imag e of God i n their rationa l mind s (X . 13-14) an d argues that Genesis does authorize humans to eat (X . 16-17). He also puzzles about why Genesis does no t sa y that God , having created humans , saw that the y were good. H e speculates 276

THE ENVIRONMEN T

that thi s was because God kne w that human s woul d si n later (X . 18-20). H e concludes , though, tha t creatio n a s a whole, despit e sin , remains beautifu l (X.21) . 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS As i n th e othe r Text s fro m Augustine , the mai n ethica l emphasis her e i s deontological . Throughout ther e is a deontological stres s upon creation - culminatin g in the conclusion that, despite huma n sinfulness , God' s created orde r remain s beautiful (X.21) . As in Text 1.14 an d Tex t IV.4 , a stron g deontologica l stanc e i s take n fro m th e presumptio n tha t humans alon e have rational souls (X.10). Consequentialism is also evident in some part s of hi s argumen t - fo r exampl e i n hi s argumen t abou t th e functio n o f plants suc h a s thorns and thistles (X.2-3) . However, consequentialis m i s also rejecte d in other place s for exampl e i n hi s rejectio n of the argumen t abou t gende r differentiatio n i n X.13-14. 4. BASES OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS Since thi s Tex t come s fro m a commentary , i t i s hardl y surprisin g tha t i t i s th e mos t biblically based o f al l the Augustin e Texts represente d here . However , thi s i s not jus t a commentary upon Genesis. It also represents an important shif t i n Augustine's method of interpreting th e Bible . A s th e titl e o f th e wor k suggests , h e intende d t o brea k wit h allegorical interpretation s an d instea d t o explor e th e literal meaning of th e Bible . Hi s increasingly literalistic understanding ha s already been noted in relation to Text VII. His break fro m Manichaeanis m force d hi m t o com e t o term s wit h wha t h e ha d previousl y regarded as crudities within the Old Testament. Yet, in the present Text his tone is largely exploratory an d tentative. Augustine, who at times coul d be so polemical and dogmatic , gently offer s hi s own conclusion s t o difficul t question s i n th e presen t Tex t (e.g . X.12). 5. SOCIAL DDETERMINANTS Written withi n five years of Reply t o Faustus th e Manichaean ther e ar e obviou s parallels between Text X and Tex t VII. Even while insisting upon th e ful l physica l nature of Adam and Ev e (for Augustine they would hav e eaten an d ha d sexua l intercourse eve n i f there had been no Fall) , he still speculates that the y would have avoided concupiscenc e (X.12 : this issu e will b e explore d furthe r i n Sectio n 5) . A decade late r i n Th e City o f Go d h e would regard the Manichaean injunction against the killing of animals as human food t o be an erro r (XIII.9) . 6. SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE This Text i s crucial in the light o f the argumen t o f Lynn White i n Extract 21. As already noted in the introduction, hi s notion here of human 'dominion ' over the rest of creation is evidentl y anthropocentric , bu t i t i s no t clearl y concerne d wit h dominatio n o f non human creatures . Some of Augustine's most influentia l argument s are indeed presen t i n this Text. Ther e i s a clear emphasis upo n th e uniquenes s (empirica l as well as moral) of human rationality , which is extended t o both men and women. The created order i s seen as beautiful i n itself and even apparently dysfunctional parts of this order (suc h as thorns and thistle s - or , earlie r i n the argument , poisonou s an d dangerou s animals ) ar e still regarded a s good. By treating Genesis 1-3 as so important i n his writings over the cours e of severa l decades , Augustin e als o place d i t firml y o n th e theologica l agend a fo r subsequent generation s of Christians. There could be no final separation betwee n the Old and Ne w Testaments: bot h hav e continued t o shap e Christian experienc e and thinking . 277

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

FURTHER READING

See furthe r Joh n Hammon d Taylor' s introductio n t o Th e Literal Meaning o f Genesis (1982), a s wel l a s Augustine' s ow n writing s here an d i n Th e City o f God. For genera l background, see Peter Brown's Augustine of Hippo (1967 ) and Th e Body an d Society: Men, Women an d Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (1988) .

TEXTX AUGUSTINE The Literal Meaning of Genesis The creation of thorns and thistles X.1 With regard to thorns and thistles, and certain unfruitful trees , men often as k also why or when the y were created, sinc e Go d said, 'Le t th e eart h bring fort h th e nourishin g crops bearing thei r see d .. . an d th e frui t tre e bearin g it s fruit ' [Gen . 1.11] . Bu t thos e wh o propose thi s difficulty sho w they are ignorant o f the familia r lega l concept o f usufruct, a term i n whic h th e wor d 'fruit ' (fructus) indicate s a n advantage . Th e overwhelmin g advantages, whether obvious or hidden, to be derived from al l the creatures rooted in the earth and nourishe d b y it, are there for these men to behold themselve s or to learn from others wh o have experienced them . X.2 Concerning thorns and thistles , we can give a more definite answer, because after th e fal l of man God said to him, speaking of the earth, 'Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you' [Gen . 3.18]. But we should no t jum p t o th e conclusio n tha t i t was only then tha t these plant s cam e fort h fro m th e earth . Fo r i t coul d b e that , i n vie w o f th e man y advantages found i n differen t kind s o f seeds, thes e plant s ha d a place on eart h withou t afflicting ma n i n an y way. But sinc e they were growing in th e field s i n whic h man wa s now laboring in punishment for his sin, it is reasonable to suppose that they became one of th e mean s o f punishin g him . Fo r the y migh t hav e grow n elsewhere , fo r th e nourishment o f birds an d beasts , o r eve n for the us e of man . X.3 Now thi s interpretatio n doe s no t contradic t wha t i s sai d i n th e words , 'Thorn s an d thistles shall it bring fort h t o you,' if we understand tha t eart h in producing them befor e the fal l did not d o so to afflic t ma n but rathe r to provide proper nourishmen t fo r certain animals, sinc e som e animal s fin d sof t dr y thistle s a pleasan t an d nourishin g food . Bu t earth began to produce these to add to man's laborious lot only when he began to labo r on the earth afte r hi s sin. I do no t mea n tha t thes e plants once grew in other place s an d only afterwards i n the fields where man planted and harvested his crops. They were in the same place before and after: formerl y not for man, afterwards for man. And this is what is meant b y the words t o you. Go d does no t say , 'Thorns and thistle s shall i t bring forth, ' but bring forth t o you; that is , they will now begin to come forth in such a way as to add to your labor, whereas formerly they came forth onl y as a food for other living creatures. 278

THE ENVIRONMEN T

The Blessed Trinity is implied in God's decree to create man X.4 'And Go d said , "Le t U s mak e mankin d t o Ou r imag e an d likeness ; and le t the m hav e dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, all the cattle, and al l the earth, and all the creature s that craw l on th e earth. " And God made man , t o th e imag e of God he made him : mal e an d femal e h e mad e them . An d Go d blesse d the m an d said , "Increas e and multiply and fill the earth an d subdue it, and have dominion ove r the fish of the sea, the bird s o f th e air , al l the cattle , al l the earth , an d al l the creature s that craw l o n th e earth." Go d als o said , "See , I hav e give n yo u ever y seed-bearing plan t bearin g it s see d over al l the earth , an d ever y tree that ha s seed-bearing fruit . Thes e will be foo d fo r you, for al l the wild animals of the earth, for all the birds of the air, and fo r every creature that crawls on the earth and ha s the breath of life; every green plant I give for food." An d so it was done. And Go d sa w all that h e had made , and , behold, i t was very good. An d ther e was evening an d morning , th e sixt h day ' [Gen . 1.26-31].

X.5 Later on there will be ample opportunity t o treat more thoroughly of the nature of man. For th e present , i n concludin g ou r investigatio n int o th e work s o f the si x days, I mus t briefly poin t ou t th e importanc e o f th e fac t tha t i n th e cas e o f th e othe r work s i t i s written, Go d said, 'Le t there be ... ,' whereas here i t is written, Go d said, 'Le t U s make mankind t o Ou r imag e an d likeness. ' Scriptur e would indicat e b y this th e pluralit y of Persons, the Father , Son, and Hol y Spirit. But the sacred writer immediately admonishe s us to hold to the unity of the Godhead when he says, 'And God made man to the image of God.' H e doe s no t sa y that th e Fathe r mad e ma n t o th e imag e o f the Son , o r th e So n made him t o the imag e of the Father ; otherwise the expression t o Our imag e would no t be correc t i f ma n wer e mad e t o th e imag e o f th e Fathe r alon e o r th e So n alone . Bu t Scripture says, 'God made man to the image of God,' meaning that God made man to his own image. The fact tha t her e Holy Scripture says to th e imag e of God, whereas above it says to Ou r image , shows u s that th e pluralit y of Persons mus t no t lea d u s int o saying, believing, or understandin g tha t ther e are many gods, but rathe r that we must accept the Father, Son, and Hol y Spirit as one God . Becaus e of the thre e Persons, i t i s said to 'Ou r image;' because of the on e God , i t i s said 't o the imag e of God.' Man the image of God. The narrative of his creation X.6 At this point we must also note that God, after sayin g 'to Our image, ' immediately added, 'And let him have dominion ove r the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and the othe r irrational animals. ' Fro m thi s we are to understan d tha t ma n wa s made t o th e imag e of God in that part of his nature wherein he surpasses the brute beasts. This is, of course, his reason o r min d o r intelligence , o r whateve r we wish t o cal l it . Henc e S t Paul says , 'Be renewed in the spirit o f your mind, and put o n the new man, who is being renewed unt o the knowledg e o f God , accordin g t o th e imag e o f hi s Creator ' [Eph . 4.23-4]. B y these words he shows wherein man has been created to the image of God, since it is not b y any features of the body but b y a perfection of the intelligible order, that is, of the mind when illuminated.

279

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

X.7 Consequently, what is said is similar to what was said in the case of the first light created, if we are justified i n understanding this to be the intellectual light that participates in the eternal and changeles s Wisdom o f God. Scripture does not say , 'And so it was done' and then 'Go d mad e th e light, ' becaus e (a s I hav e alread y trie d t o explain ) ther e wa s no t produced som e knowledg e o f the Wor d o f God i n th e firs t creatur e preliminary to th e actual productio n of the creature according to the exemplar in the Word. But first that light was created in which there was produced a knowledge of the Divine Word b y whom it wa s created, an d th e knowledg e consiste d precisel y in thi s creature's turning fro m it s unformed stat e t o Go d wh o forme d i t an d i n it s bein g create d an d formed . Bu t afterwards, i n th e cas e o f th e othe r creatures , Scriptur e says , 'An d s o i t wa s done, ' meaning tha t i n tha t light , i n othe r words , i n th e intellectua l creation , firs t ther e was produced a knowledge of the Word; and then with the statement, 'And God made this or that,' ther e i s indicated th e creatio n o f that ver y creature tha t ha d bee n uttere d i n th e Word o f God an d predestined t o b e created . X.8 This explanation i s borne ou t i n th e cas e o f the creatio n o f man. Fo r Go d said , 'Le t U s make mankind t o Our ow n image and likeness' and s o forth. And then th e sacred writer does not g o on t o say , 'And s o it was done,' but h e proceeds immediatel y to add , 'An d God made ma n t o th e imag e of God.' Fo r the natur e of this creature is intellectual, a s is the ligh t previousl y mentioned , an d s o it s creatio n i s identifie d wit h it s knowin g th e Divine Word throug h who m i t was made. X.9 If Holy Scripture were to say, 'And so it was done,' and then add, 'An d God made it,' we should be given to understand tha t this being was first produced i n the mind of a rational creature an d the n i n realit y a s a n existin g irrationa l creature . Bu t man , o f who m th e writer was speaking, is rational and i s made perfect by this very knowledge of which there is question. Fo r after origina l sin, man i s renewed i n the knowledge of God according t o the image of his Creator. Similarly , before h e grew old by sin, he was created i n that very knowledge i n which he would subsequentl y be renewed .

X.10 But certai n creatures were made without tha t knowledge , either because they are bodies or irrationa l souls; and i n their case a knowledge of them i s first produced i n intellectual creatures by the Divine Word, who said, 'Let them be made.' Because of this knowledge , Scripture declares , 'And s o it was done,' i n orde r t o sho w us that th e knowledg e of th e being to b e created wa s produced i n tha t creatur e able to kno w i t firs t i n th e Wor d o f God. An d the n th e corporea l an d irrationa l creature s wer e made , an d fo r thi s reaso n Scripture the n adds , 'An d Go d made it.' Why was man, created immortal, given food to eat in Paradise? X.11 It is difficult t o explain how man was created immortal and at the same time in company with th e othe r livin g creatures was given for foo d th e seed-bearin g plant , th e frui t tree ,

280

THE ENVIRONMEN T

and the green crops. If it was by sin that he was made mortal, surely before sinning he did not nee d suc h food, sinc e his body coul d not corrup t fo r lack of it.

X.12 For i t i s written, 'Increas e an d multipl y an d fill the earth ' [Gen . 1.28] . Thi s apparentl y could no t b e realized without carna l intercourse of man an d woman, an d henc e there is here als o anothe r indicatio n tha t thei r bodie s wer e mortal . Bu t one migh t sa y that th e manner o f union migh t hav e been differen t i n immorta l bodies , s o that ther e would b e only th e devou t affectio n o f charity , an d no t th e concupiscenc e associate d wit h ou r corrupt flesh , in the pro-creation o f children. These children, not subjec t to death, would succeed thei r parents , wh o themselve s would no t b e destine d t o die . Thus , finally, the earth woul d hav e been fille d wit h immorta l men , an d whe n thi s just an d hol y society would b e thu s brough t int o being , a s we believe i t will be afte r th e resurrection , there would be an end to the begetting of children. This theory can be proposed, although how it could all be explained is another matter . But at least no on e will go so far as to say that there can be a need o f food fo r nourishment excep t i n th e cas e of mortal bodies . Woman, in so far as she has a rational mind, is made to the image and likeness of God X.13 Some have conjectured that at this point th e interior man was created, but tha t his body was created afterward s wher e Scripture says, 'And Go d forme d man o f the slim e of th e earth' [Gen . 2.7]. We should the n take the expression, 'God created man,' to refe r t o his spirit; whereas the statement, 'Go d forme d man,' would appl y to hi s body. But they do not realize that there could have been no distinction of male and female except in relation to the body. Ther e is, of course, the subtle theory that the mind of man, being a form of rational lif e an d precisel y the par t i n whic h h e i s made t o th e imag e of God , i s partly occupied wit h th e contemplatio n o f eternal truth an d partl y with th e administratio n of temporal things, and thu s i t is made, i n a sense, masculine and feminine , the masculine part a s th e planner , th e feminin e a s th e on e tha t obeys . Bu t i t i s no t i n thi s doubl e function tha t th e image of God is found, but rathe r i n that par t which is devoted t o th e contemplation o f immutabl e truth . Wit h thi s symbolis m i n mind , Pau l th e Apostl e declares that only man i s the image and glory of God, 'But woman,' he adds, 'is the glory of man' [ 1 Cor. 11.7] .

X.14 Hence, althoug h the physical and externa l differences o f man an d woma n symboliz e the double role that the mind is known to have in one man, nevertheless a woman, for all her physical qualitie s a s a woman , i s actuall y renewe d i n th e spiri t o f he r min d i n th e knowledge of God according to the image of her Creator, and therein there is no male or female. No w women are not exclude d from thi s grace of renewal and thi s reformation of the imag e of God, although o n th e physica l side their sexual characteristics may suggest otherwise, namely, that man alon e is said to be the imag e and glory of God. By the sam e token, i n th e origina l creatio n o f man , inasmuc h a s woma n wa s a huma n being , sh e certainly had a mind, and a rational mind, an d therefore she also was made to the image of God. But because of the intimate bond uniting man and woman, Scripture says merely, 'God made man to the image of God.' And, lest anyone think that this refers onl y to th e creation of man's spirit, although it was only according to the spirit that he was made to 281

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

the imag e of God, Scriptur e adds, 'Mal e and femal e h e made him,' t o indicat e that th e body als o wa s now made .

X.15 Moreover, lest anyone suppose that this creation took place in such a way that both sexes appeared in one single human bein g (as happens i n som e births, in the cas e of what we call hermaphrodites), th e sacre d writer shows tha t h e used the singula r number becaus e of the bond o f unity between man and woman, and because woman was made from man, as wil l b e show n shortl y whe n th e brie f accoun t o f thi s passag e will b e elaborate d i n greater detail . Henc e he immediately adde d th e plura l number whe n h e said, 'He mad e them ... and he blessed them. ' But , as I have already indicated, w e shall later investigate more thoroughl y the res t o f the biblica l accoun t o f the creatio n o f man . The words, 'And so it was done,' in v. 30, mean that man understood God's plan just revealed X.16 We mus t not e a t thi s poin t tha t afte r th e words , 'An d s o i t wa s done, ' Scriptur e immediately adds, 'And God saw all that he had made , and behold, i t was very good.' By this we are given to understan d tha t man was authorized t o tak e as his food th e crops of the fields and the fruits o f the trees. With the statement, 'An d so it was done,' the sacre d writer ends the passag e he had begun with the words, 'An d Go d said: "See, I have given you th e seed-bearin g plant , etc."' For if we take the statement , 'An d so it was done,' t o refer t o al l tha t ha s bee n sai d above , w e shal l hav e t o admi t tha t me n increase d an d multiplied an d filled the eart h o n thi s on e day , the sixt h da y of creation, bu t w e know from th e accoun t i n Sacre d Scripture that thi s happened onl y afte r man y years.

X.17 It follows , then , tha t th e authorizatio n give n t o ea t an d th e knowledg e o f thi s fac t acquired by man from divine revelation are indicated by the words, 'And so it was done.' That i s to say , it was accomplished i n the sens e that ma n kne w it when God reveale d it. For if he had proceeded t o carry this out immediately , that is, if he had taken for his food and eaten wha t had been given, th e customary formul a of the scriptural narrative woul d have bee n employed , an d afte r th e 'statement , 'An d s o i t wa s done,' whic h i s use d t o indicate the previous knowledge of a work, then th e work itself would b e described, an d Scripture would say , 'And the y took thes e thing s and at e them.' Th e matter coul d hav e been describe d i n thi s way, even thoug h Go d would no t b e name d again . Thus , i n th e description o f the work of the third day , it is said, 'Let the water that i s under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear;' and then, 'And so it was done;' and afte r tha t Scripture does not say , 'And God did it,' but th e words are repeated, 'And th e wate r was gathered togethe r int o it s places, etc.' Why it is not said of man in particular that God saw he was good X.18 Now concerning the creation o f man, Holy Scripture does not sa y in particular (as in the case of the othe r things) , 'And Go d sa w that thi s creatur e was good.' Bu t after ma n ha s been create d an d authorize d t o rul e and t o eat , it i s said o f all creation i n general, 'And God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good.' Why is this not sai d of man

282

THE ENVIRONMEN T

in particular ? Approval might hav e firs t bee n give n specificall y t o man , a s i t ha d bee n given specifically before to the other creatures, and then God would finally have said of all his creatures, 'Behold, they are very good.'

X.19 One possibl e explanatio n i s that al l was finishe d o n th e sixt h day , and therefor e it was necessary t o sa y of all , 'Go d sa w all that h e ha d made , an d behold , i t wa s very good,' rather than to say this specifically of the creatures he had mad e that day. But then why is such approva l spoken of the cattl e an d wil d beasts and creepin g things, which belong t o this sam e sixt h day ? Becaus e the y deserve d t o b e pronounce d goo d i n particula r an d specifically, a s well as in the genera l approval given to th e other creatures , whereas man, made to th e imag e of God, merite d thi s approva l only along with th e others ? Certainly not! O f course, you might explai n b y saying that man was not yet perfect because h e was not ye t place d i n Paradise . Bu t afte r h e wa s placed there , wher e i s th e approva l given which was omitted here ? X.20 What then are we to say? Perhaps the explanation i s that God, knowing man was going to sin and no t remai n i n the perfectio n of the imag e of God, wished t o sa y of him, not i n particular bu t alon g wit h th e rest , tha t h e wa s good, thu s hintin g what woul d be . Fo r when creature s remai n i n th e stat e i n whic h the y hav e bee n created , possessin g th e perfection they have received, whether they have abstained fro m si n or were incapable of sin, they are goo d individually , an d al l in genera l are very good. Th e wor d 'very ' i s no t added withou t meaning ; fo r i n th e cas e o f part s o f th e body , i f individua l part s ar e beautiful, all together making up the organic whole are much more beautiful. The eye, for example, is a pleasing and praiseworth y thing, but i f we saw it separated from th e body , we should no t sa y it was so beautiful a s it is when seen joined to the other members in its proper plac e in th e whole body . X.21 But creature s that los e their own proper beauty by sinning can i n no wa y undo th e fac t that even they, considered as part o f a world rule d b y God's providence, ar e good whe n taken wit h th e whol e o f creation . Man , therefore , before the fall , wa s good eve n when considered separatel y from th e rest, but instea d of declaring so, Scripture said somethin g else foreshadowing the future. No false statement was made concerning man . Fo r he who is good individually is certainly better when taken in conjunction with all. But it does no t follow that , whe n h e i s goo d i n conjunctio n wit h all , h e i s als o goo d individually . Scripture limite d itsel f t o sayin g wha t wa s tru e a t th e tim e an d ye t intimate d God' s foreknowledge. Fo r Go d i s the all-goo d Creato r o f beings, but h e i s the all-jus t Ruler of creatures wh o sin . Hence , wheneve r creature s individuall y los e thei r lovelines s b y sin , nevertheless th e whol e o f creation with the m include d alway s remains beautiful . CRITIQUE Sometimes Augustin e is not give n sufficient credi t fo r arguin g that, despit e huma n sin , the create d orde r a s a whole is good an d beautiful . Ther e i s also a n earl y recognition i n this Text that not everything in the world is ordered to please human beings. Thorns an d thistles may have their function, even if they currently displease human beings. Finally the

283

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

significance an d uniquenes s of human rationalit y as a reflectio n o f the imag e of God i s emphasized in this Text. Augustine insists that this applies to both men and women, even if he does relat e the latte r to Go d through the former. Nonetheless, Augustin e is hardly a moder n exegete . Hi s commentar y upo n Genesi s frequently tell s u s a s much abou t himsel f and abou t hi s particula r concerns a s it doe s about the text of Genesis itself. While rejecting the allegorical interpretations of his youth, he scarcel y provides a n accoun t o f 'th e litera l meanin g o f Genesis ' (eve n i f suc h a n account is still thought to be possible). His rich imagination takes him down a variety of unusual paths throughout hi s commentary. There are few of the controls tha t would be expected i n present-da y hermeneutics. It ma y als o b e doubte d whethe r Augustin e ha s reall y escape d hi s earlie r Manichaeanism. For example, he clearly would prefe r huma n procreation no t t o involve concupiscence and speculates here that in the Garden of Eden before the Fall it would no t have done. Th e next Sectio n will return t o thi s issue .

284

TEXT XI

AQUINAS Creation and divine providence 1. BACKGROUND This Tex t come s fro m Summa Contra Gentiles 3.2.112-1 3 (Universit y of Notr e Dam e Press, London, an d Doubleday , Ne w York, 1975 , trans. Vernon J . Bourke, pp. 114-19) . Unlike Summa Theologica (see above, p. 49), Summa Contra Gentiles was explicitly written for a non-Christian audienc e and, hence, characteristically it argues initially from reaso n rather than from Christia n revelation - th e latter is normally used only to demonstrate its consonance with the former. It is the earlier of the two works, being started afte r Aquinas went t o Pari s in 125 6 and complete d afte r hi s return t o Italy . The intellectua l system of Christianity in the thirteenth centur y was facing majo r challenges, both fro m th e Islamic world and fro m th e naturalism of secular culture. Aquinas wrote Summa Contra Gentiles as a n attemp t t o demonstrat e th e reasonablenes s o f Christianit y i n th e fac e o f thi s Graeco-Islamic intellectual threat. Accordingly, he devoted th e first book of the work to the existenc e and attribute s o f God, th e secon d t o creation , th e thir d (fro m whic h this Text comes) to providence and human beings' relation to God, and only the fourth to the specifically Christia n doctrine s o f salvatio n (whic h ca n b e know n fully , no t throug h unaided reason , but throug h revelation). 2. KEY ISSUES Aquinas argues that divin e providence extend s to all things, but tha t rational/intellectual creatures have special meanin g since the y are free to control their ow n actions, to kno w and love God, and to be aware of their special role within God's providence (XL 1-2). A s a result, intellectual creature s require special providential care, with other create d things being subordinate d t o the m (XI.3) . Onl y th e intellectua l creature is by nature free , an d only God as God i s by nature intellectual (XL4-5) . Intellectual creatures are thus closest to th e divine image (XI.6). Other parts of nature are cared for by God for the sake of the intellectual creature s which are incorruptibl e (XI.7-9) . All parts o f nature ar e therefor e ordered for the perfection of the whole, with corruptible things being ordered fo r the sake of the whole human species (XL 10-11). Whereas humans are providentially managed for their ow n sakes , other thing s are ordered fo r the sak e of humans (X L 12). Hence, it is an error to clai m tha t i t i s a sin to kil l animals : the latte r exis t t o serv e human s b y divin e providence (X L 14). Eve n biblica l command s agains t anima l cruelt y ar e reall y t o discourage either human cruelty to other human s or damage to human property (XI.15) .

285

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS In this classic natural law argument Aquinas mixes deontology and consequentialism. He maintains o n consequentialis t ground s tha t rationa l creature s have specia l meaning i n divine providence, sinc e they alone ca n control thei r ow n actions , kno w an d lov e God , and b e consciou s o f their ow n divin e destiny (X L 1-2). O n th e othe r hand , h e assumes deontologically that God alone is by nature intellectua l and that human worth i s derived from thi s (XI.5-6) . Th e statu s an d huma n treatmen t o f non-huma n animal s i s argued consequentially: thei r sol e functio n i s to serv e human s (X L 15). Sinc e animal s hav e n o deontological valu e in themselves, they can be eaten and subordinated to humans (X L 14: cf. Augustine's Text XIIL9) . 4. BASES OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS As will be see n again in Tex t XIV, Aquinas follows a set pattern o f argument i n Summa Contra Gentiles: he argues each point on rational grounds first, establishing his principles, and introduces biblical quotations onl y in his conclusions. A natural law approach with a non-Christian audience i n mind require s him to conclud e rathe r tha n star t with biblical revelation. Interestingl y it is not the notion of 'dominion' in Genesis that he introduces at this point , bu t quotation s instea d fro m Deuteronomy , th e Psalm s an d Wisdom . H e concludes hi s functionalis t understandin g o f animals with th e much-quote d comman d from Deuteronom y about 'no t muzzlin g the o x that tread s th e corn ' (XI . 15). 5. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS The closel y ordered medieva l worl d whic h Aquina s inhabit s i s evident throughou t thi s Text. Just as there are no ultimat e divisions between Churc h and Stat e (Text V), so here human and non-huma n form s o f life hav e complementary functions i n a world ordere d by divin e providence . Thes e function s ar e hierarchicall y ordered. Jus t a s th e Stat e i s finally subordinate t o th e Church , so here non-human s ar e subordinate t o humans . I n both instance s the forme r serve s the latter, because the latter is closest t o God. As in Text VIII, order is crucial to Aquinas' understanding. He lives in an ordered and orderly world - indeed , i n a world tha t stil l presume s the orderliness o f slavery (XI.4). 6. SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE More tha n Augustine , Aquinas articulated a vie w o f non-huma n lif e whic h appears t o many today to be thoroughly anthropocentric. Eve n if Lynn White's critique is somewhat modified, i t doe s sugges t tha t Aquinas , or th e cultur e tha t h e represented , ha s ha d a n important influenc e upo n Wester n society . Th e emphasi s upo n rationalit y tha t ha s characterized post-Enlightenmen t cultur e is certainly consonant wit h this. Th e fruit s o f this culture , no t jus t i n th e increas e in scientifi c knowledge , bu t als o i n th e sprea d o f technology, ha s ha d hug e implications fo r ecology . FURTHER READING Both Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles have important discussions of divine providence. Fo r a discussion o f the moder n debat e abou t th e environment , whic h takes account o f natural law theories, se e Michael Northcott's Th e Environment and Christian Ethics (1995). 286

THE ENVIRONMEN T

TEXT XI AQUINAS Creation and divine providence That rational creatures are subject to divine providence in a special way XI. 1 From the points which have been determined above , it is manifest that divine providenc e extends t o al l things. Yet we must not e that there is a special meanin g for providenc e in reference t o intellectua l an d rationa l creatures , ove r an d abov e it s meanin g fo r othe r creatures.

XI.2 For they do stand out abov e other creatures, both i n natural perfection and in the dignity of their end. In the order of natural perfection, only the rational creature holds dominio n over his acts, movin g himself freel y i n order to perfor m hi s actions. Other creatures, i n fact, ar e move d t o thei r prope r working s rathe r tha n bein g th e activ e agent s o f thes e operations, a s is clear from wha t has been said . And i n the dignit y of their end , for only the intellectual creatur e reaches the very ultimate end of the whole of things through hi s own operation, which is the knowing and loving of God; whereas other creature s cannot attain the ultimate end except by a participation in its likeness. Now, the formal character of ever y work differ s accordin g to th e diversit y of th e en d an d o f th e thing s which ar e subject t o th e operation ; thus , th e metho d o f workin g i n ar t differ s accordin g t o th e diversity of the end and of the subject matter. For instance, a physician works in one way to get rid of illness and i n another way to maintain health, and he uses different method s for bodie s differentl y constituted . Likewise , in the governmen t of a state, a different pla n of ordering must be followed, depending o n the varying conditions of the persons subject to this government and on the different purpose s to which they are directed. For soldiers are controlle d i n on e way , s o tha t the y ma y b e read y t o fight ; whil e artisan s wil l b e managed in another way , so that they may successfully carr y out thei r activities. So, also, there i s one orderly pla n i n accord wit h which rational creature s are subjected t o divine providence - an d another by means of which the rest of creatures are ordered. That rational creatures are governed for their own sakes, while others are governed in subordination to them XI.3 First of all, then, the very way in which the intellectual creature was made, according as it is master o f its acts , demand s providential car e whereb y thi s creature ma y provide fo r itself, o n it s own behalf; while the way in which other thing s were created, things which have n o dominio n ove r their acts , show s this fact , tha t the y are cared for , not fo r their own sake, but a s subordinated t o others. Tha t which is moved only by another bein g has the forma l characte r o f a n instrument , bu t tha t whic h act s o f itsel f ha s th e essentia l character o f a principal agent. Now an instrumen t i s not value d for its own sake , but a s useful t o a principal agent. Henc e it must be that al l the carefu l wor k that i s devoted t o instruments is actually done for the sake of the agent , as for an end, but wha t is done fo r the principal agent , eithe r b y himself or by another, is for his own sake, because h e is the principal agent . Therefore , intellectual creature s are s o controlle d b y God , a s objects of 287

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

care for their own sakes; while other creatures ar e subordinated, a s it were, to the rational creatures.

XI.4 Again, one who holds dominion ove r his own acts is free i n his activity, 'for the fre e ma n is he who act s for his own sake' [Aristotle' s Metaphysics], Bu t one who i s acted upo n b y another, under necessity, is subject to slavery . So, every other creature is naturally subject to slavery ; onl y th e intellectua l creatur e i s b y natur e free . Now , unde r ever y sor t o f government, provisio n i s made for fre e me n fo r their own sakes , but fo r slaves in such a way tha t the y ma y be a t th e disposa l o f free men . An d so , throug h divin e providenc e provision is made for intellectual creatures on thei r own account, but for the remainin g creatures fo r the sak e of the intellectua l ones . XI.5 Besides, whenever things are ordered t o an y end, and som e of these things cannot attai n the end through thei r own efforts, the y must be subordinated to things which do achieve the end and which are ordered t o the end for their own sakes. Thus, for instance, the end of an army is victory, and thi s the soldiers ma y achieve through their own act of righting; that i s why only soldiers ar e needed fo r thei r ow n sak e in a n army . All others, wh o ar e assigned to different task s - fo r instance, caring for the horses and supplying the weapons - ar e needed fo r the sak e o f the soldier s i n th e army . Now , fro m wha t ha s been see n earlier, i t i s establishe d tha t Go d i s th e ultimate en d o f th e whol e o f things ; tha t a n intellectual nature alone attains to him in himself, that is, by knowing and loving him, as is evident from wha t has been said. Therefore, the intellectual nature is the only one tha t is required i n th e universe , for it s ow n sake , while all others ar e for it s sake . XI.6 Moreover, i n an y whol e th e principa l part s ar e neede d i n themselve s i n orde r t o constitute the whole, but the other parts ar e for the preservation o r for some betterment of the principal ones. Now, of all the parts of the universe the more noble are intellectual creatures, since they come closer t o th e divin e likeness. Therefore , intellectual creatures are governe d b y divin e providenc e fo r thei r ow n sakes , whil e al l other s ar e fo r th e intellectual ones . XI.7 Furthermore, it is evident that all parts are ordered to the perfection of the whole, since a whole does not exist for the sake of its parts, but, rather, the parts are for the whole. Now, intellectual nature s have a closer relationshi p t o a whole than d o othe r natures ; indeed , each intellectua l substance is, in a way, all things. For i t may comprehend th e entiret y of being through it s intellect; on the other hand, every other substance has only a particula r share i n being . Therefore , other substance s may fittingl y b e providentiall y cared fo r b y God fo r the sak e of intellectual substances . XI.8 Again, as a thing is acted upo n i n the cours e of nature, so is it disposed t o actio n b y its natural origin . Now, we see that thing s do g o on i n th e cours e of nature in suc h a way that intellectua l substanc e use s al l other s fo r itself : either fo r th e perfectin g o f it s 288

THE ENVIRONMEN T

understanding, sinc e it contemplate s th e trut h i n them ; o r fo r the exercis e of its power and the development o f its knowledge, in the fashion of an artist who develops his artistic conception i n bodily matter; or even for the support o f his body which is united with the intellectual soul , a s we se e in th e cas e of men . Therefore , it i s clear tha t al l things ar e divinely ruled b y providence fo r th e sak e of intellectual substances .

XI.9 Besides, what a man desire s for its own sake is something which he always desires, for that which is, because of itself, always is. On the other hand, what a man desires for the sake of something else is not necessarily always desired; rather, the duration o f the desire depends on that for which it is sought. Now, the being of things flows forth fro m th e divine will, as is shown i n our earlie r considerations. Therefore , those things which always exist among beings are willed b y God for their own sake, while things which d o no t alway s exist ar e not fo r their ow n sake , but fo r th e sak e o f something else . Now , intellectua l substance s come closes t t o existin g always , fo r the y ar e incorruptible . The y ar e als o immutable , excepting only their act of choice. Therefore, intellectual substances are governed for their own sake , in a sense, whil e others ar e for them . XI. 10 Nor is what was shown in earlier arguments opposed to this, namely, that all parts of the universe ar e ordere d t o th e perfectio n o f th e whole . Fo r al l part s ar e ordere d t o th e perfection o f the whole, inasmuc h a s one i s made to serv e another. Thus , i n the huma n body i t is apparent tha t th e lung s contribute t o th e perfectio n of the body by rendering service to th e heart ; hence, i t i s not contradictor y fo r the lung s to be for the sak e of the heart, an d als o fo r th e sak e of the whol e organism . Likewise , it i s not contradictor y fo r some nature s t o b e fo r th e sak e o f th e intellectua l ones , an d als o fo r th e sak e o f th e perfection o f th e universe . For , i n fact , i f th e thing s neede d fo r th e perfectio n o f intellectual substanc e were lacking, the univers e would no t b e complete . XI. 11 Similarly, too, the foregoing is not oppose d b y the fact that individuals are for the sake of their prope r species . Becaus e they ar e ordere d t o thei r species , the y posses s a furthe r ordination t o intellectua l nature . Fo r a corruptible thin g i s not ordere d t o ma n fo r the sake o f on e individua l ma n only , bu t fo r th e sak e o f th e whol e huma n species . A corruptible thing could no t b e of use to the whole human specie s except by virtue of the thing's entire species. Therefore, the order whereby corruptible things are ordered to man requires the subordinatio n o f individuals to thei r species . XI. 12 However, w e do no t understan d thi s statement , tha t intellectua l substance s ar e ordere d for thei r ow n sak e b y divin e providence , t o mea n tha t the y ar e no t mor e ultimatel y referred t o Go d an d t o th e perfectio n o f th e universe . I n fact , the y ar e sai d t o b e providentially manage d fo r their ow n sake , and othe r thing s fo r their sake , in th e sens e that th e good s whic h the y receiv e throug h divin e goodnes s ar e no t give n them fo r th e advantage of another being , but th e things given to other being s must be turned ove r to the us e of intellectual substance s i n accor d wit h divin e providence . 289

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

XI. 13 Hence i t i s said i n Deuteronom y [4.19] : 'Les t tho u se e the su n an d th e moo n an d th e other stars , and being deceived by error, thou ador e an d serv e them, which the Lord thy God create d fo r th e servic e of al l the nation s tha t ar e unde r heaven; ' an d agai n i n th e Psalm [8.8] : 'Thou hast subjected al l things unde r hi s feet, al l sheep an d oxen , moreove r the beast s o f the field;' and i n Wisdom [12.18 ] i t i s said: 'Thou, being Master o f power , judgest with tranquillity, an d wit h grea t favo r disposes t o f us.'

XL 14 Through thes e considerations w e refute th e erro r o f those wh o clai m tha t i t i s a sin fo r man to kill brute animals. Fo r animals are ordered t o man's use in the natural course of things, accordin g t o divin e providence . Consequently , ma n use s the m withou t an y injustice, eithe r by killing them o r by employing the m i n any other way . For this reason , God sai d t o Noah : 'A s the gree n herbs , I have delivered al l flesh t o you ' [Gen . 9.3]. XL 15 Indeed, if any statements are found i n Sacred Scripture prohibiting the commission o f an act o f cruelt y agains t brut e animals , fo r instance , tha t on e shoul d no t kil l a bir d accompanied b y her young [Deut . 22.6], this is said either to turn the mind o f man away from cruelt y which might be used on other men , lest a person throug h practisin g cruelty on brutes might go on to do the same to men; or because an injurious act committed o n animals ma y lead t o a temporal los s fo r som e man , eithe r fo r th e agen t o r fo r anothe r man; o r ther e ma y b e anothe r interpretatio n o f th e text , a s th e Apostl e [ 1Cor. 9.9 ] explains it , i n terms o f 'not muzzlin g the o x that treadet h th e corn ' [Deut . 25.4]. CRITIQUE

Some degre e o f anthropocentrism ma y b e essentia l fo r ethic s i f human justic e is to b e maintained. Yet few today might subscribe to the wholesale subordination o f non-huma n life t o huma n lif e tha t i s made b y Aquinas. With th e benefi t o f hindsigh t i t lead s t o a number o f very serious problems : Most obviousl y i t doe s no t valu e non-huma n lif e a s having value i n itself . Onl y th e rational i s value d a s havin g inheren t value . Everythin g else i s subordinate d t o servin g rational life . Eve n within th e interna l logi c o f thi s positio n i t ha s enormou s ecologica l dangers. Rational humans ma y change over time in their perceptions abou t wha t does o r does not have value to humans. Doubtles s the dodo only had value to the first settlers in New Zealan d (o r th e mammot h t o muc h earlie r settler s i n Nort h America ) a s a n accessible for m o f food . Tw o centurie s late r th e dod o ha s becom e a symbo l o f suc h limited functiona l attitudes t o non-huma n life . Similarly , the depletion o f the gen e poo l resulting fro m intensiv e farming technique s (especiall y if they ar e assiste d b y biotech nology) raise s increasin g worrie s today . Subordinatin g th e non-huma n t o th e huma n allows human s t o impoveris h th e natural world . Secondly, i t raise s problems fo r human s a s well. The principl e of rationality i s clearly important, bu t i f it becomes th e only ethica l criterion, the n i t can soon become a means of oppressing les s rational humans . Thos e wit h sever e learnin g difficultie s soo n becom e vulnerable to this principle, as do the senile and those with brain damage . Historically , i t may also have been a means of subordinating women , o n the assumption tha t the y were less rationa l than me n (thi s will be discussed furthe r i n relatio n t o Tex t XIV). 290

TEXT XII LUTHER Commentary on Genesis 1.26-31 1. BACKGROUND This Tex t come s fro m Luther' s Lectures o n Genesis (fro m Luther's Works, Vol . 1 , Concordia Publishin g House, 1958 , ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, trans. George V. Schick, pp. 6673). Firs t give n a decad e befor e hi s death , a s lecture s a t th e Universit y of Wittenber g 1535-6, they were later edited with additions by others. Jaroslav Pelikan suggests that 'the hands ar e sometimes th e hand s o f the editors , bu t th e voic e is nevertheless the voic e of Luther' (p. xii). Without relyin g upon its every nuance to establish Luther's thoughts, this Text doe s allo w usefu l comparisons , especiall y with Augustine's Text X. 2. KEY ISSUES For Luther 'dominion' is given to Adam and Eve as the ones who knew God and in whom God's enlightene d reason , justic e an d wisdo m shon e (XII.l) . Bu t throug h si n huma n beings have largely lost this divine image (XII.2). Before the Fall Adam and Ev e both ha d amazing mental gifts : afte r th e Fal l only small differences remai n betwee n human beings and other animal s (XII.3-7). Through Chris t we wait for the origina l state of Paradise to be restored (XII.8) . The image of God shines in humans alone - othe r animal s are rather 'footprints' o f God (XII.9) . Eve was also create d i n th e imag e of God, but, a s a woman , she ha d a muc h weake r natur e (XII . 11-12). However , Luthe r reject s Jewis h storie s regarding Ev e in effec t a s a 'maime d man ' (XII.13-14) . H e argue s that becaus e o f si n procreation has become brutish (XII.16-17) . Before th e Fall Adam would not hav e use d animals fo r foo d bu t rathe r fo r th e admiratio n o f God : afte r th e Fal l meat-eatin g no w causes u s healt h problem s (XII . 18-21). Althoug h Go d create d al l thing s good , thi s goodness ha s largely been los t throug h si n (XI.22-3) . 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS Of all the Luther Texts the present one shows most clearl y how a natural law approach is curtailed by a strong notion of sin. Before the Fall, Luther believes, Adam and Eve and th e rest of the created orde r reflecte d the enlightene d reason , justice and wisdom o f God. I n this context what is 'natural' clearly reflects the will of the creator: what is 'natural' is thus also wha t i s 'right'. However , afte r th e Fal l everythin g i s distorted b y sin . Th e create d order a s a whole, an d eve n Adam and Ev e within it , ha s largely lost thi s imag e of God . Given this understanding, Luthe r argues deontologically tha t i t is only in Christ that th e original stat e o f Paradis e ca n b e restore d (XII.8) . Thi s positio n - whic h sharpl y distinguishes thi s Text fro m th e heritage of Aquinas - i s clearly consonant wit h Luther's position in Text III . 291

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

4. BASES OF CHRISTIAN

ETHICS

As with Augustine's Text X, the fac t tha t this Text is taken from a commentary inevitabl y makes it more biblically oriented tha n most o f the other Texts. However, it does supply a clear account o f Luther's central method i n Christia n ethics . His overwhelming sens e of sin increases his Christocentrism. For him, there can be no satisfactory basis for Christian ethics other tha n Christ. As he states at the end of this Text: 'if these thoughts [abou t sin] do no t mov e u s t o hop e an d longin g fo r th e comin g Da y and th e futur e life , nothin g could mov e us ' (XII.23) . 5. SOCIAL

DETERMINANTS

An enduring debate within Christia n ethics is the issue of how the Reformers reflecte d o r distorted th e Bibl e i n thei r single-minde d emphasi s upo n it . Certainl y Luthe r (o r hi s followers who assembled thi s Text) i s not a modern exegete . His understanding o f Adam and Ev e is unambiguously literalistic. Less rambling than Augustin e in his interpretation of Genesis , h e nonetheles s bring s t o i t hi s ow n concerns , an d perhap s hi s ow n dee p pessimism abou t humankin d (e.g . XII.23) . There ar e hint s her e o f th e religiou s anti Semitism whic h i s t o com e int o th e ope n i n Tex t X V (e.g . XII.13) . Ther e i s als o something remainin g of the negativ e evaluation of the mechanisms o f sexual intercours e inherited fro m Augustin e (XII. 16-17). 6. SOCIAL

SIGNIFICANCE

Yet ther e ar e als o som e surprising , an d perhap s influential , feature s o f thi s passage . 'Dominion' ove r non-huma n lif e i s give n t o Ada m an d Ev e while the y reflec t God' s enlightened reason , justice and wisdo m befor e th e Fall . However i t is 'dominion' which does no t see m t o involv e human s eatin g othe r animals . Thei r die t instea d i s fruit s considerably superior to any fruits existin g after th e Fall. Meat-eating, then, seems to be a product o f the Fall. Not only that, but, to the ever health-conscious Luther , it is a product of the Fall which has done human being s little good. In Paradise animals form part of the texture o f lif e designe d t o prais e Go d rathe r tha n simpl y t o provid e foo d fo r huma n beings. Th e central ide a o f a balanced create d orde r i n this Text - althoug h admittedl y linked her e to an idealistic understanding o f animals before a literalistic Fall - migh t yet prove influentia l withi n th e ecologica l debate . FURTHER READING For the further backgroun d o n Luther' s Lectures on Genesis see the introduction t o Vol. 1 of Luther's Works.

292

THE ENVIRONMEN T

TEXT XI I LUTHERR

Commentary on Genesis 1.26-31 Let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, etc. (vs. 26) XII. 1 Here the rule is assigned to the most beautiful creature , who knows God and i s the image of God, in whom the similitude of the divine nature shines forth throug h his enlightened reason, through his justice and his wisdom. Adam and Eve become the rulers of the earth, the sea, and the air. But this dominion i s given to them not onl y by way of advice but also by express command. Her e we should first carefull y ponde r th e exclusivenes s in this: n o beast i s told t o exercis e dominion; but withou t ceremon y all the animal s an d eve n th e earth, with everything brought fort h by the earth, are put unde r the rule of Adam, whom God by an expres s verba l comman d place d ove r th e entir e anima l creation . Ada m an d Eve hear d th e word s wit h thei r ear s whe n Go d said : 'Hav e dominion. ' Therefor e th e naked human being - withou t weapons and walls, even without any clothing, solely in his bare flesh - wa s given the rule over all birds, wild beasts, and fish. XII.2 Even thi s smal l part o f the divin e imag e we have lost, s o much s o that w e do no t eve n have insigh t int o tha t fullnes s o f jo y an d blis s whic h Ada m derive d fro m hi s contemplation o f al l the anima l creatures . Al l our facultie s toda y ar e leprous , indeed , dull and utterly dead. Who can conceive of that part, as it were, of the divine nature, that Adam an d Ev e had insigh t int o al l the disposition s o f all animals, int o thei r characters and al l their powers ? What kin d o f a reign woul d i t hav e been i f they had no t ha d thi s knowledge? Amon g th e saint s ther e i s evident i n thi s lif e som e knowledg e o f God . It s source i s the Word an d the Holy Spirit. Bu t the knowledge of nature - tha t w e should know all the qualities of trees and herbs, and the dispositions of all the beasts - i s utterly beyond repai r i n thi s life . XII.3 If, then , w e ar e lookin g fo r a n outstandin g philosopher , le t u s no t overloo k ou r firs t parents while they were still free fro m sin . They had a most perfec t knowledge of God, for how woul d the y no t kno w hi m whos e similitud e the y ha d an d fel t withi n themselves? Furthermore, they also had the most dependable knowledge of the stars and of the whole of astronomy . XII.4 Eve had these mental gifts i n the same degree as Adam, as Eve's utterance shows when she answered th e serpen t concernin g th e tre e i n th e middl e o f Paradise . There i t become s clear enough tha t sh e knew to what end she had been create d and pointed to the sourc e from whic h she had this knowledge; for she said (Gen. 3.3): 'The Lord said.' Thus she not only hear d thi s fro m Adam , but he r ver y nature was pure an d ful l o f the knowledg e of God to suc h a degree that b y herself she knew the Wor d o f God and understoo d it .

293

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S XII.5

Of this knowledge we have feeble and almos t completely obliterated remnants . Th e other animals, however, completely lack this knowledge. They do not kno w their Creator, thei r origin, and their end; they do not know out of what and why they were created. Therefore they certainly lack that similitude of God. For this reason the psalm also urges (Ps. 32.9): 'Do no t becom e lik e the hors e an d th e mule.'

XII.6 Thus eve n i f this image ha s been almos t completel y lost , there is still a great differenc e between th e huma n bein g an d th e res t o f th e animals . Befor e th e comin g o f si n th e difference wa s far greater and mor e evident , when Adam and Ev e knew God an d al l the creatures and, as it were, were completely engulfed by the goodness and justice of God. As a result, there was between the m a singular union o f hearts and wills. No other beautifu l sight in the whole world appeared lovelier and more attractive to Adam than his own Eve. But now , a s the heathe n say , a wife i s a necessary evil. Why the y call her a n evi l can b e perceived readil y enough; but the y do not know the cause of evil, namely, Satan, who has so vitiated an d corrupte d thi s creation . XII.7 What w e achieve in life , however , is brought about , no t b y the dominio n whic h Adam had but throug h industr y and skill. Thus we see the birds and the fish caught by cunning and deceit; and by skill the beasts are tamed. Those animals which are most domesticated , such as geese and hens, nevertheless are wild so far as they themselves and their nature are concerned. Therefor e eve n now , b y th e kindnes s o f God , thi s leprou s bod y ha s som e appearance o f the dominio n ove r th e othe r creatures . Bu t i t i s extremely smal l an d fa r inferior t o tha t firs t dominion , whe n ther e wa s no nee d o f skill o r cunning , whe n th e creature simply obeyed the divine voice because Adam and Eve were commanded t o have dominion ove r them . XII.8 Therefore we retain the name and word 'dominion' as a bare title, but the substance itself has been almos t entirel y lost. Yet it i s a good thin g t o kno w thes e fact s an d t o ponde r them, s o that w e may hav e a longing fo r tha t comin g Da y when tha t whic h we lost i n Paradise through si n will be restored t o us . We are waiting for that lif e fo r which Adam also should hav e waited. And we duly marvel at this and than k Go d for it, that althoug h we are so disfigured b y sin, so dull, ignorant , an d dead , a s it were, nevertheless, throug h the merit of Christ, we wait for the sam e glory of the spiritual life for which Adam would have waited if he had remaine d in his physical life, which was endowed with the image of God. And God created man according to his image, according to the image of God he created him (vs. 27)

XII.9 Here Moses does not emplo y the word 'similitude, ' but onl y 'image.' Perhaps he wanted to avoi d a n ambiguity of speech and fo r this reason repeate d th e noun 'image. ' I see no other reaso n for the repetition unles s we should understan d i t for the sake of emphasis as an indication of the Creator's rejoicing and exulting over the most beautiful work he had

294

THE ENVIRONMEN T

made, s o tha t Mose s intend s t o indicat e tha t Go d wa s no t s o delighte d a t th e othe r creatures as at man, whom he had created according to his own similitude. The rest of the animals are designated as footprints of God; but ma n alon e is God's image, as appears in [Peter Lombard's] Sentences. I n th e remainin g creature s Go d i s recognize d a s b y hi s footprints; but i n the human being, especially in Adam, he is truly recognized, because in him ther e i s such wisdom , justice , an d knowledg e o f al l things tha t h e ma y rightl y be called a world i n miniature . H e ha s a n understandin g o f heaven, earth , an d th e entire creation. An d s o it gives God pleasur e that h e made so beautiful a creature .

XII. 10 But without a doubt, just as at that time God rejoiced in the counsel and work by which man was created, so today, too, he takes pleasure in restoring this work of his through his Son and our Deliverer , Christ. It is useful to ponder thes e facts, namely, that God is most kindly inclined toward u s and take s delight in his thought an d pla n of restoring all who have believed i n Chris t t o spiritua l lif e throug h th e resurrectio n o f the dead . Male and female he created them XII. 11 In order not to give the impression that he was excluding the woman from al l the glory of the futur e life , Mose s include s eac h o f th e tw o sexes ; fo r th e woma n appear s to b e a somewhat differen t bein g fro m th e man , havin g different member s an d a much weaker nature. Although Eve was a most extraordinar y creatur e - simila r to Adam so far as the image o f Go d i s concerned , tha t is , i n justice , wisdom , an d happines s - sh e was nevertheless a woman. Fo r a s th e su n i s more excellen t tha n th e moo n (althoug h th e moon, too, i s a very excellent body), s o the woman , althoug h sh e was a most beautifu l work o f God, nevertheles s wa s not th e equal of the mal e i n glory and prestige .

XII. 12 However, her e Moses put s th e tw o sexe s together an d say s tha t Go d create d mal e an d female i n orde r t o indicat e tha t Eve , too, wa s made by God a s a partaker o f the divin e image and o f the divine similitude, likewise of the rule over everything. Thus even today the woman i s the partaker of the futur e life , just a s Peter says that they are joint heirs of the sam e grace [ 1 Peter 3.7]. In th e househol d th e wif e i s a partner i n th e managemen t and ha s a commo n interes t i n th e childre n an d th e property , an d ye t ther e i s a grea t difference between the sexes. The male is like the sun in heaven, the female like the moon, the animal s like the stars , over which su n an d moo n hav e dominion. I n th e firs t place , therefore, le t u s not e fro m thi s passag e tha t i t wa s writte n tha t thi s se x ma y no t b e excluded from an y glory of the human creature , although it is inferior t o the male sex ... XII. 13 Lyra relate s a Jewis h tale , o f which Plato, too , make s mentio n somewhere , tha t i n th e beginning man was created bisexual and later on, by divine power, was, as it were, split or cut apart, as the form o f the back and of the spine seems to prove. Other s have expanded these ideas with more obscen e details. But the second chapte r refute s thes e babblers. For if this is true, how can it be sure that God took one of the ribs of Adam and out o f it built the woman? These are Talmudic tales, and yet they had to be mentioned s o that we might see the malic e of the devil , who suggest s such absurd idea s to huma n beings . 295

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

XII. 14

This tale fits Aristotle's designation of woman as a 'maimed man;' others declare that she is a monster. Bu t let them themselves be monsters and sons of monsters - thes e men who make maliciou s statement s an d ridicul e a creatur e o f Go d i n whic h Go d himsel f too k delight a s i n a mos t excellen t work , moreover , on e whic h w e se e created b y a specia l counsel of God. These pagan ideas show that reason canno t establis h anythin g sure about God an d th e work s o f Go d bu t onl y think s u p reason s agains t reason s an d teache s nothing i n a perfect an d soun d manner . And He blessed (vs. 28) XII. 15 This h e did no t sa y about th e animals ; therefore h e includes the m here . Be fruitful XII. 16 This is a command o f God added fo r the creature. But, good God , what has been lost for us her e throug h sin ! Ho w blesse d wa s tha t stat e o f ma n i n whic h th e begettin g o f offspring wa s linked with the highest respec t an d wisdom, indee d wit h the knowledge of God! Now the flesh is so overwhelmed by the leprosy of lust that in the act of procreatio n the body becomes downrigh t brutis h an d canno t bege t i n the knowledg e o f God .

XII. 17 Thus the power o f procreation remained in the human race, but very much debase d an d even completel y overwhelme d b y the lepros y of lust, s o that procreatio n i s only slightly more moderat e tha n that o f the brutes. Added to thi s are the peril s of pregnancy and of birth, the difficulty o f feeding the offspring, an d other endless evils, all of which point ou t to u s th e enormit y o f origina l sin . Therefor e th e blessing , whic h remain s til l no w i n nature, is , as it were, a cursed and debase d blessin g if you compar e i t with that firs t one ; nevertheless, Go d establishe d i t an d preserve s it . S o let u s gratefull y acknowledg e thi s 'marred blessing. ' An d le t u s kee p i n min d tha t th e unavoidabl e lepros y o f th e flesh , which i s nothing but disobedienc e an d loathsomenes s attache d t o bodie s an d minds , i s the punishment o f sin. Moreover , le t us wait in hope for the deat h o f this flesh that we may be set free fro m thes e loathsom e conditions and ma y be restored eve n beyond th e point o f that firs t creatio n o f Adam. And have dominion over the fish of the sea XII. 18 We are so overcome by our ignoranc e of God and th e creature s that we cannot establis h with certaint y what us e woul d hav e bee n mad e o f th e cattle , th e fish , an d th e othe r animals i n th e firs t creatio n an d stat e o f perfection . W e se e no w tha t w e ea t flesh , vegetables, etc. If they were not use d i n this manner, we would not kno w why they were created; fo r we neither se e nor hav e any other us e for thes e creatures . Bu t Adam would not have used the creatures as we do today, except fo r food, which he would hav e derive d from other , fa r mor e excellen t fruits . Fo r h e unde r whos e powe r everythin g ha d bee n placed di d not lac k clothing o r money . No r would there have been any greed among his descendants; but , apart from food , they would have made use of the creatures only for the admiration o f Go d an d fo r a holy joy which i s unknown t o u s i n thi s corrup t stat e o f

296

THE ENVIRONMEN T

nature. B y contrast, today an d alway s the whole creation i s hardly sufficient t o fee d an d support th e huma n race . Therefor e wha t thi s dominio n consiste d o f w e canno t eve n imagine. And God said: Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed (vs. 29) XII. 19 Here you see how solicitous Go d is for the man h e has created. First he created th e earth like a house i n which h e shoul d live . Then h e arrange d th e othe r thing s he regarde d as necessary for life. Finall y he gave the gif t o f procreation t o th e ma n h e had created . No w he also provide s hi s foo d tha t nothin g ma y be lacking for leading his lif e i n th e easies t possible manner . Moreover , I believ e tha t i f Ada m ha d remaine d i n th e stat e o f innocence, his children would have run immediately after birth to the enjoyment of those delights which th e initia l creatio n afforded . Bu t i t i s vain t o mentio n thes e things; they cannot b e acquired b y thought, an d the y are irrecoverabl e in thi s life . And all the trees XII.20 Moses seems to be making a difference betwee n the seeds and the green herbage, perhaps because the latter were to serve for the use of the beasts, the former for that of man. I have no doubt that th e seeds we use for food toda y were far more excellent then than they are now. Moreover , Ada m woul d no t hav e eate n th e variou s kind s o f meat , a s th e les s delightful food , in preference to th e delightfu l fruit s o f the earth, whereas for us nothing is more deliciou s tha n meat . Fro m th e us e of these fruit s ther e would no t hav e resulted that leprou s obesity , bu t physica l beauty and healt h an d a sound stat e o f the humors . XII.21 But now people do not content themselve s with meats, with vegetables, or with grain; and rather often , becaus e of unsuitable food , we fac e danger s of health. I am sayin g nothing about those increasingly widespread sin s of over-indulgence i n food an d drink which are worse than brutish . The curse which followed becaus e of sin i s apparent. I t i s also likely that only then were the accursed and pernicious insects produced out o f the earth, which was cursed because o f man's sin ... And God saw all things that he had made, and they were very good. And evening and morning became the sixth day (vs. 31) XII.22 After Go d ha s finishe d hi s works , h e speak s afte r th e custo m o f on e wh o ha s becom e tired, a s i f h e wante d t o say : 'Behold , I hav e prepare d al l thing s i n th e bes t way . Th e heaven I hav e prepare d a s a roof ; the eart h i s the flooring ; the animal s - wit h al l the appointments o f the earth, th e sea, an d the air - ar e the possession an d wealth; seeds , roots, an d herb s ar e th e food . Moreover , h e himself , the lor d o f these , man , ha s bee n created. H e i s to hav e knowledge of God; and wit h the utmos t freedo m fro m fear , wit h justice and wisdom , h e is to make use of the creatures as he wishes, according to his will. Nothing i s lacking. All things hav e been create d i n greates t abundance fo r physica l life . Therefore I shall keep a Sabbath.'

297

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS XII.23

All these good thing s have, for the mos t part , bee n los t throug h sin ; an d we , who hav e kept hardly a shadow of that realm, are today like a corpse of that first human being. Or shall we not sa y that h e has lost everythin g who becam e mortal afte r bein g immortal, a sinner afte r bein g righteous, a condemned ma n afte r bein g welcome an d well-pleasing ? For now man i s mortal an d a sinner. Bu t if these thoughts do no t mov e us to hop e an d longing fo r the comin g Da y and th e futur e life , nothin g coul d mov e us . CRITIQUE The blea k ton e o f thi s Tex t probabl y fit s th e curren t ecologica l debat e quit e well . Fo r Luther even the 'small part of the divin e image we have lost, s o much s o that w e do no t even hav e insigh t int o tha t fullnes s o f jo y an d blis s whic h Ada m derive d fro m hi s contemplation o f all the anima l creatures' (XII.2) . Human si n ha s destroyed al l of this . Translated into secular language such sentiments might find a ready home i n some of the ecological critiques today. Yet Luther pays a heavy price for this analysis if it i s to remai n consistent. Becaus e his solution i s so exclusively Christian it has finally little to offe r th e secula r debate (a n issue which i s considere d i n relatio n t o Hauerwas ' Extrac t 18) . A s eve r i n Luther , reaso n unaided b y Christia n revelatio n a t bes t ca n convic t u s o f sin : i t canno t provid e an y resources to overcom e sinful action . Even within Christian ethics Luther's analysis faces problems . H e i s frequently caugh t between a residual use of natural law theory and a belief that sin has altogether destroye d God's image in the natural world. Here he seems to come down firmly on the latter side . But elsewhere he (or hi s followers who recorde d hi s ideas) is not s o consistent. Yet those movements within Christianity today that are influenced b y aspects of secular thought liberation theology , feminis t theology , an d probabl y ecologica l theolog y a s well - ma y find the bleakest sid e of Luther finally unusable. It appears to deny their very legitimacy. In addition , Luther' s understanding of the overwhelmin g nature o f sin probably doe s depend upo n a literalistic understanding of the Fall . Unambiguously for him, ou r direc t progenitors, Adam and Eve, fell from a state of joy in Paradise through the original sin (of the woman) . Whil e thi s accoun t remaine d unconteste d i t di d muc h t o explai n th e overwhelming nature of sin in the world today apart fro m Christ . Yet, if treated i n a less literalistic manner, i t ma y provide a n insecur e basis fo r this bleak conviction .

298

EXTRACTS 21-2 5

WHITE, GREGORIOS , ABRAHAM, CLARK AND MCFAGUE 1. BACKGROUND Lynn White' s Extrac t 2 1 comes fro m hi s much-quote d articl e 'Th e Historica l Root s of our Ecologi c Crisis' whic h first appeared i n Science (155:3767, 1 0 March 1967, pp. 1203 7). Paulo s Ma r Gregorios ' Extrac t 2 2 come s fro m a n articl e entitle d 'Lif e fro m th e Perspective of Science and the Christian Faith' from a series of studies for the 198 3 World Council of Churches' Genera l Assembly at Vancouver, ed. William H. Lazareth, The Lord of Life (WCC , 1983, pp. 34- 6 an d 39-43) . K . C. Abraham's Extrac t 23 comes fro m ' A Theological Respons e to Ecologica l Crisis', Bangalore Theological Forum (XXV: 1, March 1993, pp. 3-14). Stephen R. L. Clark's Extract 24 comes from 'Christia n Responsibility for the Environment' , Modern Churchman (28:2, 1986 , pp. 24-31) . An d Salli e McFague's Extract 25 comes from 'An Earthly Theological Agenda', The Christian Century (108:1, 2 9 January 1991, pp. 12-15) . Lynn White (b.1907), a Presbyterian layperson, was Professor of History and Director of the Centr e fo r Medieva l and Renaissanc e Studies at th e Universit y of California , Los Angeles. Metropolita n Paulo s Ma r Gregorio s wa s a bisho p o f th e ancient , pre Chalcedonian Syria n Orthodo x Churc h o f Kerala , Sout h India . A s Pau l Verghes e h e wrote Th e Freedom o f Man (1972) , while being principa l o f th e Orthodo x Seminar y at Kottayam, Kerala. A frequent contributor t o the WCC, he presented the repor t on peace and surviva l as Moderator o f the Issue Group at the 6th Assembly in Vancouver in 1983. He is widely recognized as one of the mos t importan t moder n India n theologians. K . C. Abraham wa s professo r o f Christia n ethic s fo r man y year s a t th e Unite d Theologica l College, Bangalore, serving churches in South Churches, and is now Director of the South Asia Theological Research Institute. Stephen Clark is Professor of Philosophy at Liverpool University an d a n Anglica n layperson . H e i s th e autho r o f a numbe r o f significant philosophical an d theologica l books , includin g Th e Moral Status of Animals (1977), The Nature o f th e Beast (1982) , Civil Peace an d Sacred Order (1989) , A Parliament of Souls (1990), Ho w t o Think About th e Earth (1993), an d Biology an d Christian Ethics (2000). Sallie McFagu e is Professor of Theology a t Vanderbel t Divinit y School an d autho r o f a number o f influentia l work s i n feminis t theology , includin g Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language (1982) , Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age (1987) , Th e Body o f God: A n Ecological Theology (1993) , an d Life Abundant (2001). 2. KE Y ISSUES White note s that, althoug h peopl e hav e lon g mad e a n impac t o n thei r physica l environment, huma n technolog y toda y i s causin g a majo r ecologica l crisi s (21.1-3) . Establishing exactly what can be done to resolv e this crisis is difficult, bu t a t least we can 299

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

attempt t o clarif y ou r thinkin g b y examinin g som e o f th e presupposition s underlyin g modern science an d technology (21.4-6) . White argue s that it is the specifically Western combination o f science and technolog y tha t ha s been s o destructive of the environmen t (21.6-7). Ne w ploughin g technique s develope d i n th e Wes t provid e a n instructiv e example o f th e Occidenta l dominatio n o f natur e (21.10-11) . Suc h attitude s t o th e environment, h e believes , ar e deepl y conditione d b y religio n (21.13) . I n th e Wes t th e victory o f Christianity over paganis m ha s ha d a profound an d advers e effec t upo n ou r thinking abou t natur e - creatio n an d dominatio n hav e becom e linke d (21.14-16) . Western Christianit y is profoundly anthropocentric (21.17) , but no t necessaril y Eastern Christianity (21.20-1). White finally argues that St Francis offers a striking exception an d maintains that his concepts are important for the modern ecological movement (21.24-8). Gregorios is emphatic about relatin g socio-ethical issues of peace and justice to lif e i n Christ. This passage and hi s other writings also show a strong concer n abou t oppressio n and socia l injustice. Ye t it i s not s o obviously written fro m th e perspectiv e of liberation theology. H e writes in the context o f the Vancouver theme of 'Jesus Christ - th e Lif e of the World' (22.1), which he relates to the threats to human life presented b y the prospects of nuclear holocaus t (22.2) , dangers i n biotechnology (22.3-9 - a long-standing concern of his) , ecological misuse (22.10-11) an d worl d povert y and injustic e (22.12-13). 'Life' , that is so threatened, Gregorios attempts to understand, first in terms of science, and then in terms of theology. The scientific answe r to th e question 'wha t is life' i s presented her e in summary form (22.2 0 - hi s detailed scientific account has been omitted because of lack of space). His theologica l discussio n focuse s upo n th e Assembl y theme 'Lif e a s a gif t o f God' (see below, pp. 430-2). He argues that this theme is directly relevant to a number of social issue s concernin g huma n lif e (22.22) . Fo r th e Christian , lif e i s 'created' , no t a product of nature (22.23), and i s thus dependent upo n God, evoking in us a free respons e of lov e (22.24-9 ) an d repentanc e (22.31) . Gregorios maintain s tha t bot h th e whol e o f biological lif e and life in Christ are equally gifts of grace - biologica l life acting as the very basis and receptacl e for eterna l lif e (22.32-4) . He views the spectru m o f interconnecte d life in Orthodox term s (22.36) and see s the incarnation a s affecting al l levels of life and a s overcoming the alienation of humanity from Go d (22.38-9). In the incarnation th e gif t is the Give r himself (22.41-2) . Bu t h e argue s that i t i s only smal l Christia n communitie s that ca n act as adequate vehicles fo r this faith (22.43) . For Abraham there is a crucial link to be made between socia l justice and ecology : the latter i s an issu e of concern no t jus t within th e riche r countrie s (23.1-2) . Once , natur e was though t t o b e a n objec t fo r exploitatio n b y 'developers' ; today , scientist s ar e increasingly concerne d abou t ecolog y (23.3) . Ecolog y should b e see n a s involving bot h political an d socia l justic e (23.4-6) . Thu s justic e concern s th e whol e cosmo s an d no t simply human beings (23.8). Economic degradation, poverty and the ecological crisis are all linked , makin g u s mor e awar e of ou r dependenc e upo n th e eart h an d o f th e God human-world relationshi p (23.10-14). Theology today is shifting fro m anthropocentris m to an ecological orientation, eve n within a liberation perspective (23.15-18). Science and technology hav e ofte n though t o f human s a s bein g abov e natur e - sometime s usin g Genesis 1.2 6 - a perspective criticized by Lynn Whit e (23.21-6) . A second perspectiv e makes littl e distinctio n betwee n human s an d natur e (23.27-8) . However , a thir d see s humans rather as part of nature yet as still different fro m othe r creature s (23.29). On this last perspectiv e th e notio n o f 'dominion ' i s see n i n Christia n term s o f huma n 300

THE ENVIRONMENT

responsibility (23.30-2). Human participatio n i n the cosmo s i s now stressed and , in the process, a more Easter n perspectiv e is adopted (23.33-8) . Clark note s tha t anthropocentris m ha s ofte n seeme d t o b e a featur e o f churches. He argues, however, that i t i s neither a n exclusiv e feature o f churches nor a requirement of Christian belie f (24.1-2) . Althoug h cruelt y t o animal s i s widel y recognize d a s bein g wrong even in secular society, there is a danger of humans forgetting their duties to other forms o f life an d eve n to some human forms o f life (24.3^1) . Even the notion of'servin g the spirit ' ca n lea d t o tyrann y (24.5) . In contrast , saint s characteristically welcome th e non-human a s God-give n (24.6—7) . Th e Bibl e constantl y insist s tha t human s ar e no t alone but ar e a part o f God's whol e creation , whic h include s bot h th e rationa l an d th e irrational (24.8-9) . Fo r th e Bibl e th e worl d a t larg e i s no t simpl y a t th e disposa l o f humans, bu t embodie s image s of spiritual values (24.10-11) . Why the n doe s th e Bibl e offer s o fe w injunction s abou t ho w human s shoul d behav e toward s th e non-human ? Clark argues that thi s i s because the Israelite s could i n fac t d o littl e t o har m th e res t of creation ove r whic h God was believed t o stan d (24.12-13) . Today, a t th e ver y least, we should no t deman d ou r huma n comfort s at whatever cost t o th e non-huma n (24.14) . McFague maintain s tha t liberatio n theologie s shoul d no w includ e al l oppresse d creatures as well as planet eart h (25.1-2). Western dualism has linked the domination o f both the oppresse d an d th e natura l world (25.3-4) . She believes that i t i s important t o remember tha t everythin g o n thi s plane t i s interrelate d an d interdependen t (25.5) . McFague's own theology has , over the years , become les s Barthian an d mor e concerne d with ecologica l issue s (25.6-8) . As a result , sh e now believe s tha t a n 'earthly ' theolog y should becom e mor e cooperativ e an d les s dualisti c (25.9-12) . Theolog y need s t o deconstruct an d reconstruc t it s central symbols to take account of these changes (25.13). It should become cosmocentric, rathe r than anthropocentric, an d more prophetic despite the ris k of becoming unpopula r i n the academi c world (25.14-16) . She believes that i n the pas t ther e wa s a n overemphasi s upo n redemptio n rathe r tha n creatio n (25.17) . Theology toda y shoul d instea d serv e t o deepe n ou r sens e o f complicit y i n th e earth' s decay an d also promot e 'righ t relations ' - relation s tha t includ e th e oppressed , othe r creatures and th e earth (25.18-19) . 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS White's Extrac t is mostly analytical in character. However, it becomes clea r towards th e end that i t is also written fro m a distinctively ethical perspective. There he shows that h e believes Christianity 'bears a huge burden of guilt' (21.24 ) and argues deontontologically for S t Francis ' virtue s o f 'humility ' an d 'democrac y o f al l God' s creatures ' (21.27) . Abraham, Clar k an d McFagu e all reflect thi s critique in thei r Extracts . All express clear deontological commitment s t o th e non-human , an d expres s criticisms of churches that have ignore d suc h commitments . Gregorios , too , show s a stron g deontologica l commitment t o the poor an d to the oppressed . 4. BASES O F CHRISTIAN ETHICS Neither White no r Gregorio s make any direct biblical references. As a historian, White attempts t o sho w that a cultural analysis of Christianity ca n poin t t o a need fo r a new attitude towards the environment. I n characteristic Orthodox styl e Gregorios' argument rests upon doctrin e an d upo n th e receive d wisdom o f tradition. Significantly , th e latter can include the statement mad e by the joint Orthodox consultatio n which met to prepare 301

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

for Vancouver (22.36). He also mixes this with his considerable knowledge of present-day science and see s the ful l Christia n as a person o f both cultur e and learning , o n th e on e hand, and , o n th e other, o f worshi p an d fait h (22.43) . His stron g liturgica l stres s i s evident i n th e centra l positio n tha t h e give s to eucharisti c worshi p (22.39) . His fello w Indian, Abraham , argues fro m a mor e Reforme d perspectiv e an d doe s us e the Bibl e a t several point s i n his argument - a s well as using writers suc h as McFague [some of his quotations fro m othe r writer s hav e bee n omitte d here] . Howeve r i t i s th e Anglica n philosopher, Clark , wh o i s th e mos t biblica l i n hi s approac h i n th e Extract s i n thi s Section. The Bible is used by him here in a mixture of illustrative and authoritative modes (see especially 25.8- 9 and 12) . 5. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS Elsewhere, Lynn White's writings show that he was clearly aware of social factors affectin g current position s withi n Christia n ethics . Fo r example , i n 195 4 h e addresse d th e Presbyterian Syno d o f Californi a arguin g that , althoug h conscientiou s objector s (especially t o nuclea r weapons ) shoul d b e respected , 'th e Churc h ha s a n equa l dut y not to permit these conscientious objectors to fall into the spiritual pride of believing that they have really achieved holiness. Profoundly evil forces are loose in the world, and these forces ar e armed with the H-Bomb' ('Can a Christian be a Good Citizen?' , p. 4). For him 'the life o f a Christian is by its very nature filled with dualities, and he should neve r even pretend t o giv e an unqualifie d allegiance to an y earthly authorities' (p . 9). Both Gregorio s an d Abraha m reflec t a stron g India n emphasi s upo n 'culture ' an d 'knowledge'. While clearl y concerned abou t poverty , th e concep t o f 'liberation' itsel f is somewhat different i n India, with the traditional notion of 'liberation' ( mokshd) referrin g rather t o spiritua l releas e and/o r escap e fro m th e cycl e of rebirt h (samsara). Althoug h Marxism i s strong i n part s o f India an d espouse d b y some Roma n Catholi c clergy , it is certainly not identica l to Wester n Marxism . In contrast Clark and McFague write from a distinctly Western context. However , their critiques of this context ar e distinct. Clark has been strongly influenced by philosophica l vegetarianism an d anima l rights , wherea s McFagu e ha s bee n mos t influence d b y feminism. Bot h hav e bee n philosophicall y traine d althoug h onl y Clar k work s directl y among philosophers . 6. SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE White's articl e ha s been extremel y influentia l i n th e ecologica l movemen t - an d has clearly influence d th e othe r writer s i n thi s Sectio n - althoug h h e coul d hardl y hav e expected this when he wrote it. Often use d as a generalized critique of Christianity, it was, as mentione d earlier , writte n fro m a positio n withi n Christianity . Gregorio s an d hi s fellow metropolita n Geevarghes e Ma r Osthathio s (autho r o f Theology o f a Classless Society, 1979 , and Th e Sin o f Being Rich in a Poor World, 1983 ) have been two o f the mos t important recen t India n theologians . Th e Syria n Orthodox Churc h o f Sout h Indi a ha s traditionally been somewha t conservativ e an d sociall y isolated, but , a s a resul t o f their influence, has become far more active on socio-political issues. The Marxist inclined state of Kerala does not sho w all of the anti-clericalism of much Western Marxism and ma y in principle be more open to the influence of an informed Christian minority. At the World Council o f Churches itself the issu e of ecology ha s become increasingl y important. Th e Vancouver Assembly , fo r example , maintaine d tha t 'churche s ca n adequatel y fac e th e 302

THE ENVIRONMEN T

threats t o huma n surviva l toda y onl y i f the y tak e u p th e problem s o f scienc e an d technology fo r th e huma n race ' (Issues para . 19) . McFague, who refer s directl y t o thi s theme, has herself become one of the most importan t feminis t theologian s in the United States an d beyond . Ecologica l issue s hav e becom e centra l t o he r exploratio n o f ne w feminist model s fo r theolog y - an d i n thi s are a he r theologica l influenc e i s ver y considerable. FURTHER READING For a n analysi s of ecologica l theology , se e Stephen R . L. Clark, Ho w t o Think About th e Earth (1993), and Michae l Northcott, Th e Environment and Christian Ethics (1995). For documents relatin g t o th e WC C 6t h Assembly , se e it s officia l repor t Gathered fo r Life (1983). For an authoritative analysis of theological and ethical issues arising from genetic science, se e Celia Deane-Drumond , Genetics and Christian Ethics (2005) .

EXTRACT 2 1 WHITE The theological roots of the ecological crisis 21.1 The history of ecologic change is still so rudimentary that we know little about what really happened, o r wha t th e result s were . The extinctio n o f th e Europea n auroch s a s late as 1627 woul d see m t o hav e bee n a simpl e cas e o f overenthusiasti c hunting . O n mor e intricate matters it often i s impossible to find solid information . For a thousand years or more the Frisians and Hollanders have been pushing back the North Sea, and the process is culminating in our ow n time in the reclamation of the Zuider Zee. What, if any, species of animals , birds , fish , shor e life , o r plant s hav e died ou t i n th e process ? In thei r epi c combat with Neptune have the Netherlanders overlooked ecologica l values in such a way that the quality of human lif e i n the Netherlands has suffered? I cannot discove r that th e questions hav e ever bee n asked , much less answered.

21.2 People, then, hav e often bee n a dynamic element i n thei r ow n environment , but i n th e present stat e o f historical scholarshi p we usuall y do no t kno w exactl y when, where, o r with wha t effect s man-induce d change s came . A s w e ente r th e las t thir d o f th e 20t h century, however , concer n fo r th e proble m o f ecologic backlas h i s mounting feverishly . Natural science, conceived as the effort t o understand the nature of things, had flourishe d in severa l era s an d amon g severa l peoples . Similarl y ther e ha d bee n a n age-ol d accumulation of technological skills, sometimes growing rapidly, sometimes slowly. But it was no t unti l abou t fou r generation s ag o tha t Wester n Europ e an d Nort h Americ a arranged a marriage between science and technology , a union o f the theoretica l and th e empirical approaches to our natural environment. Th e emergence in widespread practice of the Baconia n creed tha t scientifi c knowledg e means technologica l powe r ove r natur e can scarcel y b e date d befor e abou t 1850 , sav e i n th e chemica l industries , wher e i t i s anticipated i n th e 18t h century . Its acceptance a s a normal patter n o f action ma y mark 303

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

the greates t even t i n huma n histor y sinc e th e inventio n o f agriculture , and perhap s i n nonhuman terrestria l history as well.

21.3 Almost a t onc e th e ne w situatio n force d th e crystallizatio n o f th e nove l concep t o f ecology; indeed, the wor d ecology firs t appeare d in th e Englis h language in 1873 . Today, less than a century later, the impact of our rac e upon the environment has so increased in force tha t it has changed in essence. When the first cannons were fired, in the early 14th century, the y affecte d ecolog y b y sendin g worker s scramblin g t o th e forest s an d mountains for more potash, sulphur, iron ore, and charcoal, with some resulting erosion and deforestation . Hydroge n bomb s ar e o f a differen t order : a wa r fough t wit h the m might alte r th e genetic s of all life o n thi s planet . B y 1285 London ha d a smog proble m arising from th e burning of soft coal , but ou r presen t combustion o f fossil fuel s threatens to chang e the chemistry of the globe' s atmosphere as a whole, with consequences which we are only beginning to guess . With the populatio n explosion , th e carcinom a o f planless urbanism , th e no w geologica l deposit s o f sewag e an d garbage , surel y n o creatur e other tha n ma n ha s ever managed to fou l it s nest i n suc h short order . 21.4 There ar e man y call s t o action , bu t specifi c proposals , howeve r worth y a s individua l items, seem too partial , palliative, negative: ban the bomb, tear down the billboards, give the Hindus contraceptives and tell them to eat their sacred cows. The simplest solution to any suspect change is, of course, to stop it, or, better yet, to revert to a romanticized past : make those ugly gasoline stations look like Anne Hathaway's cottage or (i n the Far West) like ghost-tow n saloons . Th e 'wildernes s area ' mentalit y invariabl y advocate s deep freezing a n ecology, whether San Gimignano or th e Hig h Sierra, as it was before th e first Kleenex was dropped. Bu t neither atavism nor prettificatio n wil l cope with the ecologi c crisis of our time . 21.5 What shal l we do? No one yet knows. Unless we think about fundamentals , our specifi c measures ma y produc e ne w backlashe s mor e seriou s tha n thos e the y ar e designe d t o remedy. 21.6 As a beginning we should try to clarif y ou r thinkin g by looking i n some historical depth, at th e presupposition s tha t underli e moder n technolog y an d science . Scienc e wa s traditionally aristocratic , speculative , intellectua l i n intent ; technolog y wa s lower-class , empirical, action-oriented. Th e quite sudden fusio n o f these two, towards the middle of the 19t h century , i s surel y related t o th e slightl y prior an d contemporar y democrati c revolutions which, by reducing social barriers, tended t o assert a functional unity of brain and hand . Ou r ecologi c crisi s is the produc t o f an emerging , entirely novel, democrati c culture. Th e issu e i s whethe r a democratize d worl d ca n surviv e i s ow n implications . Presumably w e cannot unles s w e rethink ou r axioms . 304

THE ENVIRONMEN T

The Western traditions of technology and science 21.7 One thing is so certain that i t seems stupid t o verbalize it: both modern technolog y an d modern scienc e are distinctively Occidental. Our technolog y ha s absorbed element s fro m all ove r th e world , notabl y fro m China ; ye t everywher e today, whethe r i n Japa n o r i n Nigeria, successful technology is Western. Ou r scienc e is the heir to all the sciences of the past, especially perhaps to the work of the great Islamic scientists of the Middle Ages, who so ofte n outdi d th e ancien t Greek s i n skil l an d perspicacity : al-Raz i i n medicine , fo r example; o r ibnal-Haytha m i n optics; o r Oma r Khayya m in mathematics . Indeed , not a few work s o f such geniuse s seem t o hav e vanished i n th e origina l Arabic and t o survive only i n medieval Lati n translation s tha t helpe d t o la y the foundation s fo r later Western developments. Today , aroun d th e globe , al l significan t scienc e i s Wester n i n styl e an d method, whateve r the pigmentation o r language of the scientists ...

21.8 In the presen t da y vernacular understanding , moder n scienc e is supposed t o hav e begun in 1543 , when bot h Copernicu s an d Vesaliu s publishe d thei r grea t works . I t i s n o derogation o f their accomplishments , however , to poin t ou t tha t suc h structure s a s the Fabrica an d th e D e Revolutionibus d o no t appea r overnight . Th e distinctiv e Wester n tradition o f science, i n fact , bega n i n the lat e llt h centur y with a massive movement o f translation o f Arabi c an d Gree k scientifi c work s int o Latin . A few notable book s Theophrastus, for example - escape d the West's avid new appetite for science, but within less than 200 years effectively th e entire corpus of Greek and Muslim science was available in Latin, and was being eagerly read and criticize d in the new European universities. Out of criticis m aros e ne w observation , speculation , an d increasin g distrus t o f ancien t authorities. B y the lat e 13t h century Europe had seize d global scientifi c leadershi p fro m the falterin g hand s o f Islam. I t woul d b e a s absurd t o den y the profoun d originalit y of Newton, Galileo , o r Copernicu s a s to den y that o f the 14t h century scholasti c scientists like Burida n o r Oresm e o n whos e wor k the y built . Befor e th e llt h century , scienc e scarcely existed i n the Latin West, even in Roman times. From the llt h century onward, the scientifi c secto r o f Occidental cultur e has increased i n a steady crescendo . 21.9 Since both our technologica l an d our scientifi c movement s go t their start, acquired their character, an d achieve d worl d dominanc e i n th e Middl e Ages , i t woul d see m tha t w e cannot understan d their nature or their present impac t upo n ecolog y without examinin g fundamental medieva l assumption s an d developments . Medieval view of man and nature 21.10 Until recently , agricultur e ha s bee n th e chie f occupatio n eve n i n 'advanced ' societies ; hence, any change in methods o f tillage has much importance. Earl y plows, drawn by two oxen, di d no t normall y tur n th e so d bu t merel y scratche d it . Thus , cross-plowin g wa s needed an d fields tended to be squarish. I n the fairl y light soils and semi-arid climate s of the Near East and Mediterranean, thi s worked well. But such a plow was inappropriate to the we t climat e an d ofte n stick y soils o f norther n Europe . B y the latte r par t o f the 7t h century afte r Christ , however , followin g obscur e beginnings , certai n norther n peasant s

305

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

were using an entirely new kind o f plow, equipped with a vertical knife to cu t th e line of the furrow, a horizontal share to slice under the sod, and a moldboard t o turn it over. The friction o f this plow with the soil was so great that it normally required not tw o but eight oxen. I t attacke d th e lan d wit h suc h violenc e tha t cross-plowin g wa s not needed , an d fields tended t o b e shaped i n long strips .

21.11 In th e day s o f th e scratch-plow , field s wer e distribute d generall y i n unit s capabl e o f supporting a single family. Subsistenc e farming wa s the presupposition . Bu t no peasan t owned eigh t oxen: to use the new and more efficient plow , peasants pooled thei r oxen t o form larg e plow-teams , originall y receivin g (i t woul d appear ) plowe d strip s - i n proportion t o thei r contribution . Thus , distribution o f land was based n o longer on th e needs of a family but, rather , on the capacity of a power machine to till the earth. Man' s relation to the soil was profoundly changed. Formerly man had been part of nature; now he wa s th e exploite r o f nature . Nowher e els e i n th e worl d di d farmer s develo p an y analogous agricultura l implement . I s i t coincidenc e tha t moder n technology , wit h it s ruthlessness toward nature, has so largely been produced by descendants of these peasant s of northern Europe? 21.12 This sam e exploitiv e attitud e appear s slightl y befor e A.D . 83 0 i n Wester n illustrate d calendars. I n older calendars the months ar e shown a s passive personifications. The new Prankish calendars, which set the styl e for the Middl e Ages, are very different: the y show men coercing the world aroun d the m - plowing , harvesting , chopping trees, butchering pigs. Man an d natur e ar e two things, an d ma n i s master. 21.13 These novelties seem to be in harmony with larger intellectual patterns. What people d o about thei r ecology depends o n wha t the y think abou t themselve s i n relatio n t o thing s around them . Huma n ecolog y i s deepl y conditione d b y belief s abou t ou r natur e an d destiny - tha t is, by religion. To Western eyes this is very evident in, say, India or Ceylon. It i s equally true of ourselves and o f our medieva l ancestors . 21.14 The victor y o f Christianit y ove r paganis m wa s th e greates t psychi c revolutio n i n th e history of our culture . It has become fashionable today to say that, for better or worse, we live i n 'th e post-Christia n age. ' Certainl y the form s o f our thinkin g an d languag e have largely ceased to be Christian, but t o my eye the substance often remain s amazingly akin to that of the past. Our dail y habits of action, fo r example, are dominated b y an implicit faith i n perpetual progres s whic h was unknown eithe r t o Greco-Roman antiquity o r t o the Orient . It is rooted in, and i s indefensible apart from , Judeo-Christia n teleology . The fact tha t Communist s share it merely helps to sho w what can be demonstrated o n many other grounds: that Marxism, like Islam, is a Judeo-Christian heresy. We continue toda y to live , a s w e hav e live d fo r abou t 170 0 years , ver y largel y i n a contex t o f Christia n axioms. 306

THE ENVIRONMEN T

21.15 What di d Christianit y tel l peopl e abou t thei r relation s wit h th e environment ? 21.16 While man y o f th e world' s mythologie s provid e storie s o f creation , Greco-Roma n mythology was singularly incoherent i n this respect. Lik e Aristotle, the intellectuals of the ancient Wes t denie d tha t th e visibl e world ha d ha d a beginning. Indeed , th e ide a o f a beginning wa s impossibl e i n th e frame-wor k o f thei r cyclica l notion o f time . I n shar p contrast, Christianity inherited fro m Judais m not only a concept o f time as non-repetitive and linear but als o a striking story of creation. By gradual stages a loving and all-powerfu l God ha d create d ligh t an d darkness , th e heavenl y bodies , th e eart h an d al l it s plants , animals, birds, and fishes. Finally, God had created Adam and, as an afterthought, Eve to keep man from being lonely. Man named all the animals, thus establishing his dominance over them . Go d planne d al l of this explicitl y for man' s benefi t an d rule : no ite m i n th e physical creatio n ha d an y purpose sav e to serv e man's purposes . And , althoug h man' s body i s made o f clay, he i s not simpl y part o f nature: he i s made i n God' s image . 21.17 Especially in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religio n the world has seen . As early as the 2n d centur y both Tertullia n an d Sain t Irenaeus o f Lyon s were insisting that whe n God shaped Adam h e was foreshadowing the imag e of the incarnat e Christ, the Second Adam. Ma n shares, in great measure , God's transcendence of nature. Christianity, i n absolut e contras t t o ancien t paganis m an d Asia' s religion s (except , perhaps, Zoroastrianism) , no t onl y establishe d a dualis m o f ma n an d natur e bu t als o insisted tha t i t i s God's will that ma n exploi t natur e fo r hi s proper ends . 21.18 At th e leve l of the commo n peopl e thi s worked ou t i n a n interestin g way. In Antiquity every tree, every spring, every stream, every hill had its own genius loci, its guardian spirit. These spirit s wer e accessibl e t o men , bu t wer e ver y unlik e men ; centaurs , fauns , an d mermaids show their ambivalence . Before one cut a tree, mined a mountain, o r damme d a brook, it was important t o placate the spirit in charge of that particular situation, and to keep i t placated . B y destroying paga n animism , Christianit y made i t possibl e t o exploi t nature i n a mood o f indifference t o th e feeling s o f natural objects . 21.19 It i s often sai d tha t fo r animism th e Churc h substitute d th e cul t o f saints. True; but th e cult o f saint s i s functionall y quite differen t fro m animism . Th e sain t i s no t i n natura l objects; he may have special shrines, but hi s citizenship is in heaven. Moreover, a saint is entirely a man; he can be approached i n human terms. In addition t o saints, Christianity of cours e als o ha d angel s an d demon s inherite d fro m Judais m an d perhaps , a t on e remove, fro m Zoroastrianism . Bu t these were all as mobile a s the saint s themselves. Th e spirits i n natural objects , whic h formerl y ha d protecte d natur e fro m man , evaporated . Man's effective monopol y on spirit i n this world wa s confirmed, and th e old inhibition s to th e exploitation o f nature crumbled . 307

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

21.20

When one speak s in such sweeping terms, a note o f caution i s in order. Christianit y is a complex faith , an d it s consequence s diffe r i n differin g contexts . Wha t I hav e sai d ma y well apply to the medieval West, where in fact technology made spectacular advances. But the Gree k East , a highl y civilize d real m o f equa l Christia n devotion , seem s t o hav e produced n o marked technological innovation afte r th e late 7th century, when Greek fire was invented. The key to the contrast may perhaps be found i n a difference i n the tonality of piety and thought which students of comparative theology find between the Greek and the Lati n Churches . Th e Greek s believe d tha t si n wa s intellectua l blindness , an d tha t salvation was found i n illumination, orthodox y - tha t is , clear thinking . Th e Latins, on the othe r hand, fel t tha t si n was moral evil , and tha t salvatio n wa s to b e found in right conduct. Eastern theology has been intellectualist. Western theology has been voluntarist. The Greek saint contemplates; the Western saint acts. The implications of Christianity for the conques t o f nature would emerg e more easil y in the Wester n atmosphere .

21.21 The Christian dogma of creation, which is found i n the first clause of all the Creeds , ha s another meanin g fo r ou r comprehensio n o f today' s ecologi c crisis . B y revelation, Go d had give n man th e Bible , the Boo k of Scripture. But since God had mad e nature, natur e also mus t revea l th e divin e mentality . Th e religiou s stud y o f natur e fo r th e bette r understanding of God was known as natural theology. In the early Church, and always in the Greek East, nature was conceived primarily as a symbolic system through which God speaks to men: the ant is a sermon to sluggards; rising flames are the symbol of the soul's aspiration. Thi s vie w o f natur e wa s essentiall y artisti c rathe r tha n scientific . Whil e Byzantium preserve d and copie d grea t numbers o f ancient Gree k scientific texts , scienc e as we conceive it coul d scarcel y flourish in suc h a n ambience . 21.22 However, i n th e Lati n Wes t by the earl y 13t h centur y natural theology wa s following a very differen t bent . I t wa s ceasing to b e th e decodin g o f the physica l symbols o f God' s communication wit h ma n an d wa s becoming th e effor t t o understan d God' s min d b y discovering how his creatio n operates . Th e rainbow , wa s no longe r simpl y a symbol o f hope firs t sen t t o Noa h afte r th e Deluge : Rober t Grosseteste , Fria r Roge r Bacon , an d Theodric o f Freiber g produce d startlingl y sophisticate d wor k o n th e optic s o f th e rainbow, bu t the y did i t as a venture in religiou s understanding. Fro m th e 13t h centur y onward, u p t o an d includin g Leibni z an d Newton , ever y majo r scientist , i n effect , explained hi s motivations in religious terms. Indeed, if Galileo had not bee n so expert an amateur theologian h e would have got into far less trouble: th e professionals resented hi s intrusion. An d Newto n seem s t o hav e regarded himsel f more a s a theologian tha n a s a scientist. I t wa s no t unti l th e lat e 18t h centur y tha t th e hypothesi s o f Go d becam e unnecessary to man y scientists . 21.23 It is often hard for the historian to judge, when men explain why they are doing what they want to do, whether they are offering rea l reasons or merely culturally acceptable reasons . The consistenc y wit h whic h scientist s durin g th e lon g formativ e centuries o f Wester n science said that the task and the reward of the scientist was 'to think God's thoughts afte r 308

THE ENVIRONMEN T

him' leads one to believe that this was their real motivation. I f so, then modern Wester n science was cast in a matrix o f Christian theology. Th e dynamism o f religious devotion , shaped b y the Judeo-Christia n dogma o f creation, gav e i t impetus . An alternative Christian view 21.24 We would see m to be headed towar d conclusion s unpalatabl e to man y Christians. Since both science and technology are blessed words in our contemporar y vocabulary, some may be happy at the notions, first, that, viewed historically, modern scienc e is an extrapolation of natural theology and, second, that modern technolog y is at least partly to be explained as an Occidental, voluntarist, realizatio n of the Christia n dogma o f man's transcendence of, an d rightfu l master y over, nature. But, as we now recognize, somewhat over a century ago science and technology - hithert o quit e separat e activities - joine d to give mankind powers which , t o judg e b y man y o f th e ecologi c effects , ar e ou t o f control . I f so , Christianity bears a huge burden o f guilt.

21.25 I personally doubt that disastrous ecologic backlash can be avoided simply by applying to our problem s mor e scienc e an d mor e technology . Ou r scienc e an d technolog y hav e grown ou t o f Christia n attitude s towar d man' s relatio n t o natur e whic h ar e almos t universally held no t onl y by Christians and neo-Christian s but als o by those who fondl y regard themselves as post-Christians. Despit e Copernicus, all the cosmo s rotate s around our little globe. Despite Darwin, we are not, in our hearts, part of the natural process. We are superior t o nature , contemptuou s o f it, willing to us e it for our slightes t whim. The newly elected Governo r o f California, like myself a churchman but les s troubled tha n I , spoke fo r th e Christia n traditio n whe n h e sai d (a s i s alleged) , 'whe n you'v e see n on e redwood tree , you've seen them all.' To a Christian a tree can be no more than a physical fact. Th e whole concept of the sacred grove is alien to Christianity and to the ethos of the West. Fo r nearl y 2 millenni a Christia n missionarie s hav e bee n choppin g dow n sacre d groves, which are idolatrou s becaus e they assume spirit i n nature . 21.26 What we do abou t ecolog y depends o n ou r idea s of the man-nature relationship. Mor e science an d mor e technolog y ar e no t goin g t o ge t us ou t o f th e presen t ecologi c crisis until w e fin d a ne w religion , o r rethin k ou r ol d one . Th e beatniks , wh o ar e th e basi c revolutionaries o f ou r time , sho w a soun d instinc t i n thei r affinit y fo r Ze n Buddhism, which conceive s o f the man-natur e relationshi p a s very nearly the mirro r imag e of th e Christian view. Zen, however, is as deeply conditioned b y Asian history as Christianity is by the experienc e of the West , an d I am dubiou s o f its viability among us . 21.27 Possibly w e shoul d ponde r th e greates t radica l i n Christia n histor y sinc e Christ : Sain t Francis of Assisi. The prime miracle of Saint Francis is the fac t that he did no t en d at th e stake, as many of his left-wing follower s did. He was so clearly heretical that a General of the Francisca n Order , Sain t Bonaventure , a grea t an d perceptiv e Christian , trie d t o suppress the earl y accounts o f Franciscanism. The key to a n understandin g of Francis is his belief in the virtue of humility - no t merely for the individual but for man as a species. 309

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

Francis tried to depose man fro m hi s monarchy over creation and se t up a democracy of all God's creatures. With him th e an t i s no longer simpl y a homily for the lazy, flames a sign of the thrust of the soul toward union with God; now they are Brother Ant and Sister Fire, praisin g the Creato r i n their ow n ways as Brother Man doe s i n his .. .

21.28 The greatest spiritual revolutionary in Western history , Sain t Francis , proposed wha t he thought wa s an alternative Christian vie w of nature and man' s relation t o it : he tried t o substitute the ide a o f the equalit y of all creatures, includin g man, fo r th e ide a o f man's limitless rule of creation. H e failed. Both our presen t scienc e and our presen t technolog y are s o tinctured wit h orthodo x Christia n arroganc e toward natur e tha t n o solutio n fo r our ecologic crisis can be expected fro m the m alone. Sinc e the roots o f our troubl e are so largely religious, the remed y mus t also be essentially religious , whether we call it that or not. W e must rethin k an d refee l ou r natur e an d destiny . Th e profoundly religious, bu t heretical, sens e o f th e primitiv e Franciscan s for th e spiritua l autonom y o f al l part s o f nature ma y poin t a direction. I propose Franci s as a patron sain t fo r ecologists .

EXTRACT 2 2 GREGORIOS Ecology and the World Council of Churches 22.1 The Sixt h Assembl y o f th e Worl d Counci l o f Churche s [Vancouve r 1983 ] ha s goo d reasons to choose as its theme: 'Jesus Christ - th e Life of the World'. We live in a world where lif e itsel f i s imperilled; not onl y human life , bu t al l life .

22.2 The fou r peril s that fac e lif e ca n b e summarize d a s follows: (i.) Th e nuclear peril: A holocaust, or burnt offering , o f practically the whole earth, has been a distinc t possibilit y for humanity , fo r th e pas t twent y years or more . We ca n b e grateful tha t we hav e actuall y refrained fro m burnin g the plane t up in the las t twent y years. But we can do so any time, by the pressin g of one or more buttons. There may be human an d anima l survivors immediately afte r a nuclear war. But whether they or thei r progeny can survive for very long in a radiation-filled biosphere seems in doubt. Even the peaceful us e of nuclear energ y poses hazard s to lif e o n ou r planet . 22.3 (ii.) Th e peril of biotechnology. This is difficult t o assess . Some five years ago, the biological community i n th e Wes t too k th e initiativ e to expres s publi c alar m abou t th e possibl e disastrous consequence s o f new biotechnology . 22.4 The DN A molecule, th e basi c component o f genes, had bee n decoded . There wa s hope that particular characteristics of an organism could be located i n particular genes or their components. Thi s hop e ha s no w receded . Bu t th e ne w technology o f gene-splicing , o r 310

THE ENVIRONMEN T

putting togethe r differin g element s o f differen t genes , raise s the possibilit y tha t huma n personal and social characteristics can be altered by genetic manipulation. The possibility can also be conceived of creating new breeds of monsters by splicing genes. Experts spoke about th e possibilit y of creatin g crosse s between human s and , say , gorillas, i n orde r t o create a new breed o f semi-humans wh o coul d b e conscripted t o d o docil e mechanical labour without th e risk of their organising themselves into trade unions, demanding their rights o r goin g on strike .

22.5 Fear was expressed that new micro-organisms, develope d in the research laboratory, may escape by accident int o th e biosphere , an d caus e diseases i n humans an d othe r animal s and plants , disease s against which they had n o immunity . 22.6 It is now an established fac t tha t highly poisonous micro-organism s have been developed through biotechnology, an d stored by the great powers as a possible weapon to be used in war. The international conventio n agains t biological weapons forbid s thei r use , but no t their manufactur e or stockpiling . 22.7 Despite recent assurances from th e biological communit y tha t safeguards agains t the bioperil are adequate, the general public remains unassured and insecure. They have learned from experienc e that the previous assurances of experts about the adequacy of safeguards against the hazards of peaceful us e of nuclear energy have subsequently been proved to be false. The experts, eve n if sincere, could be wrong about th e safet y of the ne w research in biotechnology. 22.8 There i s muc h wisdo m i n th e statemen t b y D r Erwi n Chargaff , professo r emeritu s o f biochemistry a t Columbia : 'Anyon e affirmin g immediat e disaste r i s a charlatan . Bu t anyone denyin g th e possibilit y o f its occurring i s an eve n greater one. ' 22.9 Even if the danger is a long-term one, the churches have to be alert to the consequences of developments i n this field, and the theme chosen provides a platform for dealing with the issues an d educatin g th e common people. 22.10 (iii.) Th e ecological peril: The indiscriminat e burning of fossil fuel s (coal , gas and oil ) fo r energy, and th e irresponsible misus e of the limited resource s of the planet , have posed a threat to the biosphere - tha t fragile envelope aroun d the earth which makes life possible. Besides th e pollutio n o f air, water an d food , th e ver y balance of the eco-syste m ca n b e imperilled by industrial development, energ y consumption an d wast e disposal. 22.11 Some measure s hav e recentl y bee n take n b y som e government s t o lowe r th e leve l o f pollution. Bu t no internationa l agreement s have yet been reache d to kee p the pollutio n 311

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

level low, or to regulat e the proces s of exploitation o f the limited resources of the earth . The risk that the eco-balance may be seriously upse t by our industria l civilisatio n i s still great. The churches have a responsibility to continue to alert people to this real danger to life o n earth .

22.12 (iv.) Th e peril o f global injustice: Th e resource s and th e technolog y necessary to ensur e a decent standard o f living to all human beings are now at the disposal of humankind. And yet the number o f the millions who do not hav e access to the mean s fo r a life worthy of human being s continue s t o increase . Whil e enormou s amount s o f resource s an d technology are being wasted on pointles s military weapons, millions perish from hunge r and malnutrition , ignoranc e and disease . Th e lac k o f politica l wil l t o remed y thi s evi l frightens thinkin g people. Nations make pious resolutions on cutting down weapons and devoting resource s t o development, bu t littl e actuall y happens . 22.13 The desperation of the poor an d th e powerles s can imperil life o n earth , for power doe s not remai n foreve r wit h the mighty . Injustice unremedie d soo n explode s i n destructive revolt. 22.14 The Centra l Committe e o f the Worl d Counci l o f Churche s had al l these fou r peril s i n mind whe n i t settled on the theme 'Jesu s Chris t - th e Lif e o f the World'. 22.15 But th e questio n o f how Jesus Christ ca n be the lif e o f the world an d sav e it fro m thes e four peril s remains basically unanswered. It is to tha t question tha t the Assembly and it s preparatory proces s mus t pa y adequat e attention . An d i t i s a contributio n t o tha t preparatory proces s that thi s pape r is offered . What is life? A scientific answer 22.16 Any answer to th e question: What i s life? mus t depen d upo n th e categor y structure that one choose s fo r the question a s well as the answer . Is it a theological question ? Or i s it a scientific question? If the latter, then we must say that the answer can only be in terms of a label applie d t o a common clas s o f properties which ca n be investigated scientifically . We ca n sa y what propertie s o r function s al l livin g being s hav e i n common . I t i s a n arbitrary labe l create d b y huma n being s fo r th e sak e o f convenienc e i n thinking . Th e definition ma y not includ e all life, and the boundaries may be quite fuzzy. This is the case with scientific concepts like species, animals, insects, etc., for example, but the y are usefu l shorthand.

22.17 That i s all on e ca n hop e fo r i n an y scientifi c treatmen t o f wha t constitute s life . Bu t a theological answer to such a question has to take into account bot h what scienc e ha s to 312

THE ENVIRONMEN T

say about life , an d als o go farther int o questions like origin, purpose, etc. , which do no t properly fal l withi n th e domai n o f science.

22.18 In treating the theme, 'Jesu s Christ - th e Life of the World', we must deal with life, bot h in term s o f th e understandin g o f lif e i n th e sciences , an d i n term s o f th e Christia n understanding of life, which need not be in conflict with the scientific understanding, but must necessaril y go beyond . 22.19 Let us begin, therefore, with science, keeping in min d th e possibilit y that an y answer in science ma y b e n o mor e satisfyin g tha n th e answe r t o a simila r question : Wha t i s electricity? Ho w d o w e defin e life ? Th e definitio n mus t appl y t o al l of lif e - human , animal an d plant ... 22.20 From a scientifi c perspective , therefore, one ca n say: (a) Ther e is no agree d definition of life, no r i s the boundar y between lif e an d non-lif e clear, e.g. a virus, the heart of a frog that has been vivisected in the laboratory, or a person in termina l illnes s whose lif e ha s been artificiall y prolonged , etc . (b) Livin g being s exhibi t negativ e entropy , whic h offsets , a t leas t temporarily , th e positive entrop y which characterises all matter. (c) Eac h livin g bein g i s i n itsel f a n organise d communit y wit h differentiatio n an d coordination o f functions controlled b y genetic structure . (d) Lif e i s a n ope n system , self-regulating , orderly , dependen t o n othe r reality , receptive, relational . (e) Lif e - a t least a t higher levels - i s characterised by consciousness, awareness , will, choice an d freedom , thoug h thes e ar e characteristic s difficul t t o explai n i n term s o f physics and chemistr y alone . As has been stated, life cannot be understood, a t least for Christians, in terms of science alone. We should, therefore , consider th e theme, alon g with the four sub-theme s chosen for th e Assembl y in a more specificall y theologica l context . What is life? A theological answer 22.21 The Assembly's main theme, 'Jesus Christ - th e Life of the World', has now been broke n up int o four themes: Life a gift o f God; Life confronting and overcomin g death; Lif e in its fullness; Lif e in unity. The consideration o f these four sub-theme s should bring out som e of th e aspect s o f lif e i n Jesu s Chris t whic h li e beyond th e competenc e o f science . Ou r considerations her e will be limited t o th e first sub-theme, o n th e basis of the fait h o f the Christian communit y an d it s understanding o f reality. 22.22 (i.) Th e gift an d th e Giver. All life i s a gif t fro m God . Thi s shoul d no t b e regarde d a s a mere preacher's platitude. To acknowledge one's life, as well as that of others, as a sacred gift ha s enormous consequence s fo r the way we make ou r decision s o n man y issue s suicide, war , poverty , injustice , nuclea r weapons , an d s o on . Thi s claim , however ,

313

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

constitutes one of the dilemmas of our moder n civilisatio n which affirms itself , at least at the state level, as secular. In a secular society, what is the basis for affirming the sacrednes s of life o r o f it s gif t character ? If there is no God , whose gif t i s life? Nature's ? Bu t what is nature? Somethin g which exists by itself ? 22.23 The concept of nature is of pagan origin and ha s no basis in the Christian understandin g of reality . Neithe r natur e no r w e exist fro m ourselves , o r o n ou r own . W e com e fro m God. S o does nature . Bot h ar e creation - no t nature . I t i s important fo r Christians t o acknowledge ourselves an d the world a s created - no t as existing by nature. 22.24 To be created means several things. First, when we acknowledge ourselves and th e world as created , w e confess tha t al l created realit y is contingent an d dependen t upo n God' s creative wil l fo r it s ver y existenc e an d functioning . W e ar e no t ou r own . Ou r ver y existence we owe to God as a gift. Once we acknowledge the gift, we acknowledge also ou r responsibility t o th e Giver . Bu t i t i s no t a lega l responsibilit y o f whic h w e speak . Fo r accepting a fre e gif t doe s no t entai l an y lega l responsibilit y t o th e Giver . I f we confess, however, that it is a gift o f love, given in freedom, then ther e has to be a response - rathe r than a burdensome responsibility. I t is a response o f love - a free response . 22.25 It cannot b e a response arisin g from th e fea r o f consequences o f not respondin g i n love. For a response arising from fea r that God will punish us is neither a loving response no r a free one . The Giver does not demand any response, fo r love does no t mak e demands, bu t gives itsel f freely . Th e Give r rejoice s when ther e i s a fre e respons e i n love , bu t canno t command i t o r as k for it . 22.26 Much has been written about Christia n ethical responsibility, quit e often i n a contractua l or covenanta l understandin g o f the relationshi p betwee n Go d an d humanity . Muc h les s has bee n sai d abou t responsiveness , a s distinct fro m responsibility . Ther e i s a world o f difference betwee n response and responsibility . The very ethos is different. Responsibilit y is du e an d ca n be demanded - a lega l obligation . Respons e i s free; i t ca n be give n o r withheld. There can be penalty or punishmen t fo r not fulfillin g one' s responsibility. Fo r failing t o respond , ther e ma y b e consequence s - disastrou s one s a t that ; bu t n o punishment a s such. 22.27 Life is God's gif t - a gift o f grace, an offering o f love, the creative love of the Creator. And the respons e to love is not onl y not demanded , bu t i t is not eve n prescribed. Ther e is no such thing as a single appropriate respons e t o any given gift o f love. The response itsel f is an occasio n fo r creativity on th e par t o f the responder . 22.28 There is no logic by which we can deduce from th e recognition tha t lif e is God's gift what the prope r respons e t o tha t gif t is . There ar e som e aspect s o f that respons e whic h see m 314

THE ENVIRONMEN T

common - gratitude , for example, an d the turning t o God in repentance. Bu t those are aspects which are permanent feature s o f any adequate respons e t o God . 22.29 The respons e w e mak e doe s no t depen d s o muc h o n th e gif t a s o n th e Giver . I t i s important t o kno w th e natur e o f th e gif t o f life , fo r otherwis e i t woul d b e difficul t t o make th e righ t us e o f the gift . Bu t i s it no t mor e significan t t o kno w th e Give r and t o enter int o a loving relationship wit h tha t Person ? 22.30 Knowing God, however, is not a matter o f theology. I n theology we have concepts abou t God - righ t or wrong - bu t no real knowledge of God as a Person.

22.31 The firs t aspec t o f knowing Go d a s Giver of life mus t b e repentance. Repentanc e means turning awa y from ou r idle , trivial , foolis h an d sinfu l preoccupation s toward s th e On e who ha s endowed u s with life . Turnin g toward s Go d a s Giver of life thu s implie s also a recognition o f th e foll y o f turnin g toward s an d pursuin g othe r thing s an d goals ; th e recognition tha t we have made a mess of the gif t o f life by not turnin g towards the Give r and responding to the love that prompted th e gift ; recognitio n als o that my life is not m y own, bu t a loving gift , t o b e cherished an d fulfilled . 22.32 (ii.) Life an d life eternal. At this poin t w e should recognis e the tw o differen t bu t relate d kinds of life we have received as a gift: th e gif t of biological life by creation, and th e gif t o f life i n Chris t throug h th e incarnat e Lor d Jesu s Christ. Bot h are gift s o f grace. Neither is ours by right. Without th e first the second i s hardly possible. Frequentl y it is said: there is no question o f the first one - tha t is , biological life , bein g by nature an d the second one , i.e. lif e i n Christ , alon e a s bein g b y grace . Tha t i s th e kin d o f erro r int o whic h fals e theologies ofte n plung e us . All life i s a gift o f grace, biological lif e an d eterna l life , plan t life an d anima l life . 22.33 Biological life is certainly a gift to us - includin g plant and animal life. We live from plan t and anima l life . Th e plant s ar e especiall y a gif t o f grace , fo r withou t the m ther e i s n o photosynthesis, n o grai n or fruit , n o animals , no foo d fo r humans. Withou t plant s an d trees who will absorb al l the carbon-dioxid e we breathe out , an d assur e our continuou s supply of oxygen? We shoul d b e gratefu l fo r God' s graciou s gift o f plants and tree s an d animals. 22.34 Biological life , ordinar y life , i s the basi s an d receptacl e fo r eterna l life . An y attemp t t o glorify eterna l lif e a t th e expens e o f biologica l lif e shoul d b e resiste d a s a temptation . True, biologica l lif e i s temporary. I t i s subject t o death . Bu t withou t i t ca n w e receive eternal life? And how can we say that biological lif e is ours by nature and onl y eternal life is a gift o f grace? It i s a fact tha t eterna l lif e i s a far superior gift . Bu t that does no t mak e ordinary life an y less a gift o f God's grace. Failure to recognis e this fact lie s at the base of 315

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

our ecologica l peril , o f ou r socia l injustice , of ou r makin g a mes s o f ou r ordinar y life . Christians especially need t o recognise more readily the nature of ordinary life, o f the lif e of all, as the graciou s gift o f God's creation . Tha t would provide them with a basis for an understanding and a way of life that is more Christian. That would help them understan d science and technology , culture and th e arts , politics and economics , famil y an d society , education an d health , an d everythin g else in a truly Christian light . 22.35 (iii.) Th e gift an d th e Giver ar e onel Biologica l lif e i s a gif t fro m God , gratefull y t o b e acknowledged an d faithfull y t o b e cherished . Tha t i s not , however , t o diminis h th e distinction betwee n biologica l lif e an d lif e eterna l i n Christ . 22.36 A consultation o f some Orthodox theologians, meeting in Damascus in 1982 , drew up a distinction betwee n th e differen t kind s o f life w e know ... We restate that distinctio n a s follows: (a) God's life: self-derived , self-sustaining, self-giving, eternal , infinite , no t subjec t t o death or disintegration, unmixed with evil, true being, the ground an d source of all being, in itsel f incomprehensible . (b) Angelic life: created , no t mixe d wit h evi l an d therefor e no t subjec t t o death , an d experiencing the presenc e of God unhindere d b y the scree n o f sin . (c) Human life: created , other-derived , other-dependent , mortal , finite , alway s mixed with evil. (d) Sub-human life o n earth: als o create d an d therefor e other-derive d an d other dependent, mortal , finite , bu t integrall y related t o huma n life . (e) Anti-God life: created , but i n rebellion agains t the purposes o f God, interfering with the affair s o f humans , discomfite d i n Christ , bu t stil l allowe d t o b e activ e a s a testin g ground fo r freedom , though doome d t o destruction . 22.37 All these five levels of life ar e interconnected an d interacting . Any attempt t o understan d human lif e i n isolatio n fro m th e othe r fou r level s is bound t o b e bot h superficia l an d misleading. 22.38 But th e gospe l o f Jesu s Chris t announce s t o u s a ne w fact - tha t al l levels o f life ar e affected b y an event which took plac e in time and space - i n Palestine 2000 years ago. The Second Perso n o f the Hol y Trinit y ha s no w permanentl y an d inseparabl y unite d level s one an d thre e i n th e onl y Begotte n So n o f God , overcom e si n an d deat h a s a divin e human person , an d i s to unit e al l forms o f lif e an d non-life , afte r testin g i n th e fir e o f judgment, t o becom e a harmonious but differentiate d whol e i n th e rise n Jesu s Christ . 22.39 This is the astounding new gift o f God's grace proclaimed i n the gospel by the church and acknowledged i n th e believing community . There i s n o scientifi c proo f possibl e fo r thi s declaration . T o thos e wh o believe , i t i s more certai n tha n an y so-called scientifi c fact . 316

THE ENVIRONMENT

It is this supreme gift whic h we celebrate with joy in the eucharisti c liturgy and which we proclaim wit h confidenc e t o al l creation. The alienatio n o f humanit y fro m Go d ha s no w bee n overcome . Go d an d humanit y have become inseparably one. Ther e is no mor e a gap of separation. Go d i s at on e with us. Immanuel! With us , God ! 22.40 This gift i s such that to respond t o it is simply to surrender oneself totally to such infinit e love - o f course, t o find oneself confirme d an d revitalised b y that infinit e love ! I n the utter trus t o f faith , w e morta l human s surrende r ourselve s t o suc h lov e withou t an y reservation, without an y fear abou t wha t will happen t o ou r freedo m and identity . Our trust i s so complet e i n hi s love , tha t i t drive s ou t al l fea r - includin g fea r o f los s of freedom and identity, fear o f condemnation an d punishment, fea r an d anxiety about ou r personal destiny .

22.41 Here, the gift i s the Giver himself. And our respons e can be nothing less than to surrender our paltry and feeble sel f into thos e loving hands. There is no question no w of taking the gift an d walkin g away from the Giver , for th e gif t i s the Give r himself. In acceptin g the gift i n humble repentance and perfec t trust we ourselves become one with the Giver. The Giver, th e gift , an d th e receive r ar e unite d i n tha t life-givin g embrace o f the Suprem e Lover. 22.42 It i s as we experience this suprem e gif t tha t w e recognise fully tha t al l life, al l things, all that exists , with all the sufferin g an d pain , the struggles and conflicts , the beauty and th e joy, the fears and the hopes, are a gift o f grace from th e Supreme Lover. In that experience we see that what we regarded wrongly as nature is also a gift o f grace - no t ours by right; as w e are possesse d b y th e Grea t Lover , possession itsel f becomes meaningless . W e n o longer seek to possess, for we are God's, an d Go d is ours, and ther e is nothing to posses s further. Thi s is freedom - th e freedom of love in which God and humanity are united in one, an d al l things with u s in God ! 22.43 It i s idle t o hop e tha t th e presen t churc h structure s ca n trul y becom e communitie s o f faith, living the life that overcomes death and transmitting life to the world around. What is more practical is to seek to found smaller pioneering communities - o f Christians who have overcome their fear o f death, who really believe that Jesu s Christ is risen indeed, an d who work ou t th e implication s o f that faith . Such a community must be deeply rooted in two worlds - th e modern world of science and technology , o f povert y an d injustice , o f rootlessnes s an d lovelessnes s o n th e on e hand, an d o n th e other , th e life-givin g power s o f th e Spiri t operatin g i n a genuin e community o f faith an d worship . If the Sixt h Assembly [of the World Counci l of Churches] can lead to th e foundin g of such pionee r communities, the them e wil l have served som e purpose . 317

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

EXTRACT 2 3 ABRAHAM Liberation and eco-justice 23.1 Ecology ma y b e understoo d a s th e stud y o f th e structure s an d function s o f nature . I t could refe r t o th e ecosystem , tha t is , the lif e suppor t syste m o f al l humans, livin g an d non-living things on the earth. The underlying emphasis is important fo r our purpos e i n all this, that humankin d i s part of nature an d no t apar t fro m nature . Ecological crisi s is caused b y human interventio n i n this fragil e syste m destroyin g it s tenuous fabric .

23.2 There was a time when we thought that ecological crisis was not a serious problem fo r us in th e poore r countries . Ou r problems , i t wa s assumed, wa s confine d t o povert y an d economic exploitation , an d th e environmenta l issu e wa s rejecte d a s a 'luxury ' o f th e industrialized countries . Socia l actio n group s an d people' s movement s i n th e Thir d World countrie s understandabl y hav e show n relativ e indifferenc e t o th e proble m o f ecology. But today we realize how urgent this issue is for rich and poor countries alike in fac t fo r th e whol e world . Th e threa t i s t o lif e i n general . Th e lif e o f th e plane t i s endangered. The ecological crisis raises the problem o f survival itself. Moreover, ther e is a growing awarenes s of the organi c lin k between th e destructio n o f the environmen t an d socio-economic an d politica l injustice . 23.3 Committed scientists and other ecologists have helped us to deepen our understandin g of the ecologica l problem . I n th e past , natur e wa s though t t o b e a n objec t fo r ruthles s exploitation b y the 'developers ' an d scientist s fo r the 'good ' o f humans. Littl e though t was give n t o th e peril s o f environmenta l destruction . A sens e o f optimis m prevaile d among them abou t th e capability of science to tam e nature. Thos e who raised an y voice of concern wer e branded a s 'prophets of doom'. But today more and mor e scientist s are joining with others with a crusading zeal to make people aware of the ecological disasters. Marshalling convincing scientific data they will tell us that the environmental degradatio n caused by massive pollution o f air, water and land, threatens the very life of the earth; fast depletion o f non-renewabl e resources , indee d o f specie s themselves , thinnin g o f ozon e layer tha t expose s al l living creature s to th e dange r o f radiation , th e build-u p o f gases creating th e green-hous e effect , increasin g erosio n o f sea are no w know n throug h thei r research. Relate d t o thes e problem s ar e rapidl y increasin g population , an d widesprea d malnutrition an d hunger , the subordination o f women's an d children' s need s t o men's , the ravage s of war, the scanda l of chronic povert y and wastefu l affluenc e .. . 23.4 Ecological crisi s shoul d be seen a s a justice issue . This is a fundamental perspectiv e tha t distinguishes people' s vie w on ecolog y fro m tha t o f th e establishmen t an d eve n o f th e experts. Political and social justice is linked t o ecological health . 'We shall no t be able t o achieve social justice without justice for the natural environment, w e shall not be able to achieve justice for nature without social justice' (Moltmann) . Several dimensions of this 318

THE ENVIRONMENT

eco-justice ar e no w brough t t o for e throug h th e experience s o f th e struggl e o f th e marginalized. First , th e connectio n betwee n economi c exploitatio n an d environmenta l degradation i s clea r i n th e deforestatio n issue . Th e massiv e destructio n o f forest s b y avarice and greed results in atmospheric changes . The poor are driven out of their habitat for th e sake of development. Agai n the use of mechanized trawlers in the fish industry has resulted i n threatening al l fish life an d th e traditiona l fisher-folk still have not recovere d from th e loss they hav e suffered .

23.5 Second, justic e i s actualized i n just relationships . Unequa l partnership s an d pattern s of domination ar e unjust. It is obvious that human relationship with nature is not that of an equal partner , bu t o f domination an d exploitation . Unjus t treatmen t o f the plane t b y humans i s one o f the principa l cause s of ecological crisis . 23.6 Third, th e uneve n distribution , contro l an d us e of natura l resource s ar e seriou s justice issues. It is estimated that one-fifth o f the world's population that inhabits the Northern hemisphere consume , bur n o r wast e a t leas t 40—50 % o f th e world' s non-renewabl e resources. Further , natura l resource s neede d t o maintai n th e life-styl e o f a n averag e American is equal to what is required for 200-300 Asians. Imagine what will happen if we extend th e sam e lif e a s Americans to peopl e everywhere. 23.7 Fourth, the fas t depletio n o f the natural (non-renewable ) resource s raises the question of our responsibilit y t o futur e generations . I f w e exten d th e five-sta r cultur e t o al l th e countries and segments, then the pressures on these resources will be formidable. Already we are warned tha t we cannot go on exploiting the deep level water. This will disturb the ecological balance. Someon e ha s compared th e functio n of deep water to th e middl e ear fluid that help s maintai n ou r balanc e i n th e huma n body . Th e question i s how to us e natural resource s i n a way that w e sustain lif e an d no t destro y it . 23.8 We need to discuss two related concerns. The first is the concept of justice itself. The logic of justice as developed i n the West, emphasizes rights and rule s and respec t for others. I t can b e applie d onl y t o huma n being s supposedl y equally . I t i s balancing o f right s an d duties. But to include the cosmos i n the justice enterprise, we need to affir m th e ethics of care. Justice cannot be accorded except throug h care. Justice expressing a s compassion is the Biblical emphasis. Prophets were not talkin g about balancing interests and rights, but about caring , defendin g the poo r b y the righteou s God . Defendin g th e vulnerabl e an d defenceless shoul d als o mea n defendin g the weak and silent partne r - th e earth. 23.9 We ca n n o longe r se e ourselve s a s namer s an d ruler s ove r natur e bu t mus t thin k o f ourselves as gardeners, caretakers, mothers an d fathers , stewards , trustees, lovers, priests , co-creators an d friend s o f a world that , while giving us life an d sustenance , als o depend s increasingly on us in order to continue both for itself and fo r us. (Sallie McFague, Models of God) 319

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S 23.10

Secondly, poverty is also a source of ecological degradation and the alleviation of poverty by the poor through their struggle for justice is an ecological concern. We cannot separat e these two concerns. Unles s the poo r hav e alternate source s o f food and basi c needs like fuel, the y too wil l wantonly destro y whatever natura l environmen t i s around them .

23.11 Justice in relation to ecology has a comprehensive meaning. Negatively it is placed against economic exploitatio n an d unjus t contro l an d us e o f natura l resources . Positivel y i t affirms th e responsibilit y fo r futur e generation s as well as compassion an d carin g for th e cosmos an d th e poor . I t i s eco-justice. Ecological crisis demands a commitment t o eco justice. 23.12 Ecological crisi s ha s burs t upo n ou r consciousnes s a ne w awarenes s abou t ou r dependence o n earth . W e belon g t o th e earth . W e shar e a commo n destin y wit h th e earth. This has sharply challenged the modern vie w of reality and demands a revaluation of previousl y held scale s of values. The moder n perceptio n o f reality, thanks t o th e all pervasive influenc e o f western rationality , follows a mechanisti c model . I t i s functional and dualistic: spirit/flesh, objective/subjective , reason/passion, super-natural/natural. But the ecological view is organic in which the emphasis is on interconnectedness an d mutual interdependence. I t is to adop t th e view of the world so well captured in Martin Buber's famous distinctio n between I-Thou and I-It. All entities are united symbolically. 'Nature is no longe r th e subjugate d object o f man, bu t a cohesion o f open lif e system s with it s own subjectivity ' (Moltmann) . 23.13 This ecological perspective helps us to rethink God-human-world relationships, the very basis o f ou r theologizing . Panikkar , i n hi s characteristi c style , say s tha t 'creation , humanity an d Go d ar e one . Together , al l thre e constitut e being : al l ar e constitutiv e elements o f the other s and on e canno t exis t withou t th e others . Bein g is one, bu t i t is relational, trinitaria n i f you will . Dee p dow n ou r sixt h sens e tells u s this , ou r intuitio n and i f we probe deeper , s o does ou r experienc e an d ou r intellect. ' Sall y McFagu e ha s expressed thi s challeng e thus : 23.14 Ecological perspective insists that w e are, in the mos t profoun d ways, 'not our own' : we belong, fro m th e calls of our bodie s t o the finest creation o f our minds, to the intricate, constantly changin g cosmos. Th e ecosyste m o f which we are par t i s a whole: th e rock s and waters , atmospher e an d soil , plants , animal s an d huma n being s interac t i n a dynamic, mutuall y supportiv e wa y tha t mak e al l tal k o f atomisti c individualism , indefensible. Relationshi p an d interdependence , chang e an d transformation , no t substance, changelessnes s an d perfection , are th e categorie s withi n whic h theolog y fo r our da y mus t function . (Models o f God) 320

THE ENVIRONMEN T

23.15 Nothing short o f a 'paradig m shift ' i s taking place i n theology . Theolog y i s not merel y anthropocentic. I t is ecologically oriented. Theology is to be seen within the framework of ecology. Th e precedence o f ecological perspective ha s posed ne w challenges to eve n th e radical theologies like liberation theology. It is rightly observed tha t 'a true liberation will be possible no t onl y by involving ourselves in struggl e to liberat e th e oppresse d huma n beings from thei r exploitation, bu t als o by a conscious and concerted effor t t o liberate the bonded eart h fro m th e ove r exploitative attitude o f human beings'. 23.16 Liberation theologian s hav e forcefull y articulate d th e biblica l moti f fo r liberatio n i n Exodus an d othe r passages . Salvation i s liberation. Bu t fo r them particularl y because of the immediat e context, liberatio n i s primarily political and economic . We today want to affirm tha t the liberation tha t is witnessed to in the Bible includes liberation for creation. According to Pau l in Romans , the work of the Spirit , Freedom, i s extended t o th e tota l renewal o f creation. Christ' s work of redemption extend s to th e whol e universe. Christ, the Lor d of history, initiate s a process o f transformation that move s toward the cosmi c release (Eph . 1.1-1 0 an d Col . 1.15-20) . Th e unit y betwee n th e hop e fo r th e inwar d liberation of the children of God and the liberation of the entire physical creation from it s bondage and oppression i s the theme of Romans. The work of the Spirit is to renew all of the earth. Ktisis, translated as creation, includes not onl y women and men, but al l created things including demonic powers. It is in the search for liberation of all aspects of human life, histories , cultures , and natura l environment tha t w e can affir m tha t salvatio n i s the wholeness o f creation . 23.17 There is something common t o the interpretatio n o f liberation as a historical process in Exodus an d th e liberatio n proces s i n creatio n i n Romans . Th e liberatio n i n Exodu s is linked with the cr y of the oppresse d an d i n Roman s the gloriou s libert y i s promised i n response to th e groans and travail s within u s and i n creation. Go d had hear d th e cry of the poor and God is taking sides with the poor. In the same manner the renewal of earth comes i n respons e t o th e cr y of the poo r an d o f the dum b creatures , an d o f the silen t nature. I t i s interesting to not e tha t when God decided to spar e Nineveh in the Boo k of Jonah (4.11) it was out of God's pity for the 'more than 12,00 0 persons who do not kno w the righ t hand fro m thei r lef t han d [referenc e i s to babies] an d als o much animals'. Go d was not interested i n preserving the great city for the sake of its skyscrapers, supermarkets and gian t computers ! 23.18 We ar e committe d t o a visio n o f huma n wholenes s whic h include s no t onl y ou r relationship wit h on e another , bu t als o ou r relationshi p wit h nature , an d th e universe . We are also committed t o th e struggles for the transformation of the poor, th e weak and the disfigured an d the over-exploited nature . Bot h are decisive for our faith , missio n an d spirituality. Moltman n i s right when he points out , 'Essentiall y the churc h i s cosmically oriented. Limitin g the churc h merel y t o th e worl d o f huma n being s wa s a dangerous modern constriction . Bu t i f th e churc h i s indee d oriente d toward s th e cosmos , th e "ecological crisis " of the earthly creation i s also th e crisi s of the churc h itself. ' 321

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

23.19 The emphasi s o n holisti c reality an d cosmi c orientatio n t o huma n destin y i s alread y ingrained i n ou r cultur e and religion s i n India . Bu t the onslaugh t o f western rationalit y and scienc e has made us insensitive to thos e dimension s o f indigenous wisdom . Wha t is called fo r i s a recovery of this vision i n ou r theology . 23.20 We wil l brin g thi s discussio n t o a clos e b y focussin g ou r attentio n o n a n overridin g concern that i s often raised : the relation betwee n human an d nature. On e may suggest at least three typologie s tha t ma y have influence d moder n thinkin g o n this : Huma n abov e nature; human i n nature; and huma n with nature . We can see Biblical parallels fo r each of these. Bu t our effor t i s to se e which on e i s the closes t t o th e centra l Biblica l vision. Humans above nature 23.21 This may be the hidden ideolog y of the scientific and technological culture of the moder n period. Scienc e wa s considere d a s powe r an d no t a s a sourc e o f wisdom . 'Moder n technics', wrote Bertrand Russell in the late forties, 'is giving man a sense of power which is changing his whole mentality. Unti l recentl y the physica l environment wa s somethin g that had to be accepted. Bu t to moder n ma n the physical environment i s merely the raw material fo r manipulatio n an d opportunity . I t ma y be tha t Go d mad e th e world , bu t there is no reason why we should no t tak e it over.' Perhaps very few scientists today make such claim s s o unambiguously. Bu t this lingerin g confidenc e in scienc e an d technolog y and the instrumental, manipulative use of nature is very much present in modern culture . 23.22 Attempts are mad e to provid e a Biblical basis for th e developmen t o f technology i n th e West. The y are primarily based o n th e exegesi s of Gen. 1.28-3 0 and Ps . 18.6-8. During the late 60s a best seller in theology was The Secular City by Harvey Cox and an influentia l book o n missio n wa s Aran d Va n Leeuwan' s Christianity i n World History. Bot h thes e books show a preference for the view 'humans above nature'. They provide a Biblical and theological basi s fo r th e technologica l manipulatio n o f natur e b y humans . The y unequivocally affirme d tha t technology is a liberator, a n instrument i n the hands o f God for releasin g humans fro m th e tyranny of natural necessities. The y paid little attention t o the Biblica l witness against thi s attitude : 'The earth mourns and withers, the world languishes and withers, the heavens languish together wit h th e earth ' (Isa . 24.4). 'Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth th e earth and what comes fro m it , who gives breath to peopl e upo n i t and spirit t o those wh o walk in it ' (Isa . 42.5). 23.23 In the Bibl e the plane s of human histor y and natur e ar e never set in opposition a s these interpreters see m t o b e doing . The y ar e hel d togethe r i n th e Biblica l witnes s o f faith . Liberation accordin g t o Exodu s i s a struggl e t o posses s land . Fait h i n Yahwe h th e Liberator i s also a n affirmatio n tha t Go d i s sovereign ove r earth .

322

THE ENVIRONMEN T 23.24

In a n interesting stud y on th e lan d i n the Ol d Testament Walte r Brueggema n points t o the significanc e of Lan d fo r Hebre w religiou s experience . Th e lan d a s promis e an d a s problem: Promise d land , alie n land , landlessnes s an d wildernes s al l thes e appea r a t different stage s in the history of Hebrews. There is of course a tension between landednes s and landlessness; th e former becomes an occasion fo r exploitation an d the latter for total trust i n Yahweh. 23.25 Christian practice that directly or indirectly supported colonialism an d capitalism comes out o f this view of human above nature. Lynn White, the Californian professor of history finds this view as responsible for the modern ecological crisis . His words ar e strong: 23.26 'Especially in its western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen ... Christianity in absolute contrast to ancient paganis m an d Asia's religions .. . has not only established a dualism of man and nature, but ha s also insisted that it is God's will that ma n exploi t natur e fo r his proper end s ... Hence w e shall continu e t o hav e a worsening ecologic crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence, sav e to serv e man.' [i.e . Extrac t 17.17f ] Humans in nature 23.27 This i s a reactio n agains t th e firs t typology . I t maintain s tha t ther e i s n o distinctio n between humans and nature. One gets the expression of this view in the writings of some Romantic poets. Some of the environmentalists i n their facile enthusiasm lend support t o this. Biblical support may be found i n the verse : 'All flesh is grass and al l its beauty i s like the flower of the field. Surely the peopl e are grass, the grass withers, th e flower fades, but the word o f our Go d will stand forever' (Isa . 40.6-8). 23.28 Yet i t i s difficult t o conclud e on th e basi s of the vers e tha t th e Biblica l ide a i s to trea t human lif e jus t a s grass . Ther e i s a myster y o f thei r being , an d ther e i s a distinctio n between human and nature and other creatures. What is natural is not accepted as it is. It is being shaped an d recreated . Thi s takes u s to th e nex t typology . Humans with nature 23.29 This refer s t o a pattern o f relationship i n which humans ar e part o f nature but the y are distinct fro m it . Human s ar e differen t fro m othe r creatures , bu t differenc e i s no t superiority. Bu t i t come s with a n awarenes s of responsibility . 23.30 The command o f God to hav e dominion ove r creatures in Gen. 1.28-3 0 is problematic. In its original Hebre w 'dominion' is a harsh word . I t is to tame and control the forces of nature tha t ar e destructive an d violent. Taking that wor d i n isolation an d purel y in this 323

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

context it gives the basis for a ruthless, exploitation of nature. But in interpreting Biblical images and word s we need t o se e them through th e prism of our Lord' s savin g mission .

23.31 'In the light of Christ's mission', says Moltmann, 'Gen. 1.28, will have to be interpreted i n an entirely new way. Not to subdue the earth - bu t free the earth through fellowship with it! We may ask what is our understandin g of dominion? Is it not fro m on e whom we call the Lord, Domino, i.e., Jesu s Christ an d ... Him crucified. ' 23.32 Lordship ha s a ne w meaning . I t i s responsibilit y fo r th e othe r i n love . Th e overridin g emphasis i n th e Bibl e wit h regar d t o huma n relationshi p wit h natur e i s o n huma n responsibility for nature . 23.33 Human participatio n is necessary fo r maintaining th e cosmos over agains t the threat of chaos (Ps . 24:1) . Th e Eart h i s th e Lord' s an d al l tha t fill s it , th e worl d an d al l o f it s inhabitants: 'Becaus e he founded it upo n th e sea s and establishe d upo n th e rivers' . 23.34 Scholars point ou t tha t Hebrew words for sea (yam) and rive r (nahar) ar e also the words for ancien t near-eastern gods of chaos. If humans break the covenant, disobey the laws of God and unjustly treat the neighbour, then creation will return to the primeval chaos. To maintain creation , cosmos, human participatio n o f responsible love, justice is necessary . 23.35 Human participatio n i s also neede d t o kee p the eart h fertil e and productiv e (Gen . 2.15, 3.17-19). Man i s called th e gardene r an d tiller . Agai n human s hav e no righ t t o exploi t and plunde r the earth. Som e of the symbols and practices that emerge d in the history of Israel clearly articulate this. Sabbath and jubile e year are some of them. Res t i s a way of preventing ou r exploitatio n o f the earth . Als o th e drasti c chang e in th e ownershi p i s a poignant reminde r tha t human s ar e merel y trustees . The y ar e calle d t o maintai n th e integrity of creation. Huma n responsibilit y for the whol e creation i s to participat e with love and car e in God' s continuin g act o f creation. 23.36 Human responsibility and co-creatureliness is further intensifie d with the affirmation and all creatio n alon g wit h human s lon g an d groa n fo r perfectio n an d liberation . Al l distortions o f creatio n compounde d b y huma n violence , disobedienc e an d gree d wil l have to be redeemed in Christ (Rom . 8.13-28). The final vision of a new heaven and new earth (Rev . 21.1-4) i s accomplished by God an d huma n beings together . 23.37 Finally, we humans have created this mess we better take the responsibility to set it right. Our responsibilit y shoul d expres s i n metanoia - turnin g awa y fro m al l idol s o f self aggrandizing powe r whic h caus e th e eart h t o b e dominated, plundered an d destroyed . Cecil Rajendra , th e Malaysia n poet , expresse s thi s concern : 'Th e villag e deserted / Th e 324

THE ENVIRONMEN T

river choked and polluted/ and a red haze hovers over devastated hills./ But this is not th e work/ of barbarians from the north/ nor B-2 9 bombers o r foreign devils./ In this instance we are the authors / o f our ow n death , o f our ow n nemesis. ' 23.38 Ecological crisi s is urging us to affir m ou r inter-relatednes s with nature an d t o commi t ourselves to honour th e integrity of creation, t o learn fro m th e ecosystems and to orien t our theology and ethics to embrace ecological values. In doing this we come closer to the Eastern attitud e towards nature ...

EXTRACT 2 4 CLARK Christian responsibility for the environment 24.1 Environmentalists hav e ofte n blame d ou r pollute d streams , erode d landscape s an d extinguished species on a n attitude o f mind engendere d b y the biblical comman d t o 'b e fruitful an d increase , an d fill the earth . Th e fea r an d drea d o f you shall fall upo n al l wild animals on earth, on all birds of heaven, on everything that moves upon th e ground an d all fish in the sea ; they are given into your hands' (Genesi s 9.1f). Th e Christian churches have generally insisted tha t everythin g is made for human use , that 'nothin g is unclean' and ou t o f bounds, an d tha t ther e i s no divin e commandmen t t o respec t th e live s and properties o f th e non-human . Thos e wh o di d admi t t o suc h feeling s o f respec t o r carefulness hav e usuall y bee n considered , simultaneously , animal-worshipper s an d world-deniers. T o valu e th e live s o f animal s wa s t o betra y th e respec t w e ow e t o humanity, th e imag e of Go d mad e flesh. Caring about thei r live s and pleasure s was to show oneself to be sensual, ignorant of the higher joys reserved for intellectual creatures. At the sam e time, it showed an heretical shrinking from th e goo d thing s of this world, a suspicion that the creator was not worshipful. It was, accordingly, orthodox to insist that animal lives and pleasures were not worth bothering about, and that we should continue to us e and enjo y al l non-human products .

24.2 It woul d b e unfair , an d i t wa s unfair , t o sugges t tha t thes e belief s wer e especiall y th e products of the Christian churches, or that the rest of the world ha s an unsullied record . It di d no t nee d Christian s t o rui n Nort h Africa , o r Tokyo . Christian s ar e no t entirel y responsible fo r th e sorr y stat e o f things . I t woul d als o b e unfai r t o argu e tha t th e humanistic bia s o f Christia n teachin g was ever intende d t o licens e u s t o d o jus t a s we pleased wit h th e natura l world : th e worl d i s for ou r use , but onl y insofa r a s we act a s viceroys o f th e Lord . W e ma y no t us e i t t o th e detrimen t o f ou r fello w humans , no r pretend to be God's equals: we have not been licensed wholly to remake the world, nor to do a s we please with it. We are licensed onl y to maintai n a just and God-fearin g society, by cultivating the lan d an d seekin g out wha t natural cures God grant s us for the ill s we suffer. Th e suggestio n tha t exploitativ e industrialist s o r crue l pet-owner s o r badger baiters are doing what the churches have told they should is simply silly. If we are gods, or 325

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

as gods , t o th e non-huma n creation , 'w e ar e oblige d b y th e sam e tenur e t o b e thei r guardians an d benefactors' . Thos e wh o se e no beaut y wort h respectin g i n th e natura l world ar e very far from bein g orthodox, a s are thos e wh o se e nothing wrong i n causing pain t o God' s othe r creations .

24.3 Nonetheless th e dominan t them e i n Christia n traditio n ha s been tha t huma n societ y is the righ t context fo r our action s and ou r hopes . I t is fulfilling ou r dutie s t o ou r huma n neighbours, an d directin g out piet y to th e Three-in-On e whic h i s our bes t imag e of the Lord, tha t w e sho w ourselve s member s o f God' s Kingdom : citizen s an d friends , no t simply subjects of Hi s power. Traditio n i s largely agreed that cruelt y (th e enjoymen t o f another's pain ) is a sign of spiritual evil, and tha t i t is a mark of ingratitude and impiet y to defac e natura l beauty , bu t th e rea l business o f humankin d lie s with huma n society , with th e effor t t o allo w all human soul s a share o f God's bounty , an d a plac e i n God' s kingdom. I t is wrong to be cruel to cats, but als o wrong to like their company more than men's, o r to feed the m at the expense of humans. It is somehow 'obvious', even to a postChristian society that no longer believes that all and only human beings can hope to share in God's eternity, that the lif e of a healthy baboon (thoug h not, s o far, a healthy mongol ) should b e ende d i f this offer s eve n th e tinies t hop e o f lif e t o a n unhealth y bab y (whic h could hav e been legally aborted i f the proble m ha d been spotted a few months earlier). Post-Christian humanists , retai n th e ide a tha t ther e i s a for m o f social lif e restricte d t o normal huma n being s which define s fo r u s what creature s deserv e genuin e respec t an d care. I n th e absenc e of any metaphysical o r reveale d reaso n fo r supposin g tha t al l thos e born of women ar e in this sense 'normal humans', I suspect tha t no t al l members o f ou r biological specie s will be accorded thi s old-fashioned respec t i n the future . Embryo s will be procreate d fo r experimenta l purposes ; non-cultura l menta l defective s (incapabl e o f games o r enjoyin g symbols ) wil l b e use d a s experimenta l animals , an d eve n cultura l mental defective s wil l not b e given any extended medica l o r othe r care . 24.4 Faced by this sort o f prospect, Christian s may care to reconside r thei r position. What i s our responsibilit y for 'the environment', the natural context o f our lives and culture? Is it really our dut y to us e all things so as to preserve and elevat e the distinctively human life , maybe engineerin g littl e enclave s (zoo s o r safar i parks ) withi n whic h 'nature ' ca n b e painlessly inspected, o r preservin g larger habitat s i n th e not-unreasonabl e hope tha t we may eventually find some usefu l drug s or usable experimental animals therein? The claim that thi s is indeed ou r dut y rests upo n a high doctrine o f human life , no t merel y on th e hope an d desir e for enjoyments of a kind that othe r creature s share. If animal pains an d pleasures are all that matter, then diminishing non-human pleasure s and increasing non human pains can hardly be a duty. We may prefer tha t it should be us that enjo y life, but we can have no objective complaint with any other tribe that is ready to sacrific e us for its pleasure. Th e dut y t o loo k afte r peopl e a t whateve r cos t t o whale s o r rhesu s monkey s must res t o n som e notio n tha t huma n being s ar e capabl e o f highe r things . Ola f Stapledon, i n considering ho w we should dea l with other planets , argue d that we should use them, as we should us e this one, 'fo r th e spirit'. He did occasionally wonde r whethe r some o f the genocida l an d oppressiv e use s he thought justifie d unde r thi s rubri c migh t not injur e the spirit, or its manifestation in human-kind. H e was usually ready to believe 326

THE ENVIRONMEN T

that th e mor e 'spiritual ' (tha t is, the more awake , sensitive and precis e intelligence) had rights o f dominio n ove r th e les s spiritual , an d th e dut y t o exercis e tha t dominion . A higher rac e than our s migh t justly use us or destro y u s for their purposes .

24.5 Christians readin g Stapledon may shrink fro m hi s conclusions. Surel y 'serving the spirit' cannot b e the same as self-aggrandisement and tyranny, even if we pretend to be ready to suffer i n ou r turn ? Serving the spirit , o r livin g spiritually, require s that w e recognise its presence, that w e feel ourselve s carried with a strength tha t i s not ou r property , that w e are read y t o pla y ou r par t i n th e whol e endeavou r tha t i s creative intelligence . D o we recognise the spiritual life most especiall y in those who proclaim thei r own superiority to others, thei r freedo m fro m irksom e regulations , thei r dut y t o ignor e th e project s an d wishes of their suppose d inferiors ? Suc h self-styled supermen, o f course, ma y be merely ridiculous: i t may be obvious tha t the y are in fact stupid , ignoran t an d obsessed . Bu t it is not impossibl e tha t the y should b e clever, self-possessed and eve n psychologically acute. The Lord, nonetheless, wil l have them i n derision. Stapledo n himself , in reproducing (i n Starmaker) th e ancien t stor y o f a n ascen t int o th e heavens , a tou r o f th e celestia l mansions, constantl y reveals that each successive self-complacent stage of life, is as distant from the Starmaker a s ever. A genuinely infinit e deity is no more like a galactic spirit than a coelocanth : howeve r might y an d intelligen t a creatur e is , i t i s wholly superfluou s t o God, infinitel y unlike God . Bu t in that cas e how can it be anything but comi c to suggest that th e Go d i s better serve d o r bette r reflecte d b y Stapledonia n superme n tha n b y a helpless infan t o r b y the lilie s of the field? 24.6 So ho w d o thos e wh o reall y strik e u s a s spirituall y aliv e an d saintl y being s trea t th e natural world ? What d o th e saint s sa y and do ? Can w e imagin e a rea l saint , on e wh o practices 'the presence of God', who acknowledges with every breath her own dependence on the spirit and her own unworthiness of it, behaving toward th e natural order as a good humanist would? Saints, of course, come in many guises, and many who have the title for political o r ecclesiastical reasons are not convincingl y saintly. The most convincin g saints characteristically welcom e th e non-human , gree t the m a s fello w struggler s an d worshippers o f th e mos t high , no t becaus e the y hav e an y naiv e o r sentimenta l belie f about what, say , a sky-lark believes, bu t becaus e the y see the lark's fulfilment o f its Godgiven natur e a s at onc e a pledge an d a n example . Joh n th e Divin e heard 'ever y created thing in heaven and on earth and under th e earth and in the sea, all that is in them crying: Praise and honour, glor y and might, to him that sit s on the throne an d t o the Lamb for ever an d ever! ' (Rev . 5.13). Wherea s th e humanist , i n effect , see s th e natura l worl d a s merely a vast heap of more or less usable material, having no significance until the handyman ha s arrived to mak e somethin g o f it, the sain t understand s hersel f to liv e within a meaningful an d orderly universe , eve n if its meaning i s sometimes simply that our action is needed. W e are at once th e audienc e an d a part o f God's speec h wit h God' s ow n sel f and wit h creation . T o interfer e to o radicall y i n th e natura l order , t o forge t ou r ow n nature as terrestrial mammals and demand th e right to remake all things only in our own image, for our ow n purposes , i s to corrup t th e text . 327

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

24.7

Saintliness requires that w e respect th e nature s o f our fello w creature , and th e orde r o f which we are all a part. Som e saints hav e concluded, i n practice, tha t the y should liv e in complete and ope n dependence, fittin g themselve s entirely into the natural order, and so offending th e squeamishnes s of gentle humanists. I t i s a minor iron y that Christ' s ow n sardonic instructio n t o rel y upon th e Lor d who is with th e fallin g sparrow , wh o clothes the anemones and finds the ravens their food, is usually quoted to 'prove' that he thought people - o r at least his followers - mor e valuable than sparrows , and so licensed to take unfair advantage of sparrows, anemone s an d ravens. Such saints live within th e promise d covenant, 'wit h th e beast s o f th e fiel d an d th e fowl s o f heave n an d wit h th e creepin g things of the land' when God shall have broken th e bow and the sword and the battle out of the lan d an d mad e the m t o li e down safel y (Hose a 2.18) . The beasts will be at peac e with us , sai d a n earl y commentator o n th e gospe l o f Mark, 'when i n th e shrin e o f ou r souls we tame the clea n and unclea n animal s and li e down wit h th e lions , lik e Daniel'.

24.8 Most religious traditions, unsurprisingly, have found a place not only for these saints but for th e mas s o f pious an d more or less well-intentioned persons . How shall we , who d o not yet feel called to go out int o the wilderness, singly or in groups, think and act toward the natura l order ? It is , as Aldo Leopol d remarked , th e temptatio n o f town-dwellers t o think tha t foo d conie s fro m th e grocer y store , an d hea t fro m th e boiler . I t i s easy t o believe that we do not live 'in nature' but i n human culture, although everything we have and ar e is a transformation of natural product. W e need abov e all to remembe r tha t we do not live in a human technosphere, surrounde d b y an 'environment' that we may take a casual interes t in i f we choose. W e liv e i n th e sam e natural world a s alligators, elk s an d human saints , though our dependenc y i s of a more comple x an d easil y disrupted kind . 'When w e har m th e earth , w e har m ou r selves' . 'Christia n Responsibilit y fo r th e Environment' is in fact a deeply misleading phrase: we are not responsibl e for the natural world's existence , and we have no general duty to try and maintain it according to som e bureaucratically inspire d plan . No r i s ther e an y suc h thin g a s 'th e environment' , a s though th e worl d wer e no mor e tha n a n envelop e fo r humankind , a seed-po d fo r th e human technosphere . 24.9 In the Book of Job 'Yahweh describes himself as the wisdom that makes for the survival of the wild ass, the hamster, th e eagle, the ostrich, of all living nature, an d the wisdom tha t uproots mountain s an d annihilate s angels'. The vision of things before which Job at last bowed hi s head, an d repente d i n dus t an d ashes , was one tha t Phil o o f Alexandria also approved: a sort of cosmic democracy, i n which each creature gets its turn, and is allowed its own integrity . So far from dictatin g that w e human being s should thin k al l nature at our ow n disposal, the Bible constantly insists that humankind i s not alone , not privileged above all others, not like God. 'Do you not know, hav e you not heard , wer e you not told long ago, have you not perceived ever since the world began, that God sits throned o n the vaulted roof of earth, whose inhabitants ar e like grass-hoppers? He stretches out th e skies like a curtain, h e spreads the m ou t lik e a tent to live in; he reduces th e great t o nothing and make s al l the earth' s prince s les s than nothing . T o who m the n wil l you like n me , whom set up as my equal? asks the Holy One' (Isa. 40.2If). Where humanist Christianit y 328

THE ENVIRONMEN T

has borrowe d fro m Stoicis m th e self-congratulator y notion tha t 'nothin g irrationa l i s capable o f th e beatifyin g friendshi p with Go d whic h i s th e bon d o f Christia n love , o f neighbour', and thence concluded that 'th e irrational' is only material fo r our purposes , the Bibl e expect s u s t o accep t ou r plac e withi n th e creation , t o liv e b y th e rule s Go d imposes, to take what we need, no more, and to give up ou r demand s so that lif e may go on. Ever y sevent h an d ever y fiftiet h yea r th e lan d mus t b e unploughed , an d al l liv e together of f its natural produce, citize n and stranger and th e wild animals of the country (Leviticus 26.6f). I f the law is not kep t the people shall be driven from th e land, and 'th e land shall enjoy its sabbaths to the full ' (Leviticu s 26.34). None shall eat the life , which is the blood, of any creature, even if in the post-Noahic days meat-eating i s allowed. This is not t o sa y that th e Bibl e contain s man y specifi c injunction s o f a kin d t o appea l t o zoophiles. I t wa s a sterner worl d tha n ours , an d th e animal s wh o share d th e Israelites ' land o r houses could not hav e had an easier lif e than the Israelite s themselves . Bu t there was affection ther e an d acknowledgemen t o f duty. A donkey falle n int o a ditch mus t be hauled out eve n on the sabbath, even if it is one's enemy's (Deut . 22.4). The poor man' s pet sheep, whom Nathan the prophet use d to shame King David ( 1 Kings 12) , was loved as a daughter (and no-one ha d the brass nerve to say that he shouldn't have wasted good affection o n a mere beast) .

24.10 Northrop Frye, in his attempt to see the Bible whole, concludes that one of its messages is that w e shall not regai n th e world w e have lost, th e worl d where we might easily live in nature, wit h al l creatures a s our friends , 'unti l [we ] know thoroughl y what hel l is , and realize tha t th e pleasur e gaine d by dominatin g an d exploiting , whether o f [our ] fello w man or of nature itself, is a part of that hell-world'. Things are not wholly at our disposal, and never will be, either in the sense that we can or that we ought to use them with an eye solely to ou r benefit , and avoi d all inconveniences o f this mortal life . W e cannot b y any technical mean s transfor m this world int o a pleasure garden, nor ough t we to try. Nor can w e retrea t withi n a denature d city , an d imagin e tha t w e thereb y fulfi l th e biblica l prophecy of a world wholly suffused wit h humanly significant meaning , 'when there shall be no more sea', no more image of the unaccountable. The city that the Bible praises was imagined as a part of the land within which it stood, the holy mountain where wolf shall dwell with lamb, leopard lie down with kid (Isa. 11.6), and the leaves of the trees serve for the healin g of the nation s (Rev . 22.2). 24.11 No-one wh o reads the Bibl e can doubt tha t it s human author s were deeply conscious of the natura l world , th e creation , th e lan d flowin g wit h mil k an d honey . Wher e w e see 'nature', th e non-huma n environmen t rule d b y power s alie n t o humankind , the y saw God's creation, a world continually offering embodie d image s of the spiritual values they pursued. 'The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel spoke of [David]: He who rules men in justice, who rule s in the fea r o f God, is like the light of morning at sunrise; a morning that is cloudless after rai n and make s the grass sparkle fro m the earth' (2 Samuel 23.3f) . In the mouths of poets and prophets this is more than simile, more than a rather strained declaration tha t a just ruler i s like the su n afte r rain . Th e prophe t see s God's liberating justice in the ligh t when Go d sets His rainbow in the sk y 'sign o f the covenan t betwee n [Himself] an d earth ' (Genesi s 9.14). 'A s th e hill s enfold lerusalem , s o the Lor d enfolds 329

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

His people' (Psalm 125.2). 'Once the Lord called you an olive-tree, leafy and fair ; but now with a grea t roarin g nois e yo u wil l fee l shar p anguish ; fir e set s it s leave s aligh t an d consumes it s branches . Th e Lor d o f Host s wh o plante d yo u ha s threatene d yo u wit h disaster' (Jeremiah 11.16). When Babylo n the great has fallen a t last, 'there no Arab shall pitch hi s tent, n o shepherd s fol d thei r flocks. There marmot s shal l have their lairs , an d porcupines shal l overru n he r houses ; ther e deser t owl s shal l dwell , an d ther e he-goat s shall gambol ; jackals shall occupy her mansions , an d wolve s her gorgeou s palaces ' (Isa . 13.20f). 'Th e whole world ha s res t an d i s at peace ; it breaks int o crie s of joy. The pines themselves and the cedars of Lebanon exult over you: since you have been laid low, they say, no man comes up to fel l us' (Isa. 14.7 rf). The whole world, not merely human history , embodies God' s purpose s t o th e propheti c eye , an d n o genera l distinctio n i s draw n between huma n an d non-human . God' s purposes , indeed , ma y b e mor e full y an d obviously embodie d i n th e non-human , an d mora l example s draw n fro m them : 'Mothers, cheris h your sons . Rea r them joyfull y a s a dove rear s her nestlings ' ( 2 Esdras 2.15).

24.12 Why, if all this is so, are there so few general injunctions to behav e decently to th e non human? Th e wor d o f the Lor d to Ezra : 'champion th e widow , defen d th e caus e of th e fatherless, giv e to th e poor, protec t th e orphan, cloth e the naked . Car e for the weak and the helpless, and do not mock at the cripple; watch over the disabled, and bring the blind to the vision of my brightness. Keep safe within your walls both ol d and young' (2 Esdras 2.200- These commands could certainly be read as applying to non-human creatures , but just as certainly were not. Th e non-human reste d directly on th e Lord, and did not tur n aside from Him . There were few occasions when the Israelites could do much hurt to th e wild things , unles s b y over-hunting the m o r keeping the m awa y from all the crops. The creatures they used for sacrifice - whic h was the only licensed way of getting meat - wer e being returned to God. And the prophets disapproved: 'your countless sacrifices, what are they t o me ? says th e Lord . I a m sate d wit h th e whole-offerin g o f ram s an d th e fa t o f buffaloes; I have no desire for the blood o f bulls, of sheep an d o f he-goats. Though yo u offer countles s prayers, I will not listen . There is blood o n your hands. Pu t awa y the evil of your deeds, away out o f my sight. Cease to do evil and learn to do right, pursue justice and champio n th e oppressed ; giv e the orpha n hi s rights, plea d th e widow' s cause ' (Isa . 1.11, 15f) . Th e Go d o f Israel , i n short , i s mad e know n i n th e deman d fo r justice , th e insistence that n o huma n being i s entitled t o oppres s God' s creature s or clai m equalit y with God . 24.13 So what shoul d Christian s fee l oblige d to d o i n thi s ne w age , when Go d has , with Hi s usual sardoni c humour , give n us th e powe r t o remak e thing s i f we choose, an d i n th e remaking find disaster? 'For the Lor d of Hosts has a day of doom awaitin g for all that i s proud an d lofty , fo r all that i s high and lifte d up , fo r all the cedar s of Lebanon, lofty an d high, and fo r all the oaks of Bashan, for all lofty mountains an d fo r all high hills, for every high tower and fo r every sheer wall, for all ships of Tarshish and al l the dhow s of Arabia. Then man' s pride shall be brought low; and the loftiness of man shall b e humbled' (Isa . 2.12f). S o fa r fro m lendin g suppor t t o th e sor t o f humanis m whic h put s it s trus t i n human resourcefulness, the biblical tradition recognise s that our power s are no differen t 330

THE ENVIRONMEN T

in kin d fro m thos e o f any other creature , an d th e Lor d stand s ove r all . Philo' s cosmi c democracy i s fiercely defended.

24.14 The first step the n simpl y not t o ai m too high , not t o expec t a pleasure garden , no t t o demand ou r huma n comfort s at whatever cost, no t t o 'tur n th e world int o a desert an d lay its cities in ruins' (Isa. 14.17) . If we cannot liv e in the land on the terms allotted t o us, of allowin g others thei r place , not disregardin g th e need s o f the apparentl y defenceless , not claimin g the right to decide how all things should go, then we shall find that we have lost th e land. The natural historian o f a future ag e may be able to poin t t o the particular follies tha t brough t rui n - choppin g dow n th e tropical rain-forests , meditating nuclea r war, introducin g hybri d monocultures , spreadin g poisons , financin g grain-mountain s and rearing cattle in conditions tha t clearly breach the spirit of the commandment no t t o muzzle the ox that treads out the corn (Deut. 25.4) . The historian whose eyes are opened to th e act s of God will have no doub t tha t w e brought tha t rui n on ourselves , that i t is God's answer to the arrogant. In those days our survivors will have to be saints, unless we have taken a step back from the furnac e an d consented t o be ordinarily decent an d Godfearing folk. 'How long must the land lie parched and its green grass wither? No birds and beasts are left, becaus e its people ar e so wicked, because they say, God will not se e what we are doing' (Jeremia h 12.4) .

EXTRACT 2 5 MCFAGUE An earthly theological agenda 25.1 The simultaneou s lessenin g o f cold-wa r tension s an d worldwid e awakenin g t o th e consequences o f huma n destructio n o f th e flor a an d faun a an d th e ecosyste m tha t supports them, signa l a major chang e in focu s [i n theology]. Perhaps it is more accurate to sa y that th e focu s o f the liberatio n theologie s widened t o include , i n additio n t o all oppressed huma n beings , al l oppressed creature s as well as planet earth .

25.2 Liberation theologie s insis t rightly that all theologies ar e written from particula r contexts . The one context whic h has been neglected an d i s now emerging is the broadest a s well as the most basic: the context of the planet, a context which we all share and without whic h we cannot survive . It seems to me that this latest shif t i n 20th-century theology is not t o a different issu e fro m tha t of liberation theologies, but t o a deepening of it, a recognition that the fat e of the oppressed and the fat e of the earth are inextricably interrelated, for we all live on one planet - a planet vulnerabl e to our destructive behavior. 25.3 The link between justice and ecologica l issues becomes especiall y evident i n light of th e dualistic, hierarchical mode o f Western though t i n which a superior an d a n inferio r ar e correlated: male-female , white people-people o f color , heterosexual-homosexual , able 331

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

bodied-physically challenged , culture-nature , mind-body , human-nonhuman . Thes e correlated term s - mos t ofte n normativel y ranked - revea l clearly that dominatio n and destruction of the natural world is inexorably linked with the domination an d oppressio n of th e poor , peopl e o f color , an d al l other s tha t fal l o n th e 'inferior ' sid e o f th e correlation. Nowher e is this more apparent than in the ancient and deep identification of women with nature, an identification s o profound that it touches the very marrow of our being: our birt h fro m th e bodies o f our mother s and our nourishmen t fro m th e body of the earth. The power of nature - an d of women - to give and withhold lif e epitomizes the inescapable connection between the two and thus the necessary relationship of justice and ecological issues . A s many hav e noted , th e statu s o f wome n an d o f natur e hav e bee n historically commensurate : as goes one, s o goes the other .

25.4 A simila r correlatio n ca n b e see n betwee n othe r form s o f huma n oppressio n an d a disregard fo r the natura l world . Unles s ecologica l healt h i s maintained, fo r instance, the poor and others with limited access to scarce goods (due to race, class, gender or physical capability) canno t b e fed. Grain must b e grown for all to hav e bread. Th e characteristic Western mind-set has accorded intrinsi c value, and hence duties of justice, principally to the uppe r hal f of the dualis m an d ha s considered i t appropriat e for thos e o n th e lowe r half to be used for the benefit of those on the upper. Western multinationa l corporations , for example , regard it as 'reasonable' and 'normal' to use Third World people and natural resources fo r their ow n financial benefit, at whatever cost t o the indigenous people s an d the healt h o f their lands . 25.5 The connections among the various forms o f oppression ar e increasingly becoming clear to many , a s evidenced b y the World Counci l o f Churches' inclusio n o f 'the integrity of creation' in its rallying cry of 'peace and justice.' In the closing years of the 20t h century we are being called to do something unprecedented : t o think, wholistically, to think abou t 'everything that is, ' because everything on thi s planet i s interrelated an d interdependen t and henc e the fat e o f each i s tied t o th e fat e o f the whole . 25.6 This state of affairs brough t about a major 'conversion' in my own theological journey. I began a s a Barthia n i n th e '50s , findin g Earth' s head y divin e transcendenc e an d 'otherness' t o b e a s invigoratin g a s col d mountai n ai r t o m y conventiona l religiou s upbringing. Lik e man y o f m y generatio n I foun d i n Eart h wha t appeare d t o b e a refreshing an d neede d alternativ e t o liberalism . Bu t afte r year s o f work o n th e poetic , metaphorical natur e o f religiou s languag e (an d henc e it s relative , constructiv e an d necessarily changin g character ) an d i n vie w of feminism' s critiqu e o f th e hierarchical , dualistic natur e o f th e languag e o f th e Jewis h an d Christia n traditions , m y bond s t o biblicism and th e Barthian God loosened. Thos e years were the 'deconstructive' phas e of my development a s a theologian. 25.7 My constructive phase began upon reading Gordon Kaufman' s 198 3 Presidential Address to th e America n Academy of Religion . Kaufma n calle d fo r a paradig m shift , give n th e 332

THE ENVIRONMEN T

exigencies o f ou r tim e - th e possibilit y o f nuclea r war . H e calle d theologian s t o deconstruct an d reconstruct th e basic symbol s o f the Jewish an d Christian tradition s God, Chris t and Torah - s o as to be on the side of life rathe r than agains t it, as was the central symbol of God with its traditional patriarchal, hierarchical, militaristic imagery. I answered this call, and my subsequent work has been concerned with contributing to that task.

25.8 While the nuclear threat has lessened somewhat, the threat of ecological deterioration has increased: the y ar e related a s 'quick kill' t o 'slo w death.' I n othe r words , w e have been given some time. We need to use it well, for we may not hav e much of it. The agenda this shift set s fo r theologian s i s multifaceted, given th e man y different task s that nee d t o b e done. This paradig m shift , i f accepted, suggest s a ne w mod e o f theological production , one characterize d by advocacy, collegiality and th e appreciatio n o f differences . 25.9 Until th e ris e o f liberatio n theologies , theolog y wa s mor e concerne d wit h havin g intellectual respectability in the academy than with forging an alliance with the oppressed or particula r political o r socia l attitude s and practices . There was a convenient divisio n between theology (concerned wit h the knowledg e of God) and ethic s ( a lesser enterprise for action-oriente d types) . Theologians were also usually 'solo' players, each concerned t o write his (the 'hers' were in short supply ) magnum opus, a complete systematic theology. As th e deconstructionist s hav e underscored , thes e theologian s als o strov e t o assert , against different voices , the one voice (their own - o r at least the voice of their own kind) as the truth, th e 'universal' truth . 25.10 Our situatio n call s fo r a differen t wa y o f conductin g ourselve s a s theologians . Lik e al l people we need, in both our personal and professional lives, to work for the well-being of our plane t an d al l its creatures. We need t o work in a collegial fashion, realizin g that we contribute onl y a tiny fragment. Feminist s have often suggeste d a 'quilt' metaphor a s an appropriate methodology : eac h of us can contribute onl y a small 'square ' to th e whole . Such a vie w o f scholarshi p ma y appea r alie n t o a n academ y tha t reward s work s 'totalizing' other s i n the field and insistin g on on e view. 25.11 The times are too perilou s and i t is too lat e in the da y for such games. We need to work together, eac h i n hi s or he r ow n small way, to creat e a planetary situatio n tha t i s more viable and les s vulnerable. A collegial theology explicitly supports difference . On e o f th e principal insight s o f both feminis m an d postmoder n scienc e is that whil e everything is interrelated an d interdependent, everythin g (maple leaves, stars, deer, dirt - an d not just human beings ) i s differen t fro m everythin g else. Individualit y an d interrelatednes s ar e features of the universe; hence, no one voice or single species is the only one that counts ... 333

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

25.12

If advocacy , collegialit y an d differenc e characterize d theologica l reflectio n an d i f th e agenda o f theolog y widene d t o includ e th e contex t o f ou r planet , som e significan t changes would occur . I will suggest three .

25.13 First, it would mean a more or less common agenda for theological reflection, though one with an almost infinit e numbe r of different tasks . The encompassing agenda would be to deconstruct an d reconstruct the central symbols of the Jewish and Christian traditions in favor o f lif e an d it s fulfillment , keepin g th e liberatio n o f th e oppressed , includin g th e earth and all its creatures, in central focus. That is so broad, s o inclusive an agenda that it allows for myriad ways to constru e it and carr y it out. I t does, however, turn the eye s of theologians away from heave n an d toward the earth; or, more accurately, it causes us to connect th e starry heavens with the earth, as the 'common' creation story claims, telling us that everything in the universe, including stars, dirt, robins, black-holes, sunsets, plants and huma n beings , i s the produc t o f a n enormou s explosio n billion s o f years ago . I n whatever ways we might reconstruct the symbols of God, human being and earth, this can no longe r b e don e i n a dualisti c fashion , fo r th e heaven s an d th e eart h ar e on e phenomenon, albei t a n incredibl y ancient, ric h an d varied one . 25.14 If theolog y i s goin g t o reflec t wholistically , tha t is , i n term s o f th e pictur e o f curren t reality, then i t must d o so in ways consonant with th e ne w story o f creation. One clea r directive that thi s story gives theology is to understan d huma n beings as earthlings (no t aliens or tourist s o n th e planet ) an d Go d as immanently present i n the processe s o f the universe, including those of our planet . Suc h a focus ha s important implication s fo r th e contribution of theologians to 'saving the planet,' for theologies emerging from a coming together o f Go d an d human s i n an d o n th e eart h implie s a cosmocentri c rathe r tha n anthropocentric focus . Thi s doe s not , b y th e way , mea n tha t theolog y shoul d rejec t theocentrism; rather, it means that the divine concern includes all of creation. Nor does it imply th e substitutio n o f a creation focu s fo r th e tradition' s concer n wit h redemption ; rather, i t insist s tha t redemptio n shoul d includ e al l dimension s o f creation , no t jus t human beings . 25.15 A secon d implicatio n o f acceptin g thi s paradig m shif t i s a focu s o n praxis . A s Juan Segundo has said, theology is not on e of the 'liberal arts,' for it contains an element of the prophetic, makin g it at the ver y least an unpopula r enterpris e and a t times a dangerous one. Th e academy has been suspicious of it with good reason , willing to accep t religious studies bu t awar e tha t theolog y contain s a n elemen t o f commitmen t foreig n t o th e canons of scholarly objectivity. (Marxist or Freudia n commitments, curiousl y have been acceptable i n th e academy , bu t no t theologica l ones. ) Increasingly , however , th e hermeneutics o f suspicio n an d deconstructio n ar e helpin g t o unmas k simplistic , absolutist notion s o f objectivity , revealin g a variet y o f perspectives , interpretations , commitments an d contexts . Moreover, this variety is being viewed as not onl y enriching but necessary. Hence the emphasis on praxis and commitment, on a concerned theology , need in no way imply a lack of scholarly rigor or a retreat to fideism. Rather, it insists that 334

THE ENVIRONMEN T

one of the criteria of constructive theological reflection - thinkin g about our place in the earth an d th e earth' s relatio n t o it s sourc e - i s a concer n wit h th e consequences of proposed construction s for those who live within them .

25.16 Theological construct s ar e n o mor e benig n tha n scientifi c ones . Wit h th e marriag e of science and technology beginning in the 17t h century, the commitments an d concerns of the scientifi c communit y hav e increasingly been determine d b y the military-industrial government comple x tha t fund s basi c research . Th e ethica l consequence s o f scientifi c research - whic h projects get funded an d the consequences of the funded project s - ar e or ought t o b e scientific issue s and no t issue s merely for the victim s of the fall-ou t o f these projects. Likewise , theologica l reflectio n i s a concerned affair , concerne d tha t thi s constructive thinking be on the side o f the well-being o f the planet and al l its creatures. For centurie s peopl e hav e live d withi n th e construct s o f Christia n reflectio n an d interpretation, unknowingl y a s well a s knowingly. Som e o f thes e construct s hav e bee n liberating, bu t man y other s hav e bee n oppressive , patriarcha l an d provincial . Indeed , theology i s not a 'liberal art,' but a prophetic activity , announcing an d interpretin g the salvific lov e of God t o al l of creation . 25.17 A third implication of this paradigm shift i s that the theological task is not onl y diverse in itself (there are many theologies), but als o contributes to the planetary agenda of the 21st century, a n agend a tha t beckon s an d challenge s u s t o mov e beyon d nationalism , militarism, limitless economic growth , consumerism, uncontrollabl e populatio n growt h and ecologica l deterioration . I n ways that hav e never before bee n s o clear and stark , we have met the enem y and know it is ourselves. While the wholistic , planetary perspective leads som e t o insis t tha t al l will be wel l i f a 'creatio n spirituality ' wer e t o replac e th e traditional 'redemptio n spirituality' of the Christian tradition, the issue is not that simple. It is surely the case that the over-emphasis on redemption to the neglect of creation needs to be redressed; moreover , ther e is much in the common creatio n stor y that calls us to a profound appreciatio n o f the wonders of our bein g and th e being of all other creatures . Nonetheless, it is doubtful that such knowledge and appreciation will be sufficient t o deal with th e exigencie s o f our situation . 25.18 The enem y - indifferent , selfish , short-sighted , xenophobic , anthropocentric , greed y human being s - calls , a t the very least, fo r a renewe d emphasi s o n si n as the caus e of much o f th e planet' s woe s an d a n emphasi s o n a broa d an d profoun d repentance . Theology, alon g wit h othe r institutions , field s o f stud y an d expertise , ca n deepe n ou r sense of complicity in the earth's decay . In addition t o turning our eye s and hearts to an appreciation o f th e beauty , richnes s an d singularit y o f ou r plane t throug h a renewe d theology o f creation an d nature, theology ought also to underscore an d elaborate o n th e myriad ways that we personally and corporately have ruined and continue to rui n God' s splendid creatio n - act s which we and no othe r creatur e ca n knowingly commit . The present dir e situatio n call s fo r radicalizin g the Christia n understandin g o f sin an d evil . Human responsibilit y for the fate of the earth is a recent and terribl e knowledge; our los s of innocence i s total, for we know what we have done. If theologians were to accep t this 335

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

context and agend a of their work, they would see themselves in dialogue with all those in other areas and fields similarly engaged: those who feed th e homeless and fight for animal rights; the cosmologist s who tell us of the common origin s (and hence interrelatedness) of all forms o f matter and life ; economists who examine how we must change if the earth is to suppor t it s population; th e legislators and judge s who work to advanc e civil rights for thos e discriminated against in our society ; the Greenham women who picket nuclear plants, and th e women o f northern Indi a who literall y 'hug' trees to protec t the m fro m destruction, an d s o on an d on .

25.19 Theology is an 'earthly' affair i n the best sense of that word: it helps people to live rightly, appropriately, on the earth, in our home. It is, as the Jewish and Christian traditions have always insisted , concerne d wit h 'righ t relations, ' relation s wit h God , neighbo r an d self , but now the context has broadened t o include what has dropped out of the picture in the past few hundred year s - th e oppressed neighbors, the other creature s and the earth that supports u s all. Thi s shif t coul d b e seen a s a return t o th e root s of a tradition that has insisted on th e creator , redeeme r God as the sourc e and salvatio n of all that is . We no w know that 'all that is' is vaster, more complex, more awesome, more interdependent, tha n any other peopl e ha s ever known. Th e ne w theologies tha t emerg e from suc h a contex t have the opportunit y t o vie w divine transcendence i n deeper, mor e awesom e an d mor e intimate way s tha n eve r before . The y als o hav e th e obligatio n t o understan d huma n beings and al l other forms of life as radically interrelated and interdependen t a s well as to understand ou r specia l responsibility fo r the planet' s well-being. CRITIQUE White's Extrac t contains man y carefu l qualification s which hi s recen t exponent s hav e sometimes ignored. H e admits that no t enoug h i s known about ecologica l history (21.1) and tha t i t i s dangerous t o generaliz e about th e effect s o f Christia n doctrin e upo n th e environment (21.20) . Thi s ha s no t stoppe d som e fro m usin g thi s semina l essa y a s a n ecological critiqu e of Christianit y as a whole. White' s argumen t i s rather tha t Wester n Christians, in particular, need to be more conscious of the ecological dangers of doctrines of creation that assume a notion of domination. Th e other Extract s in this Section show that hi s warnings have indeed bee n heeded . However, eve n wit h hi s carefu l qualifications , there i s stil l a ris k i n makin g suc h a sweeping analysi s of Christian cultural history. Christianit y has been variousl y depicted by secular historians as a nursemaid o r as a foe of Western science/technolog y - Whit e himself show s something o f this ambivalence in hi s analysi s of Galileo. And i t i s by n o means clea r fro m th e Text s tha t 'domination ' wa s alway s crucia l t o a Wester n understanding of creation. Even the exception that White offers i n his analysis of Western Christianity, namely St Francis, is ambivalent. I n moder n theolog y Franciscans, perhaps surprisingly, hav e not bee n a dominant ecologica l voice. I f anything, feminist theolog y has been mor e significant. Gregorios' principl e o f regardin g huma n lif e a s a 'gift ' fro m Go d ha s importan t implications for persona l as well as social ethics (see below, pp. 431-2) . Few outside th e Orthodox theologica l world ma y accept al l of his assumptions (e.g . 22.36) , but h e doe s distinguish clearly the overall way in which a theological perspective differs fro m a purely 336

THE ENVIRONMEN T

empirical understanding o f human life. If a Christian is true to this perspective, threats to human lif e shoul d alway s be viewed with horror. Together Abraham, Clark and McFague present theologies that have taken full accoun t of White's critique and are themselves critical of forms of theology which ignore the non human. Their own positions are drawn fro m differen t sources , but togethe r they raise the important issu e o f anthropocentrism . Herei n lie s a n unresolve d dilemm a fo r theolog y within monotheistic traditions. Within them a distinction between creator and creature is usually considered to be vital, as well as an emphasis upon humans as made in the 'image' of God. In turn this is usually believed to impl y that all life i s God-given but tha t huma n life i s especially God-like. The dilemma i s to find way s of expressing these beliefs without contributing to the human destructio n o f the non-human an d without implyin g that the lives of all bacteria (say ) are worth preservin g even at considerable ris k to humans . Som e degree of anthropocentrism ma y finally be essential fo r Christian ethics. Yet this is not a point tha t thes e author s see m prepare d t o concede .

337

This page intentionally left blank

SECTION 5

Human Life and Interpersonal Relationships

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction t o Huma n Lif e an d Interpersona l Relationships

The distinctio n betwee n socia l and persona l ethic s is , at best, approximate . I n personal ethics, the focus is more upon the individual; in social ethics, it is more upon society. But it is only a relative difference o f focus, sinc e many issues in persona l ethic s have a social dimension an d man y issue s i n socia l ethic s involv e individual decision-making . So , for most ethicists , there is an important distinctio n to be made between killing in the context of war and individua l homicide . Wa r involve s societies a s a whole and individual s who kill withi n thi s contex t usuall y d o s o o n th e authorit y o f thei r societ y an d withou t personal malice against the particular individuals they kill (in modern warfare , killing at a distance i s eve n les s personal) . Dependin g o n whethe r the y ar e selectiv e militarist s o r selective pacifist s (see above, p . 193) , the y ma y o r ma y no t believ e tha t i t i s fo r the m personally t o decid e o n th e actua l justifiability of the particula r wa r i n whic h the y ar e engaged. However , individua l homicide , whethe r o f sel f o r o f another , raise s the most crucial problems o f individual decision-making, socia l authorization an d ofte n persona l malice. I t ha s alread y bee n see n tha t Augustin e sa w a clea r distinctio n betwee n participation in war and the sort of violence Pete r displaye d a t Gethsemane. Peter acte d 'in a hast y zeal ' an d 'withou t th e sanctio n o f th e constitute d authority ' (Tex t VII.2) . Similarly, he sanctioned war in specifiable circumstances, but not individua l suicide (Text XIII. 10). But, even in this instance, the distinctio n betwee n persona l an d socia l ethics is difficult t o sustain. As Augustine implies, capital punishment has more in common with war than individual homicide, since the executioner usually acts without personal malice and upo n th e decisio n an d authorit y o f societ y a t large . An d issue s suc h a s abortio n involve bot h persona l an d socia l dimensions, sinc e the y ar e th e objec t bot h o f intens e personal decision-makin g an d o f socia l legitimation . Eve n suicide , althoug h seldo m socially sanctioned, ha s been regarde d as a criminal activity in som e societies but no t i n others. This Section consist s of three main themes i n personal ethics . The first of these is the issue o f individual homicide . Augustin e on suicid e is balanced b y Kiin g on euthanasia . The secon d i s the issu e of sexual morality. Aquinas ' Tex t o n pre-marita l sexua l activity and marriag e is contrasted wit h the Quake r Group's Towards a Quaker View o f Sex, with the Orthodox Bishop Kallisto s Ware o n marriag e an d divorc e and wit h Pop e Paul VI's Encyclical on birth control . The third i s the issu e of anti-Semitism and racism . Luther's late view s o n th e Jew s ar e compare d wit h th e Worl d Counci l o f Churches ' Fait h an d Order Commissio n documen t o n racis m i n theolog y an d Rosemar y Radford Ruether' s critique of Christianity and Zionism. Lisa Cahill's analysis of bioethics adds an additiona l sub-theme. Th e scop e of this Section is intentionally broad t o demonstrat e som e o f th e 341

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

range o f approache s i n thes e somewha t diffus e ethica l areas . A t th e sam e time , i t i s intended i n thi s Sectio n to rais e some o f th e mos t crucia l substantive dilemma s facin g present-day Christian ethics . The issue of individual homicid e form s a natural bridge and a contrast with Section 3. The dichotom y betwee n the pre-Constantinia n and post-Constantinia n churche s (see above, p. 195 ) is evident, but i t i s not nearl y so clear-cut. Bainton argues that: 'the early Church sa w an incompatibilit y between lov e and killing . I n later times th e attitud e an d the act were harmonized on th e ground tha t th e destruction o f the body does not entai l the annihilation of the soul. The early Church ha d an aversion t o bloodshed' (Christian Attitudes Toward Wa r and Peace, 1960 [1961] , p. 77) . So Tertullian, on th e basi s of Acts 15.20, maintaine d tha t th e thre e irremissibl e sins were idolatry, adulter y and homicid e (De Pudicitia, XII) . Hi s genera l conviction , bot h befor e an d afte r hi s conversio n t o Montanism, wa s that , fo r th e Christian , homicid e i n an y for m i s forbidden ; that , i f necessary, th e Christia n mus t suffe r persecutio n rathe r tha n retaliate ; an d tha t th e Christian, by enduring violence, can look for a reward beyond thi s world. This is evident in th e followin g pre-Montanis t quotation : Which is the ampler rule, to say, 'Thou shalt not kill', or to teach, 'Be not eve n angry'? Which is more perfect, to forbid adultery, or to restrain fro m eve n a single lustful look ? Which indicate s th e highe r intelligence , interdictin g evil-doing , o r evil-speaking ? Which i s more thorough, no t allowin g an injury, o r not eve n suffering a n injury t o be repaid?... Think of these things, too, in the light of the brevity of any punishment yo u can inflic t - neve r to last longer than till death ... No doubt abou t it , we, who receive our awards under the judgment o f an all-seeing God , and who look forward to eterna l punishment from hi m fo r sin, we alone make real effort t o attai n a blameless life. ( The Apology, 445 , from Th e Ante-Nicene Fathers, 3 ) Abortion he regarded simply as murder. Similarly, the Counci l of Elvira (c.300 CE) in th e West decree d tha t a woman guilt y of an abortion be refused Holy Communion, even o n her deathbed . Th e Synod of Ancyra (31 4 CE) in the Eas t ordained a penalty often years ' penance for the woma n who had an abortion . In th e post-Constantinia n churc h som e change s becom e apparent . Althoug h h e retained a rigorou s positio n o n suicide , Augustine' s attitud e t o abortio n wa s mor e qualified tha n tha t o f previou s theologians . I n discussin g th e distinctio n betwee n a n embryo without a soul (informatus) an d an embryo with a soul (formatus), h e maintained that the abortion of the first should be punished only by a fine, whereas that of the second should b e treated a s murder (Qua est. in Exodus 21,80 ; Qua est. Vet. etNov. Test., 23). In one form or another, a distinction between an animated and an unanimated fetus was not finally refuted b y the Roman Catholic Churc h unti l 1869 , when Pius IX affirmed tha t th e ensoulment o f th e fetu s commence s a t conceptio n an d se t excommunicatio n a s th e penalty fo r thos e seekin g t o procur e a n abortion . O n th e issu e o f abortion , th e comparative rigour of the present-day Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches in thei r official stances , evident i n Pau l VI's Extract 29, mentioned i n passin g in Ware's Extract 28, and criticize d i n Kiing's Extract 26, represents a partial retur n t o th e position of the pre-Constantinian Church . A more radical Catholic voice is evident in Fiorenza's Extract 5 where she links racism and patriarchy: 342

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIPS

Whereas patriarcha l racis m define s certai n peopl e a s subhuma n i n orde r t o exploi t their labor, patriarcha l sexis m seeks to control women's procreative powers and labo r ... an d it s rhetori c fo r th e 'protectio n o f th e Christia n family ' see k t o reinforc e women's economi c dependency ; t o strengthe n th e patriarcha l control s o f women' s procreative powers , an d t o maintai n th e patriarcha l famil y a s th e mainsta y o f th e patriarchal state. (Extrac t 5.15) Like man y Christia n feminist s sh e ha s bee n strongl y influence d b y th e educationa l psychologist Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982). Gilligan argues that the increase of choice for women, due to such factors as modern birth control, is creating a paradigm shift today : For centuries, women's sexuality anchored them in passivity, in a receptive rather than an activ e stance , wher e th e event s o f conception an d childbirt h coul d b e controlle d only by a withholding in which their own sexual needs were either denied or sacrifice d ... Women hav e traditionally deferre d t o th e judgment o f men, although ofte n while intimating a sensibilit y o f thei r ow n whic h i s a t varianc e with thi s judgment . (I n a Different Voice, pp . 68-9 ) By analysing the attitudes of men an d women to abortio n separately , Gilligan concluded that male attitudes have more to do with power and rules [as is evident in Extracts 28 and 29] an d th e femal e wit h empathy , compassio n an d care . Th e dilemm a fo r th e woma n confronted wit h abortio n i n th e Wes t toda y i s that 'sh e i s asked whether sh e wishes to interrupt tha t strea m o f lif e whic h fo r centurie s ha s immerse d he r i n th e passivit y o f dependence while at th e sam e time imposin g o n he r the responsibilit y for care' (p . 71) . Until recen t times , Augustine' s rigoris t positio n o n suicid e remaine d tha t o f mos t Christians. Further , recen t discussion s o f certai n form s o f euthanasi a hav e muc h i n common wit h early debates on suicide. Voluntary direct euthanasia, in particular, might be see n a s a for m o f suicid e an d i t i s fo r thi s reaso n tha t Kiing' s Extrac t 2 6 ca n b e compared directl y with Augustine's Text XIII. Of course, other form s of euthanasia raise different ethica l dilemmas which were not discusse d by the classical authors. This can be seen if one distinguishes between the following positions, based upon the two variables of the doctor' s intentio n an d th e patient' s will , i n a situatio n i n whic h th e latter' s lif e i s shortened o r terminated : Eventual death of patient caused by... (a) Direc t treatment b y doctor o f willing patient (b) Direc t treatmen t b y doctor o f non-willing patien t (c) Indirec t effect s o f treatment b y doctor o f willing patient (d) Indirec t effect s o f treatment by doctor of non-willing patient (e) Non-treatmen t b y doctor o f willing patient (f) Non-treatmen t b y doctor o f non-willing patien t Naturally, i f direct, or even indirect, treatment were to be applied to the unwilling (rathe r than a non-willing ) patien t thi s migh t constitut e murde r rathe r tha n euthanasia . Th e concept of'willingness' on the part of the patient is not without considerable difficulties 343

A TEXTBOOK OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

e.g. is a comatose patient, who has previously favoured euthanasia , and eve n left advanc e directives on the subject, 'willing' or 'non-willing'? Even the question o f what constitute s 'treatment' has become problematic - e.g . is the form o f nutrition give n to a patient in a persistent vegetativ e stat e a form of 'treatment' which migh t eventuall y b e withdrawn? However, these six 'ideal' types (see above, p. 193 ) show something of the rang e of the issue i n contemporar y medica l ethics . I n typ e (a ) th e docto r agree s t o th e patient' s request t o en d o r shorte n hi s or he r life . A distinction i s sometimes mad e her e between assisted dying which involves action on the part of the patient (physician-assisted suicide) and tha t which does not (voluntar y euthanasia). In type (b ) the doctor acts in the sam e way, but the patient is unable to will this - perhap s because he or she is comatose, senile , or has a serious learning disability. Thi s is often terme d involuntary euthanasia . I n types (c) an d (d ) i t is not th e primary intention o f the doctor t o shorten th e life of the patient , whether o r not the latter wills this. Instead, it will be the primary intention of the doctor to lesse n th e pai n o r sever e discomfor t o f th e patient , whil e bein g awar e tha t i n th e process h e or sh e may shorten th e lif e o f that patien t (i.e . the ethica l notion o f 'double effect'). I n types (e) and (f ) i t is withholding or withdrawing treatment that shorten s th e life of the willing or non-willing patient. For many type (e) hardly constitutes an example of euthanasia at all, since it is often considere d t o be a right of a mature, competent an d non-coerced individua l to decid e whether or no t t o receiv e treatment. Nonetheless, it is logically relate d to th e other types . If this analysis is adopted, straightforwar d support for , or rejection of, 'euthanasia' will appear difficult fo r many Christians today. Only those who approve, or, conversely, those who disapprov e o f euthanasi a i n al l of th e abov e forms , wil l b e abl e t o adop t suc h a straightforward approach . Fo r man y Christian s toda y eve n Augustine' s absolutis t position o n suicid e i s unacceptable . Yet, if there is a dilemma apparen t among Christian s toda y on thi s issue, even greater perplexity i s evident i n modern attitudes towards human sexuality . Ther e is also a shar p contrast t o b e draw n betwee n th e view s of Augustine on sexualit y and thos e o f man y Christians today . I t i s sometimes hel d tha t Augustin e steered a mid-pat h betwee n th e Manichaean rejectio n o f th e fles h a s evi l an d th e Pelagia n rejectio n o f an y notio n o f original sin. Against the Pelagian s he insisted tha t marriag e involves a sacramental bond and i s goo d onl y insofa r a s i t enable s procreation . And , agains t th e Manichaeans , h e insisted that God had blessed humans with the words 'Be fruitful an d multiply': it was not procreation itself which was sinful, but lust. But here lay Augustine's problem: marriage is for procreatio n an d thi s i s good, ye t procreatio n i s impossible withou t lus t an d thi s is sinful. I t i s thi s elemen t i n hi s thinkin g whic h suggest s tha t Augustin e neve r wholl y escaped his early Manichaeism (e.g. see Text X.12). Unfortunately it is an element which, as the Quake r Grou p argues , has had a profound effec t o n muc h subsequen t Christia n thought o n sexuality . I n hi s anti-Pelagia n treatise , O n Marriage an d Concupiscence, Augustine justified hi s belief in the sinfulness o f sexual desire, even within marriage, with the followin g natural la w argument : How significan t i s the fac t tha t the eyes, and lip s and tongue , and hands, and feet , an d the bendin g of the back, and neck, and sides, are all placed within our power - t o be applied t o suc h operation s a s are suitabl e t o them , whe n w e have a body fre e fro m impediments an d i n a soun d stat e o f health; bu t whe n i t mus t com e t o man' s grea t function o f the procreatio n o f children, the members which were expressly created for 344

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

this purpose will not obe y the direction o f the will, but lus t has to be waited for to set those members in motion, as if it had legal right over them, and sometimes it refuses t o act when th e min d wills , while i t ofte n act s agains t it s will! Must no t thi s brin g th e blush o f shame ove r th e freedo m o f the huma n will , that b y its contempt o f God, it s own Commander , i t ha s los t al l proper comman d fo r itsel f ove r it s ow n members ? Now, wherein could be found a more fitting demonstration o f the just depravation of human natur e b y reason o f its disobedience, tha n i n th e disobedienc e o f those part s whence nature herself derives subsistence b y succession ... This, then, wa s the reason why the first human pair, on experiencing in the flesh that motion whic h was indecent because disobedient , an d o n feelin g th e sham e o f thei r nakedness , covere d thes e offending member s with fig-leaves. (De Nuptiis e t Concupiscentia, VII, from The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 5 ) The influenc e o f this view can be seen in Aquinas' Text XIV, in Luther's Text VI. 12 and XII. 16, and i n Pau l VI's Extract 29. Augustine's justification of monogamous marriag e was only relative. He defended the polygamy of the patriarch s agains t both th e Manichaean s an d th e Pelagian s (see above, p. 2 4 and D e Nuptiis e t Concupiscentia, IX), since he believed thei r motive s to hav e been procreative rathe r tha n lustful . H e attacke d thos e paga n monogamou s marriages tha t were, in his opinion, base d solel y upon lust . And, like Paul, he seemed to valu e celibacy more highl y than marriage . Some of these elements are still present in Luther's writings on sexuality and marriage. He, too, justifie d th e polygam y of the patriarch s (see above, p. 24), had a low opinion of his contemporaries' sexua l behaviour an d supported Paul' s justification of marriage as 'a remedy of sin': To unaide d huma n nature , a s Go d create d it , chastit y apar t fro m matrimon y i s a n impossibility. Fo r flesh and blood remain flesh and blood, and the natural inclinatio n and excitemen t ru n thei r cours e withou t le t or hindrance , a s everyone's observatio n and experienc e testify . Therefor e tha t ma n migh t mor e easil y kee p hi s evi l lus t i n bounds, Go d commande d marriage , tha t eac h ma y hav e his prope r portio n an d b e satisfied; althoug h God' s grac e i s stil l neede d fo r th e hear t t o b e pure . (The Large Catechism of 1528 , on th e sixt h commandment ) 'Lust' i s still seen a s evil, marriag e still appear s as a concession fo r frailt y an d ther e ar e some (althoug h few ) who, 'b y reaso n o f extraordinar y gift s hav e becom e fre e t o liv e chaste lives' . But , i n contras t t o Augustin e an d Aquinas , monasticis m i s n o longe r regarded a s a higher stat e than marriage . Indeed , Luthe r claimed o f marriage that, 'Go d blessed thi s institutio n abov e al l others an d mad e everythin g on eart h serv e and sprin g from it . It i s not a n exceptional estat e but th e mos t universa l and noblest , pervadin g all Christendom, yea , extending through the whole world' (ibid.). He could als o be suitably flippant in hi s attitude toward s sexua l intercours e - commentin g a t one point o n 'the marital obligation, which canno t be performed withou t sin; yet because o f its necessity , God wink s a t it , fo r i t canno t b e otherwise ' (Tex t VI . 12). As the Reformatio n became established, and doubtles s a s a reflection o f his own happy marriage, Luther increasingly came t o se e th e famil y a s th e prope r focu s (replacin g th e monastery ) o f Christia n socialization. In his less formal moments, h e could write: 'Ah, dear God, marriage is not a 345

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

thing o f nature bu t a gift o f God, th e sweetest , th e dearest , and th e pures t lif e abov e al l celibacy and all singleness, when it turns out well , though the very devil if it does not. For although women hav e the art, with tears, lies and snare s to beguile a man, they can also be superb an d sa y the very best ... A great thing i s this bond an d communio n betwee n man an d wife ' (T.R. 4786). Despite th e rea l affectio n fo r wome n an d appreciatio n o f marriag e eviden t i n thi s quotation, i t als o provide s a clea r exampl e o f gende r stereotypes . Persona l an d socia l prejudices occu r frequentl y i n Luther' s writing s an d fe w are more shockin g tha n thos e contained i n Text XV. Both he and Augustine, in their different age s and socia l contexts , were inveterat e polemicists , s o i t i s not surprisin g tha t thei r prejudice s ar e s o ofte n i n evidence. Jus t a s Luther supported th e prince s i n violently suppressin g th e peasants , s o Augustine i n late r lif e cam e t o suppor t the , a t time s violent , coercio n o f Donatist s i n North Africa. I n a letter to the Donatis t Bishop , Vincentius, in 408, Augustine conceded that, 'originally my opinion was, that n o one should b e coerced into the unity of Christ , that we must act only by words, fight only by arguments, and prevai l by force o f reason , lest w e should hav e those whom w e knew as avowed heretic s feigning themselves to b e Catholics' (Letters, XCIII) . Bu t hi s increasin g pessimis m abou t humanit y an d bitte r experiences o f North Africa n polemic s convince d hi m otherwise : In some cases, therefore, both h e that suffer s persecutio n i s in the wrong, and h e that inflicts i t is in the right. But the truth is , that always both th e bad have persecuted th e good, an d th e goo d hav e persecute d th e bad : th e forme r doin g har m b y thei r unrighteousness, the latter seeking to do goo d by the administration o f discipline; th e former with cruelty, the latter with moderation; th e former impelle d b y lust, the latte r under the constraint o f love. For he whose aim is to kill is not carefu l ho w he wounds, but h e whose aim i s to cur e i s cautious with hi s lancet; for th e on e seek s to destro y what i s sound, the othe r tha t whic h i s decaying. Th e wicked pu t prophet s to death ; prophets also put th e wicked to death. The Jews scourged Christ; Christ als o scourged the Jews , (ibid.) The tone of this is considerably more moderate than that of Luther's Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes o f Peasants (see above, p. 214) , but it s danger s ar e jus t a s great. Augustine ha d move d fa r fro m th e ple a o f hi s fello w countryman , Tertullian , t o suffe r persecution without retaliation, and already one can see the beginnings of a position that was to resul t in the Inquisition . There i s nothing i n Augustine to matc h Luther' s vitriol against th e Jews , bu t the y ar e identifie d a s a grou p tha t wa s specificall y scourged b y Christ. An d elsewher e h e coul d argu e that th e Jewis h Dispersion wa s a direc t resul t o f their idolatr y an d finally of their 'puttin g Christ t o death ' (City o f God, IV, 34). It i s a measur e o f th e exten t t o whic h prejudic e an d intoleranc e ar e besettin g weaknesses o f muc h Christia n theology , tha t th e otherwis e mild-mannere d Aquina s simply assumed that women were less rational than men (XIV.8 ) and that discrimination against Jew s an d violen t persecutio n o f 'heretics ' wer e appropriat e position s fo r th e church t o adop t (see above, p. 129) . In examining Luther's Text XV, it will be importan t to as k whether o r no t thes e form s of prejudice an d intoleranc e are intrinsi c feature s of Christian theology. Even i f they are finally considered no t t o b e intrinsic [a s Extracts 31 and 3 2 suggest], i t mus t b e frankl y admitte d tha t to o muc h o f the histor y o f Christia n theology contain s thes e feature s bot h implicitl y and eve n sometime s quit e explicitly. 346

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

Full awareness of gender stereotypes is a comparatively recent phenomenon. Although both Augustin e and Luthe r supporte d marriag e and wer e appreciativ e of, an d gaine d much from, women (for Augustine it was his mother and fo r Luther it was his wife), each adhered to what they would have regarded as a thoroughly Pauline understanding o f the role and statu s o f women. Augustine was emphatic that wives should be subordinate t o husbands: 'Nor can it be doubted, tha t it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that th e apostl e says , "Th e hea d o f th e woma n i s th e man" ; and , "Wives , submi t yourselves unto your own husbands" (De Nuptiis e t Concupiscentia, X). And, even more significantly, at one point he exclaimed: 'Whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve (the temptress) that we must bewar e of in any woman' (Ep. 243, 10) . For most of its history, theology has been primarily a male pursuit, so it is perhaps not surprising tha t recen t femal e theologian s hav e foun d muc h o f i t redolen t wit h mal e assumptions an d prejudices . Fiorenza's Extract 5, Porter's Extrac t 7, McFague's Extract 25 and Cahill's Extract 30 stand as important correctives to this. Those who stand outside the socia l situation within which particular stereotypes and socia l prejudices are formed are far more likely to be able to identif y the m fo r what they are. In part, even Augustine was aware that thi s i s so. At several points i n Th e City o f God, he argue s that, althoug h something may seem repugnant, it is really only so by convention o r custom. Taking the story of Adam and Ev e literally, he maintained that the huma n rac e resulted fro m what his contemporarie s woul d hav e regarde d a s incestuou s relationships : 'I t wa s indee d generally allowed that brothers and sisters should marry in the earliest ages of the huma n race; but th e practic e is now so utterly repudiated tha t i t might seem that i t could never have bee n permitted . Fo r custo m i s the mos t effectiv e agen t i n soothin g o r shockin g human sensibilities ' (City o f God, XV. 16). And , agains t thos e 'mal e chauvinists ' wh o argued that , a t th e resurrection , al l women wil l tur n int o men , h e insiste d (wit h hi s characteristic repudiation of the mechanism s of sexual intercourse): For m y part, I fee l tha t their s i s the mor e sensibl e opinio n wh o hav e no doub t tha t there will be both sexes in the resurrection. For in that lif e there will be no sexual lust, which i s the caus e o f sham e .. . Thu s whil e al l defect s wil l b e remove d fro m thei r bodies, their essential nature will be preserved. Now a woman's sex is not a defect; it is natural. An d i n th e resurrectio n i t wil l b e fre e o f th e necessit y o f intercours e an d childbirth. However , the female organs will not subserv e their forme r use ; they will be part o f a ne w beauty , whic h will no t excit e th e lus t o f th e beholder . (City o f God, XXII. 17) To th e moder n reader , i t ma y see m extraordinar y (an d perhap s suspicious ) tha t h e should single out women for this inquisitive treatment. But, for a Roman Christian in his early seventies, it was progressive indeed!

347

TEXT XIII AUGUSTINE Suicide 1. BACKGROUND This Tex t come s fro m Th e City o f God, 1.17-18 , 19b-2 2 and 2 7 (Pelica n Classics, trans . Henry Bettenson an d ed. David Knowles, Penguin, 1972 , pp. 26-8, 30-4 and 38-9). This initial part of Th e City o f God was written c.413 and wa s a part o f Augustine's attempt t o praise Christian belief s and virtues at the expense of'pagan ' ones (see above, p. 41). In the classical world , suicid e was sometimes see n a s virtuous an d heroic , particularl y by th e Cynics and , t o a lesse r extent , b y the Stoics . O n th e othe r hand , neo-Platonists , whose position strongl y influenced Augustin e (see above, p. 22), generally disapproved o f it. His conflicts with the Manichaean rejection of killing in any form are still evident in this Text (XIII.9, se e above, p. 199) . 2. KEY ISSUES Augustine's centra l propositio n i n thi s Tex t i s that suicid e i s murder, albei t o f oneself rather than o f another. No one has a private right to kill someone - no t even themselve s (XIII. 1). And, since 'purity' i s a virtue of the min d an d no t o f th e body , eve n a fea r o f 'pollution', as a result of rape, does not justif y suicide (XIH.2-4) . The difference betwee n Christians an d other s i s illustrate d b y th e classica l example o f Lucretia : she murdere d herself after a n adulterer ha d embraced her , whereas a Christian woul d no t hav e done so (XIII.5-6). The Bible does not sanctio n suicide , but enjoin s people not t o kill (XIII.7-8). This comman d applie s t o human s alone , no t t o animal s an d certainl y no t t o plant s (XIII.9). The only exceptions to the commands not to kill are those forms of killing which are prescribe d b y a just law or ar e specificall y prescribe d b y God (XIII . 10). Contrar y t o classical belief, suicide does not sho w 'greatness of spirit', but rathe r weakness in the fac e of oppression (XIII.ll ) and i s not supporte d by the Judaeo-Christian tradition (XIII.12) . If i t wer e to b e allowe d tha t peopl e shoul d kil l themselves to avoi d succumbin g t o sin , then al l should commi t suicid e immediately after absolutio n (XIII . 13-14)! 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS Augustine's overall position is undoubtedly deontological . It is sufficient fo r him to show that suicide transgresses the command not to kill. There are important exception s to this command, bu t suicid e i s not one of them - unles s i t is divinely commande d (a s in the instance of Samson). However, there are also two remarkable features of this Text relating to hi s mode of ethica l argument . Th e firs t i s his stres s upo n intentio n i n XIII.2-4 (cf. VII.8). Sexual purity is a product of intention and is not destroye d by forcible rape. Moral virtue is to be assessed by the intention of the moral actor and not by what happens to his 348

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

or he r body . Th e secon d i s hi s deliberat e reductio n t o absurdit y i n XIII . 13-14. Wit h characteristic waspish humour , Augustin e ridicules thos e wh o recommen d suicid e as a means to avoi d som e evil . 4. BASES OF CHRISTIAN

ETHICS

As par t o f th e polemi c o f Th e City o f God, Augustine compares classica l virtue s with Christian ones . Fo r th e Graeco-Roma n world, suicid e ma y appea r t o b e a defenc e o f 'honour' (XIII.5 ) o r a sign of'greatness o f spirit' (XIII . 11), but no t fo r Christians . Th e Decalogue forbids thi s form o f killing and, sinc e they were commanded directl y by God, Old Testamen t example s o f Abraha m attemptin g t o commi t 'murder ' o r o f Samso n committing 'suicide', do not contraven e thi s (XIII. 10). Thus, the Bible is treated literall y and deontologically . Nevertheless , Augustin e introduce s a n argumen t fro m silence , supposing that Samson must have been 'secretly ordered' by the Spirit (cf. VII.6). There is also an interesting contrast between 'the pure light of a good conscience ' of the individual and the 'darknes s of the error' of the mo b (XIII . 11). 5. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS This Text, like Text I, shows the dependence of Augustine upon both th e Graeco-Roman and th e Hebrai c worlds . H e consciousl y react s agains t th e forme r i n hi s rejectio n o f 'heroic' suicide . Ye t his style of argument i s still heavily dependent upo n thi s world. I n true classical style, his concern i s for the 'man of purity and hig h principle', for 'what he will mentall y accep t o r repudiate ' an d fo r 'qualitie s whic h mak e u p th e mora l life ' (XIII.2). Further , whilst rejectin g the Manichaea n repudiatio n o f all killing, his implicit assumption tha t 'lust ' is inherently sinfu l ma y derive from hi s own earlier Manichaeism. The Decalogu e als o play s a centra l rol e i n hi s attitud e toward s suicide . I n additio n t o these cognitiv e determinants , certain socia l structures ar e relevant to the issue of suicide. In hi s semina l study , Suicide (1897) , th e pionee r Frenc h sociologist , Emil e Durkheim , claimed that suicide is more prevalent in societies that lack social cohesion o r integration . For him , religio n coul d b e a n importan t facto r i n supplyin g a mora l integratio n fo r particular societies (he maintained that Catholicism was far more successfu l at doing this than Protestantis m an d that , a s a result , suicid e wa s twic e a s prevalen t amongs t Protestants a s amongst Catholics) . Th e City o f God was written i n response to th e 'pagan' challenge tha t conversion s t o Christianit y ha d le d t o th e mora l deterioratio n an d subsequent sackin g of Rome in 410. In such a situation, i f Durkheim's thesis i s followed, it is not surprisin g that the issue of suicide was particularly relevant in 413 and that it was a sourc e o f moral conflict betwee n 'pagans ' an d Christians . 6. SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE Until very recent times, Augustine's deontological rejectio n of suicide was the established position withi n Christianity . B y the Middl e Ages it was forbidden for suicides to hav e a Christian burial . Aquina s believe d tha t suicid e contravene d natura l law , sinc e i t wa s contrary to the natural human desire to live. Only with the rise of rationalist philosoph y did suicid e receiv e an y legitimation . So , Davi d Hume , rejectin g th e notio n o f a n immortal soul , argue d that a person migh t quite rationall y commi t suicide . And within non-Roman Catholi c churches, it is only within th e last few decades that there has been a growing belief tha t suicid e shoul d no t b e treate d a s a crimina l activit y and tha t 'para suicides' requir e pastora l car e rathe r tha n censur e (indeed , th e ter m 'para-suicide ' was 349

A TEXTBOOK OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

invented t o replac e the traditional term 'attempte d suicide' partly to sugges t that i t may have more t o d o wit h seeking help an d attentio n tha n death) . Only in 196 1 did suicide cease to b e treated a s a crime in Britain. FURTHER READING Augustine's chief discussion of the issu e of suicide i s in Boo k I of Th e City o f God. Hugh Trowell's Th e Unfinished Debate on Euthanasia (1973) contains a useful, brie f history of Christian attitude s toward s suicid e and it s relation t o euthanasi a an d a bibliography. In addition, ther e hav e been a number o f church report s o n suicide/euthanasia , includin g the Church of England's On Dying Well (1975 ) and the Roman Catholic, Linacre Centre's Euthanasia and Clinical Practice (1982). For a careful examinatio n o f Augustine's concep t of'self-love' (XIII.7 ) se e Darlene Fozard Weaver's Self Love an d Christian Ethics 2002.

TEXT XIII AUGUSTINE Suicide The question of suicide caused by fear of punishment or disgrace XIII. 1 Some wome n kille d themselve s t o avoi d sufferin g anythin g [lik e rape ] an d surel y an y man o f compassion woul d b e read y to excus e the emotion s which led them t o d o this . Some refuse d t o kil l themselves, because they did no t wan t t o escap e another's crimina l act by a misdeed of their own. And anyone who uses this as a charge against them will lay himself open to a charge of foolishness. For it is clear that i f no one has a private right to kill even a guilty man (an d no law allows this), then certainly anyone who kills himself is a murderer, and is the more guilty in killing himself the more innocent he is of the charge on which he has condemned himself to death. We rightly abominate the act of Judas, and the judgment of truth is that when he hanged himself he did not atone for the guilt of his detestable betrayal but rathe r increased it, since he despaired o f God's mercy and i n a fit of self-destructive remors e left himsel f n o chance of a saving repentance. How much les s right ha s anyon e t o indulg e i n self-slaughte r whe n h e ca n fin d i n himsel f n o faul t t o justify suc h a punishment! For when Judas killed himself, he killed a criminal, and ye t he ended hi s lif e guilt y not onl y o f Christ' s death , bu t als o o f hi s own ; on e crim e le d t o another. Wh y then shoul d a man, wh o ha s done n o wrong , do wrong to himself ? Wh y should h e kil l th e innocen t i n puttin g himsel f t o death , t o preven t a guilt y man fro m doing it ? Why shoul d h e commi t a si n agains t himsel f t o depriv e someon e els e of th e chance? The question of violence from others, and the lust of others suffered by an unwilling mind in a ravished body XIII.2 'But', it will be said, 'there is the fea r of being polluted b y another's lust.' There will be no pollution, if the lust is another's; i f there is pollution, the lust is not another's. Now purity is a virtue of the mind . I t ha s courage as its companion an d courag e decides t o endur e evil rather than consent t o evil. A man o f purity and hig h principle has not th e power to

350

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIPS

decide wha t happen s t o hi s body, bu t onl y wha t h e wil l mentall y accept o r repudiate . What sane man will suppose that he has lost his purity if his body is seized and forced an d used fo r the satisfactio n o f a lust that i s not hi s own? For if purity i s lost i n this way, it follows tha t i t is not a virtue of the mind ; it is not the n ranke d with the qualitie s which make up th e moral life , bu t i s classed among physical qualities, such as strength, beauty, and health , the impairmen t o f which does no t i n an y way mean th e impairmen t o f the moral life . I f purity is something o f this sort, why do we risk physical danger to avoid its loss? Bu t i f it i s a quality o f the mind , i t i s not los t whe n th e bod y i s violated. Indeed , when th e qualit y o f modest y resist s th e indecenc y o f carna l desire s th e bod y itsel f i s sanctified, an d therefore , whe n purit y persist s i n it s unshake n resolutio n t o resis t thes e desires, th e body's holines s i s not lost , because th e wil l to emplo y the bod y i n holiness endures, as does th e ability , a s far as in i t lies. XIII.3 The body is not holy just because its parts are intact, or because they have not undergon e any handling . Thos e part s ma y suffe r violen t injur y b y accident s o f various kinds , an d sometimes doctors seekin g to effec t a cure may employ treatment with distressing visible effects. Durin g a manual examination o f a virgin a midwife destroye d he r maidenhood , whether b y malice, o r clumsiness , o r accident . I do no t suppos e tha t anyon e woul d b e stupid enough to imagine that the virgin lost anything of bodily chastity, even though the integrity o f that par t ha d bee n destroyed . Therefor e while the mind' s resolv e endures , which gives the body its claim to chastity, the violence of another's lust cannot take away the chastit y whic h i s preserved b y unwavering self-control . XIII.4 Now suppose som e woman, wit h her mind corrupte d an d he r vowed intentio n t o Go d violated, in the act of going to her seducer be defiled. Do we say that she is chaste in body while she is on her way, when the chastity of her mind, which made the body chaste, has been los t an d destroyed ? Of course not ! We must rathe r draw the inferenc e tha t just as bodily chastit y i s lost whe n menta l chastit y has bee n violated , s o bodily chastit y is no t lost, even when the body has been ravished, while the mind's chastity endures. Therefore when a woman ha s been ravishe d without he r consenting , an d force d b y another's sin , she has no reason to punish hersel f by a voluntary death. Still less should she do so before the event lest she should commi t certai n murder while the offence, an d another's offenc e at that, stil l remain s uncertain ... Lucretia's suicide XIII.5 Her killin g o f herself because, althoug h no t adulterous , sh e had suffere d a n adulterer' s embraces, was due to the weakness of shame, not to the high value she set on chastity. She was ashamed o f another's fou l deed committed o n her, even though no t with her, and as a Roman woman, excessively eager for honour, sh e was afraid tha t she should be thought, if she lived, to hav e willingly endure d what, whe n sh e lived, sh e had violentl y suffered . Since she could not display her pure conscience to the world she thought she must exhibit her punishmen t befor e men' s eye s as a proo f o f her stat e o f mind. Sh e blushed a t th e thought o f being regarde d a s an accomplic e i n the ac t i f she were to bea r with patience what anothe r ha d inflicte d o n he r with violence . 351

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

XIII.6 Such ha s not bee n th e behaviour o f Christian women . When the y were treated lik e thi s they di d no t tak e vengeanc e o n themselve s fo r another' s crime . The y woul d no t ad d crime t o crim e by committing murde r o n themselve s i n sham e becaus e th e enem y ha d committed rap e o n the m i n lust . The y hav e th e glor y o f chastit y withi n them , th e testimony o f thei r conscience . The y hav e thi s i n th e sigh t o f God , an d the y as k fo r nothing more. I n fact there is nothing else for them to do that is right for them to do. For they will not deviat e from th e authority of God's law by taking unlawful steps to avoid the suspicions of men . Christians have no authority to commit suicide in any circumstance XIII.7 It i s significan t tha t i n th e sacre d canonica l book s ther e ca n nowher e b e foun d an y injunction o r permission t o commi t suicid e either to ensur e immortality o r t o avoi d o r escape an y evil. In fac t w e must understand i t to be forbidden b y the law 'You shall no t kill', particularly as there is no additio n o f 'your neighbour' as in the prohibitio n o f fals e witness, 'You shall not bea r false witness against your neighbour'. But that does not mea n that a man who gives false witness against himself is exempt from thi s guilt, since the rule about lovin g one's neighbou r begin s wit h oneself , seein g that th e Scriptur e says, 'Yo u shall love your neighbour a s yourself. XIII.8 Moreover, if anyone who give s false witness against himself is just as guilty as if he did s o against a neighbour - althoug h the prohibition forbids fals e witness agains t a neighbour and migh t b e misunderstoo d a s implyin g that ther e i s n o prohibitio n o f fals e witnes s against onesel f - the n i t is the more obviou s tha t a man is not allowe d t o kil l himself , since the text 'Tho u shal l not kill ' has no additio n an d i t must b e taken tha t ther e i s no exception, no t eve n the on e t o who m th e comman d i s addressed . XIII.9 Hence some people have tried to extend its scope to wild and domestic animal s to make it mean tha t eve n thes e ma y never be killed . Bu t then wh y not appl y i t t o plant s an d t o anything roote d i n th e eart h an d nourishe d b y th e earth ? Fo r althoug h thi s par t o f creation i s withou t feeling , i t i s calle d 'living' , an d i s henc e capabl e o f dyin g an d consequently of being killed, when violence is done to it. And so the Apostle, speaking of seeds of this kind, says, 'What you sow does not com e to life unless it dies' (1 Cor. 15.36) ; and i t says in one of the psalms, 'He killed the vines with hail' (Ps . 78.47). But do we for this reaso n infe r fro m 'Tho u shal l no t kill ' a divin e prohibitio n agains t clearin g away brushwood, and subscrib e to th e erro r o f the Manicheans ? That would b e madness. We reject suc h fantasies , an d when we read 'Yo u shall not kill ' we assume tha t thi s does no t refer t o bushes , whic h hav e n o feelings , no r t o irrationa l creatures , flying , swimming , walking, o r crawling , sinc e the y hav e no rationa l associatio n wit h us , no t havin g bee n endowed wit h reason as we are, and henc e it is by a just arrangement of the Creato r tha t their life an d deat h is subordinated t o ou r needs . I f this is so, it remains that we take the command 'Yo u shal l no t kill ' a s applying t o huma n beings , tha t is , other person s an d oneself. Fo r t o kil l oneself i s to kil l a huma n being .

352

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIPS

All homicide is not murder XIII.10 There are however certai n exceptions to the law against killing, mad e by the authority of God himself. There are some whose killing God orders, eithe r by a law, or by an express command t o a particula r perso n a t a particula r time . I n fac t on e wh o owe s a dut y of obedience t o the giver of the command doe s no t himsel f 'kill' - h e is an instrument, a sword i n it s user's hand . Fo r this reaso n th e commandmen t forbiddin g killing was not broken b y thos e wh o hav e wage d war s o n th e authorit y o f God , o r thos e wh o hav e imposed th e death-penalt y o n criminal s whe n representin g th e authorit y of the Stat e in accordance wit h the law s of the State , th e justest an d mos t reasonabl e sourc e of power. When Abraha m was ready to kil l hi s son, s o fa r fro m bein g blamed fo r cruelt y he was praised fo r his devotion; i t was not a n act of crime, but o f obedience. On e i s justified i n asking whethe r Jephth a i s to b e regarde d a s obeying a command o f God i n killin g hi s daughter, when he had vowed t o sacrific e t o Go d the first thing he met when returnin g victorious fro m battle . An d whe n Samso n destroye d himself , with hi s enemies , b y th e demolition o f the building, thi s can only be excused on the ground tha t the Spirit, which performed miracle s throug h him , secretl y ordere d hi m t o d o so . With th e exceptio n of these killings prescribed generally by a just law, or specially commanded b y God himselfthe source of justice - anyon e who kills a human being, whether himself or anyone else, is involved i n a charge of murder. Is suicide ever a mark of greatness of soul? XIII. 11 Those who have committed thi s crime against themselves ar e perhaps to b e admired for greatness of spirit; they are not t o be praised for wisdom or sanity. And yet if we examine the matter more deeply and logically, we shall find that greatness of spirit is not the right term t o appl y t o on e wh o ha s kille d himsel f becaus e h e lacke d strengt h t o endur e hardships, o r another's wrongdoing . I n fac t w e detect weaknes s i n a mind which cannot bear physical oppression, o r the stupid opinion of the mob; we rightly ascribe greatness to a spirit tha t ha s the strengt h to endur e a life o f misery instead o f running away from it , and to despise the judgment of men - an d in particular the judgment of the mob, which is so often cloude d i n the darkness of error - i n comparison with the pure light of a good conscience. If suicide is to b e taken a s a mark o f greatness o f spirit, then Theombrotus will be a shining example of that quality. The story is that when he had read Plato's boo k which discusses the immortality o f the soul , he hurled himself from a wall and so passed from this life to a life which he believed to be better. There was no kind of misfortune, no accusation, tru e o r false , whic h led hi m t o d o awa y with himsel f unde r a n intolerabl e load. I t was only greatness of spirit which prompted hi m to seek death and to 'break the pleasant bonds o f life'. But Plato himself, whom he had been reading , is witness that thi s showed greatnes s rather than goodness . Plat o would have been first and foremost to take this action , an d woul d hav e recommende d i t t o others , ha d no t th e sam e intelligenc e which gave him his vision of the soul's immortalit y enable d hi m to decid e that this step was not to be taken - was , indeed, to be forbidden . XIII.12 'But many people did away with themselves to avoid falling into the hands of the enemy.' The questio n i s not onl y whethe r the y did , bu t whethe r the y ough t t o hav e don e so . 353

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

Sound reason is certainly to be preferred t o examples. Some examples are in full harmon y with sound reason , and they are the more worthy of imitation as they are more eminen t in their devotion t o God. Neither the patriarchs nor the prophets acted thus; nor di d the apostles, since the Lord Christ himself, when he advised them to escape from on e town to another i n case of persecution, coul d hav e advised them t o tak e their ow n lives to avoi d falling int o th e hand s o f thei r persecutors . I f h e di d no t orde r o r advis e thi s wa y of quitting this life , althoug h h e promised t o prepar e eternal dwelling s fo r them afte r thei r departure, i t i s clear tha t thi s course i s not allowe d t o thos e wh o worship th e on e tru e God, whatever examples may be put forwar d b y 'the Gentiles who have no knowledge of him' ( 1 Thes. 4.5) ... Should one commit suicide to avoid sin? XIII. 13 There remain s on e situatio n i n whic h i t i s suppose d t o b e advantageou s t o commi t suicide; I have already begun to discuss the question. It arises when the motive is to avoid falling into sin either through the allurements of pleasure or through the menaces of pain. If we agree to allow this motive we shall not b e able to stop until we reach the point when people ar e t o b e encourage d t o kil l themselve s fo r preference , immediately the y hav e received forgivenes s of al l sins b y washing i n th e water s of hol y regeneration . Fo r tha t would be the time to forestall all future sin s - th e moment whe n all past sin s have been erased. I f self-inflicted deat h i s permitted, surely this is the bes t possibl e momen t fo r it ! When a person has been thu s set free why should h e expose himsel f again to all the perils of this life, whe n it i s so easily allowed him t o avoi d them b y doing awa y with himself ? And the Bibl e says, 'A man wh o is fond o f danger will fall int o it' (Ecclus. 3.26). Why are men s o fon d o f al l thes e grea t dangers , o r a t an y rat e ar e willin g t o accep t them , b y remaining in this life, when they are allowed to depart from it ? If a man ha s a duty to kill himself to avoid succumbing to sin because he is at the mercy of one man, who holds him prisoner, does he suppose that he has to go on living so as to endure the pressures of the actual world, whic h i s full o f temptations at all times, temptation s such a s that which i s dreaded unde r on e master , an d innumerabl e others , whic h ar e th e necessar y accompaniment of this life? Has perverse silliness so warped our judgment and distracte d us fro m facin g th e truth ? Fo r o n thi s assumption , wh y d o w e spen d tim e o n thos e exhortations t o th e newl y baptised. W e do ou r bes t t o kindl e thei r resolv e t o preserv e their virginal purity, or to remain continent i n widowhood, o r to remain faithful t o their marriage vows. Bu t there i s available an excellen t shor t cu t whic h avoid s any dange r of sinning; i f we can persuad e the m t o rus h t o a self-inflicte d deat h immediatel y upo n receiving remissio n o f sins, we shall sen d the m t o th e Lor d in th e pures t an d soundes t condition! XIII.14 But i n fac t i f anyone thinks that w e should g o in for persuasion o n thes e lines, I shoul d not cal l him silly , but quit e crazy. Then ho w could anyon e justify sayin g to an y human being: 'Kill yourself, to avoid addin g mor e serious sin to your small shortcomings, living, as you do , unde r a maste r with th e manner s an d moral s o f a savage', i f he canno t say , without bein g a complet e criminal , 'Kil l yourself , no w tha t al l you r sin s hav e bee n absolved, t o avoi d committin g suc h sins again, or eve n worse, while you ar e living in a world ful l o f th e allurement s o f impur e pleasures , s o maddene d wit h al l it s monstrou s 354

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIPS

cruelties, so menacing with all its errors and terrors'? To say this would be monstrous; it follows tha t suicid e i s monstrous. If there coul d b e a valid reaso n for suicide on e coul d not find one more valid than this; and since this is not valid, a valid reason does not exist. CRITIQUE It would be a mistake to assess Augustine's contentions on suicide as if they were modern contentions an d t o forge t tha t the y deriv e fro m a ver y specifi c polemica l context . Nonetheless, because of their social significance i n shaping Christian, and indee d secular, attitudes toward s suicide , thei r strength s an d weaknesses should b e noted. Positively, Augustine' s stres s upo n intentio n i n Christia n ethic s ha s prove d t o b e extremely important. Althoug h it is difficult fo r most victims of rape not t o fee l guil t and remorse, Augustin e placed rap e int o a mor e adequat e ethica l context . Impurit y lies i n intention, not i n involuntary action . It is the rapist an d not th e one who is raped wh o is impure, so it would be wholly inappropriate for the Christian to recommen d suicid e as a means o f escapin g rape . Further , eve n today , mos t Christian s migh t agre e tha t wha t Durkheim terme d 'altruisti c suicide ' (whereb y peopl e commi t suicid e becaus e thei r religion or society convince them that i t is their duty - Suicide, 1897, pp. 217 rf) i s seldom justifiable. Most might support Augustine's attacks on the martyr-seeking attitudes of the Donatists, le t alone moder n 'suicid e bombers'. Negatively, Augustine showed littl e awarenes s of , o r sympath y for, other reason s fo r suicide o r 'para-suicide' . Fo r Durkheim ther e wer e tw o other categorie s o f suicide egoistic an d anomic . Th e firs t result s fro m lac k o f integratio n o f th e individua l int o society: th e mor e a n individua l i s lef t t o hi s o r he r resources , th e mor e likel y tha t individual i s t o commi t suicide . Th e secon d result s fro m lac k o f regulatio n o f th e individual by society: so , the trauma ensuin g fro m divorc e can rende r me n (mor e than women) especiall y vulnerable t o suicide . A greater awarenes s of these specificall y socia l determinants o f suicide has inclined man y today towards a more sympathetic attitude to those wh o commit , o r appea r t o attempt, suicide . Indeed , i n th e Wes t today , suicide / para-suicide i s far more likel y to b e thought o f as a medical, rathe r tha n a s a moral o r religious, problem . Even though attitude s towards suicide have changed among both Christian s and non Christians, at least one theological point links the former with Augustine. Fo r Christians (and theists generally) life is ultimately God-given and, as a consequence, shoul d never be taken casually or for selfish motives. So convinced, theists may be hesitant about usurping for themselve s what they regard as a function of God, o r treating functionally the life that God ha s given . Whethe r o r no t thi s preclude s someon e wh o i s terminall y il l an d i n uncontrollable/intolerable pai n from voluntary euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, or actual suicid e wil l b e discusse d i n relatio n t o Kiing' s Extrac t 26. But, clearly, i t ma y at least mak e a theis t cautiou s (fo r a discussio n o f thi s 'adeodati c axiom' , se e above, pp. 341-2).

355

TEXT XIV

AQUINAS Fornication and marriage 1. BACKGROUND This Tex t come s fro m Summa Contra Gentiles 3.2.122-4 an d 12 6 (University of Notr e Dame Press, London, an d Doubleday, Ne w York, 1975, trans. Vernon J . Bourke, pp. 142 51 an d 155-6) . Fro m th e sam e Boo k of Summa Contra Gentiles as Text XI , it to o wa s explicitly writte n fo r a non-Christian audienc e and , hence , tend s to argu e initiall y fro m reason rathe r tha n fro m Christia n revelation . Immediatel y befor e thi s Text , Aquina s sought t o refute som e of the central claim s of astrology an d notions of fate and to defend the Christia n notions o f providence, prayer , miracles and divin e law, and, immediatel y after it , h e considered th e questio n 'I n Wha t Wa y Poverty i s Good'. Throughout thes e various discussions, a number o f Aristotelian natural law principles are evident (see also, Text V). So, he assumed tha t the virtue of something must alway s be related t o the end of humanity (XIV.4) , tha t human s ar e socia l animal s (XIV.6) , an d tha t th e virtu e o f something ought to be assessed by whether or not it contributes to the overall well-bein g of society or simply to th e well-being of a particular individual (XIV.7) . The Text shows that Aquinas was well aware of secular promiscuit y an d of Islamic polygamy and divorce. However, for him, they were contradicted by natural law (and, in turn, also by divine law and b y th e Bible) . Mor e positively , h e wa s concerne d t o refut e th e Platoni c (and , significantly, wit h i t th e Augustinian ) notion tha t th e sexua l ac t wa s in itself , o r i n it s association with 'lust', evil: within the context o f a stable, monogamous marriage , sexual intercourse is both natura l and in accord with divine providence. Nonetheless , h e shared with Augustine the beliefs tha t procreatio n i s the primary function o f sexual intercours e and that celibacy is a higher state than marriage. Aquinas' debt to Aristotle, rather than to Plato, is also apparent i n XIV.8, in the notion tha t the socialization of children necessarily involves the correctio n o f their natura l passions . 2. KEY ISSUES Aquinas' initia l concer n i s to counte r thos e wh o maintai n that, a s long a s it harm s n o one, 'fornication * i s not sinfu l (XIV . 1-3). Fo r him , the prope r en d fo r th e emissio n o f semen i s the propagatio n o f the specie s (XIV.4) . As a result, any deliberate emissio n i n situations where , eithe r generatio n canno t result , o r prope r upbringin g o f resultin g children is impossible, i s sinful (XIV . 5-6). Children nee d both parent s to bring them u p and t o instruc t the m i n reaso n (XIV.7-8) . Properl y ordered emissio n o f semen i s both required for the preservation of the species and i s prescribed by the Bible (XIV.9-12). For the sam e reasons, marriag e should b e life-long (XIV.13-16) . Infidelit y i n marriag e goes against the natura l wish of fathers t o kno w their offsprin g (XIV . 17), whereas the greater 356

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIPS

the friendshi p i n marriag e th e mor e long-lastin g i t wil l b e (XIV . 18). Marriag e i s i n accordance with natural promptings for the common goo d and with divine law (XIV.I922). Sexual promiscuity contravene s natura l law (XIV.23-4). On the othe r hand , sexua l intercourse whic h is directed t o th e generatio n an d upbringin g of children i s not sinfu l but reasonabl e (XIV.25) . Sexual intercourse is a natural and God-given phenomenon an d therefore canno t b e evil in itsel f (XIV.26-30). 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS This Tex t provide s on e o f th e cleares t example s o f Aquinas ' us e o f natura l law . Th e position, establishe d i n theor y i n Tex t II , i s use d her e a s th e mai n mod e o f ethica l argument. Aquinas first establishes what i s 'natural', in the sense of being i n accord with nature, in either human or animal form. From this he derives ethical prescriptions, which are then related to biblical norms. Thus, deontological assumptions are made both abou t the natura l orde r an d abou t biblica l revelation . Further , h e characteristicall y use s consequential ethica l arguments : sexualit y i s t o b e relate d t o it s primar y en d (procreation) and this end is to be related to the common huma n good. So , promiscuity is though t t o b e wron g deontologicall y (becaus e i t contravene s th e natura l orde r an d biblical revelation ) an d consequentiall y (becaus e it does no t contribut e t o th e commo n good). O n th e othe r hand , properl y directe d sexua l intercours e an d eve n sexua l inclinations ar e no t considere d t o b e evi l o r sinful : i t i s th e us e t o whic h sexua l intercourse is put that determines whether or not i t is sinful. Similarly poverty and wealth are not virtuous or wrong in themselves. For Aquinas, virtue may be seen as a 'mean' or mid-point: 'Th e goodness of everything that comes under measure and rule consists in its being conformed to its rule. Consequently, evi l in these things lies in departure from rul e or measur e either b y exces s o r defect . An d therefor e it i s clear tha t th e goo d o f mora l virtue consists i n being up to the level of the measure o f reason ... in the mean betwee n excess an d defect ' (S.T . I.II , Q.64 , Art.l) . Measure d agains t th e rul e o f reason , bot h poverty and wealth may appear evil if taken to excess . But if they conform to th e rule of reason - which , 'measure s no t onl y th e siz e o f a thin g tha t i s used , bu t als o th e circumstances o f the person, and hi s intention, the fitness of place an d time , an d other such things' (S.C.G. , 3.2.134) - the y can both be virtuous. In addition to this, XIV.7 may contain a 'common good ' argumen t (see further Hollenbach' s Extrac t 14) . 4. BASE S OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS In keepin g wit h th e metho d o f Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquina s introduce s biblica l quotations onl y at the end of each argument (XIV.10-11, 18-22 an d 29). Perhaps it is not surprising tha t mos t o f thes e quotation s ar e take n fro m th e Pentateuc h an d Paulin e epistles. However, underlying much of the arguments is a notion o f creation: the natural order can supply humans with indications of how they should behave, precisely because it is a God-given orde r (XIV.1 2 - se e above, p. 122). 5. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS Aquinas wrot e withi n th e constraint s o f thirteenth-century Christendom . Althoug h he was clearly aware of other sexua l patterns, h e was confident that heterosexual , exclusive monogamy (or, somewha t illogically , celibacy) alon e conformed t o reaso n and that this was wholl y consonan t wit h th e Bible . Today , bot h o f thes e assumption s hav e bee n challenged. Followin g Augustine , h e regarde d procreatio n a s th e essentia l functio n o f 357

A TEXTBOOK OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

sexual intercourse and, although he wrote about husbands and wives as 'an association of equals' (XIV.I6) , yet, alon g wit h man y o f his contemporaries, h e regarde d me n a s the more rational . Sinc e 'reason' an d 'virtue ' were so closely linked i n hi s thought, thi s last assumption i s particularly problematic. 6. SOCIAL S SIGNIFICANCE It will be evident in Paul VI's Extract 29 that Aquinas' view of procreation a s an essential function o f all occasions o f sexual intercourse has prove d especiall y significant. Indeed , this mediate d positio n stil l plays a crucia l role i n traditiona l form s o f Roman Catholi c moral teaching today. Within suc h teaching, not only are homosexuality an d prostitution alike condemned , bu t als o al l form s o f sexua l intercours e tha t involv e wholl y effectiv e contraception, both within marriage as well as outside of marriage. However, Aquinas has also prove d influentia l i n hi s divergenc e fro m Augustine , sinc e man y Christian s today (Roman Catholi c an d non-Roma n Catholic ) woul d insis t tha t sexua l intercours e an d sexual desir e ar e no t i n themselve s evil . I t i s thei r abus e (howeve r defined ) tha t i s considered evil . FURTHER READING Important discussion s of sexuality and marriage are contained i n both Summa Theologica (e.g. I.II.77 ) and Summa Contra Gentiles. In addition t o th e secondary commentaries o n Aquinas alread y mentioned , Rolan d H . Bainton' s Sex, Love an d Marriage: A Christian Survey (1958 ) provides a useful, brie f survey of historical attitudes and a bibliography. A sympathetic, but mor e radical , Roman Catholic approach i s offered i n Lis a Cahill' s Sex, Gender an d Christian Ethics (1995) . I n addition , V . A . Demant' s A n Exposition o f Christian Se x Ethics (1963) an d Helmu t Thielicke's Th e Ethics of Se x (1964 [1975] ) offe r Anglican an d Reforme d approache s respectively.

358

TEXT XIV AQUINAS Fornication and marriage The reason why simple fornication is a sin according to divine law, and that matrimony is natural XIV. 1 From the foregoing we can see the futilit y o f the argument of certain people who say that simple fornicatio n i s no t a sin . Fo r the y say : Suppos e ther e i s a woma n wh o i s no t married, o r unde r th e contro l of any man, eithe r he r fathe r or anothe r man . Now , i f a man perform s the sexual act with her, and sh e is willing, he does not injur e her , because she favours th e actio n an d sh e has control ove r he r ow n body. No r doe s h e injur e an y other person, because sh e is understood to be under n o othe r person's control. So, this does no t see m to be a sin. XIV.2 Now, to say that he injures God would not seem to be an adequate answer. For we do no t offend Go d except by doing something contrar y to ou r ow n good, a s has been said . But this does not appear contrar y t o man's good . Hence, on this basis, n o injury seems to be done to God . XIV.3 Likewise, i t als o would see m a n inadequat e answe r to sa y that som e injur y i s done t o one's neighbou r by this action, inasmuch a s he may be scandalised. Indeed, i t is possible for hi m to be scandalised b y something whic h i s not i n itself a sin. I n this event , the act would b e accidentall y sinful . Bu t ou r problem , i s no t whethe r simpl e fornicatio n is accidentally a sin, but whethe r i t i s so essentially. XIV.4 Hence, we must look for a solution i n our earlie r considerations. We have said that Go d exercises car e over every person o n the basis of what is good fo r him. Now , it is good fo r each person t o attai n hi s end, whereas it is bad fo r him t o swerv e away from hi s proper end. Now , this shoul d b e considere d applicabl e t o th e parts , jus t a s i t i s to th e whol e being; fo r instance, eac h and ever y part of man, an d ever y one of his acts, shoul d attai n the proper end. Now, though the male semen is superfluous in regard to the preservation of the individual , i t i s nevertheless necessary in regard to th e propagatio n of the species . Other superfluou s things, suc h as excrement, urine , sweat, and such things, are not a t all necessary; hence , thei r emissio n contribute s t o man' s good . Now , thi s i s no t wha t i s sought in the case of semen, but, rather, to emit it for the purpose of generation, to which

359

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

purpose th e sexua l ac t i s directed . Bu t man' s generativ e proces s woul d b e frustrate d unless i t wer e followed b y proper nutrition , because th e offsprin g woul d no t surviv e if proper nutrition were withheld. Therefore, the emission of semen ought to be so ordered that it will result in both the production o f the proper offspring an d in the upbringing of this offspring . XIV.5 It is evident from thi s that every emission of semen, in such a way that generation canno t follow, i s contrary to the good fo r man. And if this be done deliberately, it must be a sin. Now, I am speaking of a way from which , in itself generation could not result ; such would be an y emission o f semen apar t fro m th e natura l unio n o f male and female . Fo r which reason, sins of this type are called contrary t o nature. But, if by accident generatio n canno t result from th e emission of semen, then this is not a reason for it being against nature , o r a sin ; as for instance , if the woma n happen s t o b e sterile. XIV.6 Likewise, i t mus t als o be contrar y to th e goo d fo r ma n i f the seme n b e emitte d unde r conditions suc h tha t generatio n coul d resul t bu t th e prope r upbringin g woul d b e prevented. We should tak e into consideratio n th e fac t that , among some animal s where the femal e i s able t o tak e car e o f the upbringin g o f offspring, mal e an d femal e do no t remain together fo r any time afte r th e ac t o f generation. Thi s i s obviously the cas e with dogs. Bu t i n th e cas e o f animal s o f whic h th e femal e i s no t abl e t o provid e fo r th e upbringing of offspring, th e male and femal e d o stay together after th e ac t of generation as long as is necessary for the upbringin g and instructio n o f the offspring . Example s are found amon g certai n specie s o f bird s whos e youn g ar e no t abl e t o see k ou t foo d fo r themselves immediately afte r hatching . In fact , sinc e a bird doe s no t nouris h it s youn g with milk , mad e available by nature a s it were, as occurs in the cas e of quadrupeds, bu t the bird must look elsewhere for food fo r its young, and since besides this it must protec t them by sitting o n them , the femal e i s not abl e t o d o thi s by herself. So , as a result o f divine providence, there is naturally implanted in the male of these animals a tendency to remain with the female in order to bring up the young. Now, it is abundantly evident that the femal e i n th e huma n specie s i s no t a t al l abl e t o tak e car e o f th e upbringin g o f offspring b y herself, since the needs of human lif e demand many things which cannot b e provided by one person alone. Therefore, i t is appropriate to human natur e that a man remain together with a woman afte r th e generative act, and not leav e her immediately to have such relation s with anothe r woman, as is the practic e wit h fornicators . XIV.7 Nor, indeed, is the fac t tha t a woman may be able by means of her own wealth to care for the child by herself an obstacle to thi s argument. For natural rectitude i n human act s is not dependen t o n things accidentally possible i n the cas e of one individual, but , rather , on thos e condition s whic h accompany the entire species . XIV.8 Again, w e mus t conside r tha t i n th e huma n specie s offsprin g requir e no t onl y nourishment for the body, as in the case of other animals, but als o education for the soul . For othe r animal s naturall y posses s thei r ow n kind s o f prudenc e whereb y the y ar e 360

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

enabled to tak e care of themselves. But a man live s by reason, which he must develop by lengthy, temporal experience s o that he may achieve prudence. Hence, children mus t be instructed b y parents who ar e already experienced people . No r ar e they able to receive such instruction as soon a s they are born, bu t afte r a long time, and especiall y after the y have reached the ag e of discretion. Moreover , a long time is needed fo r this instruction. Then, too, because of the impulsion of the passions, through which prudent judgment is vitiated, they require not merel y instruction but correction . Now, a woman alone i s not adequate t o thi s task ; rather, thi s demand s th e wor k o f a husband, i n who m reaso n i s more develope d fo r givin g instructio n an d strengt h i s mor e availabl e fo r givin g punishment. Therefore, in the human species, it is not enough, as in the case of birds, to devote a smal l amoun t o f tim e t o bringin g u p offspring , fo r a lon g perio d o f lif e i s required. Hence , since among al l animals it i s necessary for mal e and femal e t o remain together as long as the wor k of the fathe r i s needed b y the offspring , i t is natural to th e human being for the man to establish a lasting association with a designated woman, over no shor t perio d o f time. Now , we call this societ y matrimony. Therefore, matrimony is natural fo r man, and promiscuou s performance of the sexua l act, outside matrimony, is contrary to man' s good. Fo r this reason, i t mus t be a sin. XIV.9 Nor, i n fact , shoul d i t be deemed a slight si n fo r a man t o arrang e fo r th e emissio n o f semen apar t fro m th e prope r purpos e o f generatin g and bringin g u p children , o n th e argument that it is either a slight sin, or none at all, for a person to use a part of the body for a different us e than that to which it is directed by nature (say, for instance, one chose to wal k o n hi s hands , o r t o us e hi s fee t fo r somethin g usuall y don e wit h th e hands ) because man' s goo d i s no t muc h oppose d b y suc h inordinat e use . However , th e inordinate emissio n o f seme n i s incompatibl e wit h th e natura l good ; namely , th e preservation o f the species . Hence , afte r th e si n o f homicide whereb y a huma n natur e already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take next place, fo r by it th e generation o f human natur e is precluded .

XIV. 10 Moreover, these views which have just been given have a solid basi s in divine authority. That the emission o f semen under conditions in which offspring canno t follo w is illicit is quite clear. There is the tex t o f Leviticus [18.22-3] : 'thou shalt no t li e with mankin d as with womankind .. . and thou shal t no t copulat e with an y beast'. And in 1 Corinthians [6.10]: 'Nor the effeminate, no r Hers with mankind ... shall possess the kingdom of God.' XIV. 11 Also, tha t fornicatio n and ever y performance of the ac t o f reproductio n wit h a perso n other than one's wife are illicit is evident. For it is said: 'There shall be no whore among the daughters of Israel, nor whoremonger among the sons of Israel' [Deut . 23.17]; and in Tobias [4.13] : 'Take heed t o kee p thyself from al l fornication, and besid e thy wif e never endure to kno w a crime'; and in 1 Corinthians [6.18] : 'Fly fornication. ' 361

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S XI V.I 2

By this conclusion w e refute th e erro r o f those wh o sa y that ther e is no mor e si n in th e emission o f semen than in the emission o f any other superfluous matter, and also of those who stat e that fornicatio n is not a sin. That matrimony should be indivisible XI V.I 3 If one will make a proper consideration , th e precedin g reasoning will be seen to lea d t o the conclusion not onl y that the society of man and woman o f the human species, which we call matrimony, should be long-lasting, but eve n that i t should endure throughout a n entire life .

XIV. 14 Indeed, possession s ar e ordered t o th e preservatio n o f natural life, an d sinc e natural life , which cannot be preserved perpetually in the father, is by a sort of succession preserved in the so n i n it s specifi c likeness , i t i s naturally fittin g fo r th e so n t o succee d als o t o th e things which belong to th e father . So , it i s natural that th e father' s solicitud e for his son should endur e unti l th e end of the father's life. Therefore, i f even in the case of birds the solicitude of the father gives rise to the cohabitation of male and female, the natural order demands tha t fathe r an d mothe r i n the huma n specie s remain togethe r unti l th e en d of life. XI V.I 5 It als o seem s t o b e agains t equit y i f the aforesai d societ y b e dissolved . Fo r th e femal e needs the male, not merel y for the sake of generation, as in the case of other animals, but also fo r th e sak e of government , sinc e the mal e i s both mor e perfec t i n reasonin g an d stronger i n hi s powers . I n fact , a woma n i s take n int o man' s societ y fo r th e need s o f generation; then , wit h th e disappearanc e o f a woman' s fecundit y an d beauty , sh e i s prevented fro m associatio n wit h another man. So , if any man took a woman i n the tim e of her youth, when beauty and fecundit y were hers, and the n sent her away after sh e had reached a n advanced age , he would damag e tha t woma n contrar y t o natura l equity . XI V.I 6 Again, it seems obviously inappropriate for a woman to be able to put awa y her husband, because a wife i s naturally subject to he r husban d a s governor, an d i t i s not withi n th e power of a person subject to anothe r t o depar t fro m hi s rule. So, it would be against the natural orde r i f a wife wer e able to abando n he r husband . Therefore , if a husband were permitted t o abando n hi s wife , th e societ y o f husban d an d wif e woul d no t b e a n association o f equals, but, instead , a sort o f slavery on th e par t o f the wife . XI V.I 7 Besides, ther e i s i n me n a certai n natura l solicitud e t o kno w thei r offspring . Thi s i s necessary fo r thi s reason : th e chil d require s th e father' s directio n fo r a lon g time . So , whenever ther e ar e obstacle s t o th e ascertainin g o f offspring the y ar e oppose d t o th e natural instinct of the human species. But, if a husband coul d put awa y his wife, or a wife her husband , an d hav e sexua l relation s wit h anothe r person , certitud e a s to offsprin g would b e precluded , fo r th e wif e woul d b e unite d firs t wit h on e ma n an d late r wit h 362

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

another. So , i t i s contrary to th e natura l instinct o f the huma n specie s for a wif e t o b e separated fro m he r husband . An d thus , th e unio n o f mal e an d femal e i n th e huma n species must be not onl y lasting, but als o unbroken . XIV.18 Furthermore, th e greate r that friendshi p is, the mor e soli d an d long-lastin g will i t be . Now, ther e seems to b e the greates t friendship betwee n husban d an d wife , fo r the y are united not onl y i n the ac t of fleshly union , which produces a certain gentl e associatio n even amon g beasts, but als o in the partnershi p of the whol e range of domestic activity. Consequently, a s an indication o f this, ma n mus t eve n 'leave his father an d mother ' fo r the sake of his wife, as is said in Genesis [2.24]. Therefore, it is fitting for matrimony to be completely indissoluble .

XIV. 19 It should be considered, further , tha t generation is the only natural act that is ordered t o the common good , for eating and the emission of waste matters pertain to the individual good, but generation to the preservation of the species. As a result, since law is established for th e common good , those matters which pertain to generation must, above all others, be ordered by laws, both divin e and human. Now, laws that ar e established shoul d stem from th e promptin g of nature, i f they are human; just as in the demonstrativ e sciences, also, every human discovery takes its origin from naturall y known principles. But, if they are divine laws, they not onl y develop th e prompting of nature but als o supplement th e deficiency o f natural instinct, a s things that ar e divinely revealed surpass the capacit y of human reason . So, since ther e is a natural promptin g within th e human species , to th e end that th e unio n o f man an d wif e be undivided, an d tha t i t be between one man an d one woman, it was necessary for this to be ordered by human law. But divine law supplies a supernatura l reason , draw n fro m th e symbolis m o f th e inseparabl e unio n betwee n Christ and the Church, which is a union of one spouse with another [Eph . 5.24-32]. And thus, disorder s connecte d wit h th e ac t o f generatio n ar e no t onl y oppose d t o natura l instinct, but are also transgressions of divine and human laws. Hence, a greater sin results from a disorder in this area than in regard to the use of food or other things of that kind. XIV.20 Moreover, since it is necessary for all other thing s to b e ordered t o wha t is best in man , the union o f man an d wif e i s not onl y ordered i n this way because it is important to th e generating o f offspring , a s i t i s i n th e cas e o f othe r animals , bu t als o becaus e i t i s i n agreement wit h goo d behaviour , whic h righ t reaso n direct s eithe r i n referenc e t o th e individual ma n i n himself , o r i n regar d t o ma n a s a membe r o f a family , o r o f a civil society. In fact, the undivided union of husband and wife is pertinent to good behaviour. For thus, when they know that they are indivisibly united , the love of one spouse fo r the other will be more faithful . Also , both will be more solicitou s in their car e for domesti c possessions whe n the y keep i n min d tha t the y will remain continuall y in possessio n o f these same things. As a result of this, the source s of disagreements which would have to come u p betwee n a ma n an d hi s wife' s relatives , i f h e coul d pu t awa y hi s wife , ar e removed, and a more solid affection i s established among the relatives. Removed, also, are the occasions for adultery which are presented when a man i s permitted to send away his 363

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

wife, o r th e converse . I n fact , b y this practic e a n easie r wa y of arranging marriag e with those outsid e th e famil y circl e i s provided . XIV.21 Hence i t is said in Matthew [5.31 ] an d i n 1 Corinthians [7.10] : 'But I say to you ... that the wif e depar t no t fro m he r husband. ' XIV.22 By this conclusion, moreover , w e oppose th e custo m o f those who put awa y their wives, though thi s wa s permitted th e Jew s in th e ol d Law , 'by reaso n o f the hardnes s o f thei r hearts' [Matt . 19.8]; that is , because they were ready to kil l their wives. So, the lesse r evil was permitted the m i n orde r t o preven t a greater evil. That matrimony should be between one man and one woman XIV.23 It seems , too , tha t w e shoul d conside r ho w i t i s inbor n i n th e mind s o f al l animal s accustomed t o sexua l reproductio n to allo w n o promiscuity ; hence , fights occur amon g animals over the matte r of sexual reproduction . And , in fact , amon g al l animals ther e is one commo n reason , for ever y animal desire s t o enjo y freel y th e pleasur e o f the sexua l act, a s h e als o doe s th e pleasur e o f food ; bu t thi s libert y i s restricte d b y th e fac t tha t several males may have access to on e female, or the converse. The same situation obtain s in the freedom of enjoying food, for one animal is obstructed i f the food which he desires to ea t i s take n ove r b y anothe r animal . An d so , animal s figh t ove r foo d an d sexua l relations i n the sam e way. But among me n ther e is a special reason , for , as we said, ma n naturally desire s t o kno w hi s offspring , an d thi s knowledg e woul d b e completel y destroyed i f there were several males for one female . Therefore, that on e female is for on e male is a consequence o f natural instinct . XIV.24 But a difference shoul d be noted on this point. As far as the view that one woman shoul d not hav e sexua l relation s wit h severa l me n i s concerned , bot h th e afore-mentione d reasons apply. But , in regard t o th e conclusion tha t on e man shoul d no t hav e relations with several females, the second argumen t does not work, since certainty as to offspring is not preclude d i f one mal e ha s relations with severa l women . Bu t the firs t reaso n work s against this practice, for , just as the freedom of associating with a woman a t will is taken away fro m th e husband , whe n th e woma n ha s anothe r husband , so , too , th e sam e freedom i s taken awa y fro m a woman whe n he r husban d ha s several wive s ... That not all sexual intercourse is sinful XIV.25 Now, just as it is contrary t o reaso n fo r man to perform the act of carnal unio n contrar y to wha t befit s th e generatio n an d upbringin g o f offspring , s o also i s it i n keepin g wit h reason fo r a man t o exercis e th e ac t of carnal unio n in a manner which i s suited t o th e generation an d upbringin g of offspring. Bu t only those things that are opposed t o reaso n are prohibited by divine law , as is evident fro m wha t we said above. So, it is not righ t t o say that ever y act o f carnal unio n i s a sin .

364

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

XIV.26 Again, since bodily organs are the instruments of the soul, the end of each organ is its use, as is the cas e with an y other instrument. Now, the us e of certain bodily organs i s carnal union. So , carnal union i s the en d o f certain bodily organs. But that which is the en d of certain natura l thing s canno t b e evi l i n itself , becaus e thing s tha t exis t naturall y ar e ordered t o thei r en d b y divin e providence , a s i s plai n fro m wha t wa s sai d above . Therefore, i t i s impossible fo r carna l union t o b e evi l in itself . XIV.27 Besides, natural inclinations ar e present i n things from God , Who move s all things. So, it is impossible fo r the natural inclination of a species to be toward what is evil in itself. But there i s in al l perfect animal s a natural inclinatio n towar d carna l union. Therefore , it is impossible for carnal unio n to b e evil i n itself . XIV.28 Moreover, that without which a thing cannot be what is good and best is not evi l in itself. But the perpetuation o f the species can only be preserved in animals by generation, which is the resul t o f carnal union . So , it i s impossible fo r carna l union t o b e evi l in itself . XIV.29 Hence i t i s said i n 1 Corinthians [7.28] : 'if a virgin marry, she hath no t sinned' . XIV.30 Now, this disposes of the error of those who say that every act of carnal union is illicit, as a consequenc e o f whic h vie w the y entirel y condem n matrimon y an d marriag e arrangements. I n fact , som e o f thes e peopl e sa y this becaus e the y believ e tha t bodil y things arise, not fro m a good, bu t fro m a n evil , source. CRITIQUEE Because of their particula r influenc e upo n present-da y Roman Catholic mora l theology , it is important to subject Aquinas' views on sexuality and marriage to critical attention. It may b e anachronisti c t o accus e hi m o f propagatin g damagin g sexua l stereotype s o r restrictive notion s of the rol e of sexual intercourse , bu t i t is still importan t to asses s his overall arguments . Positively, hi s writing s o n sexua l issue s offe r muc h mora l sense . I n a mor e technological age , i t i s easier t o mis s the obviou s fac t that , whateve r other function s it performs, human sexuality does have a primary function i n reproduction. Further, within a Christian context, the upbringing of children in the most responsible manner remains a primary dut y fo r al l Christia n parents . Mos t Christian s migh t agre e tha t th e monogamous, exclusiv e famil y remain s th e mos t responsibl e contex t i n whic h t o carr y out thi s duty . Sexualit y ofte n doe s entai l procreatio n an d procreatio n shoul d involv e responsible upbringing . Further, there is obvious sense in Aquinas' notion o f sexual sin. Not onl y di d h e insis t tha t th e sexua l act , o r th e desir e tha t lead s t o thi s act , i s no t inherently sinful , bu t h e als o maintaine d that : 'Ever y ac t o f si n proceed s fro m a n inordinate cravin g afte r som e tempora l good . Thi s agai n proceed s fro m a n inordinat e love of self, for to love anyone is to wish him good . Therefore inordinate love of self is the cause of all sin' (S.T . I.II.Q.77 , Art.4) .

365

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

Negatively, his arguments illustrate some of the most crucia l weaknesses of natural law arguments. Man y o f th e assumption s tha t Aquina s mad e abou t sexualit y an d sexua l differentiation wil l appea r t o present-da y reader s a s owin g mor e t o custo m an d convention tha n t o natura l law. Fo r example, h e could assum e tha t homosexuality and homosexual inclination s wer e indee d 'unnatural ' an d th e consequenc e o f si n o r distortion. T o man y toda y thi s i s not s o clear ; whateve r th e comple x determinant s o f homosexuality migh t be , a homosexua l predispositio n i s ofte n considere d t o b e th e 'nature' o f some . Further , non-procreative , nocturna l emission s o f semen, infertilit y a t certain point s in the menstrual cycle , and abortions in the form o f non-implantations or miscarriages, al l happe n spontaneousl y an d frequentl y an d thu s migh t b e regarde d a s 'natural'. Th e very notion o f 'th e natural ' i n thi s are a o f sexualit y seems t o encourag e value judgements from it s supposedly neutra l users. Aquinas was no exception . Supposing a natura l la w theor y o f huma n sexualit y coul d b e establishe d (i t i s surprisingly prevalen t i n popular , secula r discussion s o f sexual morality) , i t woul d stil l face problems. Even if it is conceded that procreation i s the obvious function o f sexuality, it i s far fro m clea r that i t shoul d b e th e only , o r th e indispensable , functio n o f huma n sexuality (this point will be made furthe r i n relation t o Extract 29). Further, on Aquinas' own argumen t (XIV.5) , if a couple knows that on e o f them i s spontaneously sterile , ar e they o n tha t accoun t t o refrai n fro m al l furthe r sexua l intercourse ? Man y argu e that , particularly today in an overcrowded world, it would be irresponsible and unrealisti c to restrict the function o f sexual intercourse to reproduction an d to proscribe i t outside this function. An d fe w Roman Catholic s today migh t accep t th e argumen t tha t precludin g 'the generatio n o f huma n life ' (a s i n th e us e o f contraceptives ) i s aki n t o 'homicide ' (XIV.9). But , even i n th e contex t o f thirteenth-century Europe , Aquinas ' logi c wa s stil l faulty: t o deriv e a n exclusiv e mora l prescriptio n fro m a n empirica l observatio n o f function wa s seemingly to commi t a category error. Wit h th e benefi t o f hindsight, i t is often argue d (a s in Kiing' s Extract 26) that i t ha s been a particularly troublesome erro r for man y present-day Roman Catholics .

366

TEXT XV LUTHER On the Jews and their lies 1. BACKGROUND This Text comes fro m O n th e Jews an d Their Lies of 154 3 (from Luther's Works, Vol . 47, Fortress Press , Philadelphia , 1971 , pp . 137-42 , trans. Marti n H . Bertram) . Thi s virulen t treatise, written thre e years before Luther's death, wa s unavailable in English translation until 197 1 and i s reproduced her e onl y afte r considerabl e hesitation. Luthe r was always capable o f violent swing s of mood - a s can be seen by comparing hi s two letters t o the rebellious Germa n peasant s i n 152 5 (see above, p. 214 ) - bu t non e i s more startlin g or shocking than tha t represente d here . The swin g can b e see n most full y i f this treatis e is compared wit h his treatise o f 1523 , That Jesus Christ Wa s Born a Jew. There h e criticize d the Roman Church for its crude attacks upon the Jews : 'They have dealt with the Jew s as if they were dogs rather than huma n beings ; they have done littl e els e than derid e them and seize d thei r property ' (Luther's Works, Vol . 45 , p . 200) . I n contrast , Luthe r maintained th e followin g position : If the Jew should take offenc e becaus e w e confess our Jesu s to be a man, an d yet tru e God, we will deal forcefully wit h that fro m Scriptur e in due time. But this is too hars h for a beginning. Let them first be suckled with milk, and begin by recognising this man Jesus as the true Messiah; afte r that they may drink wine, an d learn also that he is true God. Fo r they have been le d astray so long an d s o far that on e mus t dea l gently with them ... So long as we thus treat them like dogs, how can we expect to work any good among them ? ... If we really wan t t o hel p them , we must b e guided i n our dealing s with them not by papal law but by the law of Christian love ... If some of them shoul d prove stiff-necked, wha t of it? After all , we ourselves are not al l good Christian s either, (p. 229) The tone is evidently patronizing but no t virulent. A number of Luther's contemporaries were dismaye d b y the late r work , althoug h fortunatel y i t sold fa r fewe r copie s tha n th e 1523 treatise. Luther wrote the 154 3 treatise in response to a Jewish apologetic pamphlet . In the first section (whic h starts with this Text) he examined the 'false boasts' of the Jews; in th e secon d h e examine d a number o f key biblical texts ; in th e thir d h e returne d t o specific and , o f course, much exaggerated, criticisms of the Jews ; and i n the final section he advised th e authoritie s t o le t Jewish synagogues and house s b e burnt an d t o depriv e them o f their prayer books and mean s o f making a living : I wis h an d I as k tha t ou r ruler s wh o hav e Jewis h subject s exercis e a shar p merc y 367

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

towards thes e wretche d peopl e ... the y mus t ac t lik e a goo d physicia n who , whe n gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut , saw, and bur n flesh , veins , bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid al l that I enumerated earlier , force them to work , and dea l harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish ... If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partaker s of thei r abominabl e blasphem y and al l their othe r vice s and thu s merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his . I am exonerated . (Luther's Works, Vol . 47, p. 292) 2. KE Y ISSUES Luther was convinced by the time that h e wrote this Text tha t Jew s are too Venomous' , 'embittered' an d 'blind ' t o b e converted int o Christian s and that , a s a result, Christians should no t troubl e themselves t o argu e with the m (XV . 1-8). Furthermore , their prou d boasts about being descended fro m th e patriarchs and of being a holy people (in contrast with 'we Gentiles') are simply 'stupid folly' (XV.10-12) . They even boast and thank God that they are male rather than female - jus t as Plato did (XV.12). Both the Old Testament prophets an d Jesu s and Joh n the Baptis t condemned th e Jew s for thei r prid e (XV . 13). Indeed, i f the Jewis h Messia h di d come , the y would reject , blasphem e an d crucif y hi m (XV.14-15). 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS There i s an overal l deontologica l basi s t o Luther' s attack upo n Jew s (cf . Text VI) . He labelled th e Jew s a s 'miserabl e an d accursed ' (XV . 1), 'embittered , venomous , blind ' (XV.8) 'raving , mad , an d stupid ' (XV.12 ) and 'arrogant ' an d guilt y of'pride' (XV.13) . These rhetorica l labels or pejorativ e stereotypes are applied sweepingl y (as are al l racist notions) t o Jews as a whole and, of themselves, ar e thought sufficien t t o condemn them. More consequentially , Luthe r also maintaine d tha t 'th e terribl e distres s tha t ha s bee n theirs fo r ove r fourtee n hundre d year s i n exile ' (XV.4 ) wa s als o evidenc e o f thei r condemnation. 4. BASES O F CHRISTIAN ETHICS This Tex t illustrate s how secula r and religiou s anti-Semitis m are ofte n interconnected . Luther regarded the Bibl e as confirming his general condemnation o f Jews. Ignoring the obvious Jewish context of the Bibl e and, indeed, th e saying s of Jesus, he applied notion s like that o f the 'broo d o f vipers' an d th e 'devil' s children' to contemporar y Jews. In his earlier treatise he had reminded his readers 'that Jesus Christ was born a Jew', but i n this Text Jesus is depicted simply as condemning all Jews. There is also a doctrinal basis to th e anti-Semitism o f Luthe r an d o f man y o f hi s contemporaries . Fo r them , th e Je w represented a permanent symbol of unredemption. Alon g with 'heretics' and 'apostates', they ha d bee n confronte d b y Christ , bu t ha d rejecte d hi m an d ha d remaine d unconverted: al l three group s wer e essentiall y unredeeme d 'blasphemers ' upholdin g an anti-Christian religio n (cf . Aquinas, p. 128 , above). 5. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS By th e sixteent h century , anti-Semitis m wa s deepl y embedde d i n Europea n culture . Despite th e relativel y small number o f Jew s actuall y living in Europ e a t th e time , the y 368

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIPS

were frequently treated as scapegoats fo r sexual crimes , fo r plagues an d eve n fo r natura l disasters. I n th e 1490 s the y wer e drive n fro m Spai n an d Portuga l an d wer e ofte n th e object o f discriminatio n i n Luther' s Germany . Th e statue s o f th e virtuous , virginal , triumphant Churc h an d th e blinded , licentious , defeate d Synagogu e outside Strasbour g Cathedral typif y medieva l attitude s towards Jews. Nonetheless, since the virulence of On the Jews an d Their Lies shocke d eve n som e o f Luther' s contemporar y Reformers , i t requires additiona l explanation . Ther e i s still debat e abou t whethe r Luthe r wa s always inclined t o b e anti-Semitic , an d merel y disguise d thi s fo r tactica l reason s i n That Jesus Christ Wa s Bom a Jew, or whether he became more embittered i n old age. Gordon Rupp argues for this secon d position : We remember th e contex t o f the las t five years of Luther's life. They were clouded b y many physical ills . In these writings, h e refers to his gall-stones and to bleeding ulcers , while the sigh t o f one ey e was impaired an d h e had a disease o f the middl e ea r and , probably, angin a .. . Ancient foe s wer e o n th e wing . The Counte r Reformatio n was under way , an d a grea t Papa l Counci l ha d bee n summone d a t last . Fo r twenty-five years th e Empero r ha d bee n unabl e t o driv e hom e tha t Edic t o f Worms whic h ha d declared Luthe r a n outlaw . I n hi s las t days , Luthe r wa s awar e tha t armie s wer e gathering ... So like an old lion, he roared, h e bared his teeth and turned at bay against them all . (Martin Luther and th e Jews, 1972 , p. 16 ) In addition , a s Rup p point s out , Luther' s wif e appear s t o hav e been eve n mor e anti Semitic than h e was and ma y have influenced his later views. On a journey in 1546 , h e wrote to her: 'My poor old darling, I was taken fain t before Eiselben. My fault, but i f you had been her e you would hav e blamed i t on the Jews ... when we have settled our mai n business I must do something about those Jews - Coun t Albert is for it, but nobody doe s anything, an d I shal l hav e to giv e him a wor d o f suppor t fro m th e pulpit ' ( Weimarer Ausgabe, Br. II, 286.1) . 6. SOCIAL

SIGNIFICANCE

Even thoug h O n th e Jews an d Their Lies di d no t itsel f circulat e widely , it s socia l significance mus t b e assesse d togethe r wit h othe r expression s o f medieva l an d post medieval anti-Semitism b y Christians. Whereas it may not be possible to establish a direct causal relationshi p betwee n the m an d twentieth-centur y Naz i atrocitie s (particularl y since Naz i ideology was, i n part , explicitl y anti-Christian), th e persistenc e o f European anti-Semitism i s no w widel y see n a s connecte d wit h certai n Christia n attitude s an d convictions. Within recent years , a number o f sociologists have tried to assess whether o r not ther e i s a causa l relationshi p betwee n present-da y Christia n attitude s an d anti Semitism. On e o f th e mos t celebrate d studies , b y Charle s Cloc k an d Rodne y Stark , concludes: We hav e searche d fo r a religiou s basi s fo r anti-Semitism . I t wa s suggeste d tha t commitment t o traditiona l Christia n ideolog y predispose d person s t o adop t a particularistic conceptio n o f religiou s legitimacy , narrowl y t o conside r thei r ow n religious statu s a s the onl y acceptabl e faith . Thes e feature s o f Christianit y wer e then linked wit h historica l image s o f th e Jew s a s apostate s fro m tru e fait h an d a s th e crucifiers o f Jesus . Subsequentl y i t wa s show n tha t orthodoxy , particularism , an d a 369

A TEXTBOOK OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

negative imag e o f th e histori c Jew , combined wit h a rejectio n o f value s o f religiou s libertarianism, overwhelmingly predicted a hostile religious image of the contemporary Jew. (Christian Beliefs an d Anti-Semitism, 1966 , p . 130 ) FURTHER READING E. Gordon Rupp' s Rober t Wale y Cohe n Memoria l Lectur e to th e Counci l o f Christians and Jews , Martin Luther and th e Jews (1972) , contains a full discussio n o f all of the mai n Luther Text s o n th e Jews . There i s also a n importan t introductio n t o O n Th e Jews an d Their Lies i n Luther's Works, Vol . 47 . A n excellent , critica l revie w o f th e considerabl e amount o f sociologica l researc h tha t ha s bee n conducte d (mainl y i n America ) o n a possible causa l relationship betwee n Christianit y and anti-Semitism/racia l prejudice is by R. L . Gorsuc h an d A . Aleshir e 'Christia n Fait h an d Prejudice : Revie w o f Research' , Journal for th e Scientific Study o f Religion (Sept . 1974 , 13.3) . Th e articl e i s less confident than Cloc k an d Star k abou t bein g abl e t o establis h a causa l relationship . Importan t theological an d historica l discussion s o f Christianity and anti-Semitis m ca n be found in Gregory Baum' s Th e Jews an d th e Gospel (1975 ) an d Religion an d Alienation (1975) , Rosemary Ruether' s Faith an d Fratricide (1974 ) an d Charlott e Klein' s Anti-Judaism i n Christian Theology (1978) .

TEXT XV LUTHER On the Jews and their lies XV. 1 I ha d mad e up m y mind t o writ e n o mor e eithe r abou t th e Jew s or agains t them . But since I learne d tha t thes e miserabl e an d accurse d peopl e d o no t ceas e t o lur e t o themselves eve n us , tha t is , th e Christians , I hav e publishe d thi s littl e book , s o tha t I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews and who warned the Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a Christian coul d b e dupe d b y th e Jew s int o takin g thei r exil e an d wretchednes s upo n himself. However, the devil is the god of the world, and wherever God's word i s absent he has a n eas y task, no t onl y wit h th e wea k bu t als o wit h th e strong . Ma y Go d hel p us . Amen.

XV.2 Grace and peac e in the Lord . Dear sir a good friend , I have received a treatise in which a Jew engage s i n dialogu e wit h a Christian . H e dare s t o perver t th e scriptura l passage s which w e cit e i n testimony t o ou r faith , concernin g ou r Lor d Chris t an d Mar y hi s mother, an d t o interpre t the m quit e differently . Wit h thi s argumen t h e think s h e ca n destroy the basi s o f our faith . XV.3 This i s my reply to you and to him. I t is not my purpose to quarrel with the Jews, nor t o learn fro m the m ho w they interpret o r understand Scripture ; I know all of that very well already. Muc h les s d o I propos e t o conver t th e Jews , for tha t i s impossible. Thos e tw o 370

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIPS

excellent men, Lyra and Burgensis, together with others, truthfully described the Jews' vile interpretation fo r us two hundre d an d on e hundre d year s ago respectively. Indeed the y refuted i t thoroughly. However , this was no help at all to th e Jews, and the y have grown steadily worse.

XV.4 They have failed to learn any lesson fro m th e terrible distress that has been theirs for over fourteen hundre d year s in exile. Nor can they obtain any end or definite terminus of this, as they suppose, by means of the vehement crie s and lament s to God . If these blows d o not help , i t i s reasonable t o assum e that ou r talkin g and explainin g will help eve n less. XV.5 Therefore a Christian shoul d be content an d no t argu e with the Jews. But if you have to or want to talk with them, do not say any more than this: 'Listen, Jew, are you aware that Jerusalem an d you r sovereignty , togethe r wit h you r templ e an d priesthood , hav e bee n destroyed fo r over 1,46 0 years?' For this year, which we Christians write as the yea r 154 2 since th e birt h o f Christ , i s exactl y 1,46 8 years , goin g o n fiftee n hundre d years , since Vespasian and Titus destroyed Jerusalem and expelled the Jews from th e city. Let the Jews bite o n thi s nu t an d disput e thi s question a s long a s they wish. XV.6 For such ruthless wrath of God i s sufficient evidenc e that the y assuredly have erred an d gone astray. Even a child ca n comprehend this . For one dare not regar d God as so cruel that he would punish his own people so long, so terribly, so unmercifully, and in additio n keep silent, comforting them neither with words nor with deeds, and fixing no time limit and no end to it. Who would have faith, hope, or love toward suc h a God? Therefore this work of wrath is proof that the Jews, surely rejected by God, are no longer his people, and neither is he any longer their God. This is in accord with Hosea 1 [.9], 'Call his name Not my people, for you are not m y people and I am not you r God.' Yes, unfortunately, this is their lot, truly a terrible one. They may interpret this as they will; we see the fact s befor e our eyes , and thes e do no t deceiv e us. XV.7 If there wer e but a spark of reason o r understandin g i n them , the y would surel y say to themselves: 'O Lord God, something has gone wrong with us. Our misery is too great, too long, too severe; God has forgotten us!' etc. To be sure, I am not a Jew, but I really do no t like t o contemplat e God' s awfu l wrat h towar d thi s people . I t send s a shudde r o f fea r through bod y an d soul , fo r I ask , Wha t wil l th e eterna l wrat h o f Go d i n hel l b e lik e toward fals e Christian s an d al l unbelievers? Well, le t th e Jew s regar d ou r Lor d Jesus as they will. We behold th e fulfilment o f the words spoken by him i n Luke 21 [.20, 22f]: 'But when you se e Jerusalem surrounded b y armies, then kno w tha t it s desolation ha s com e near ... for these ar e days of vengeance. Fo r great distres s shal l be upo n th e eart h an d wrath upo n thi s people.' XV.8 In short , a s has alread y bee n said , d o no t engag e muc h i n debat e wit h Jew s abou t th e articles of our faith . From their youth they have been so nurtured with venom and rancor 371

A TEXTBOOK OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

against our Lord that there is no hope until they reach the point where their misery finally makes them pliable and they are forced to confess that the Messiah has come, and that he is our Jesus . Until such a time it i s much too early , yes, it i s useless to argu e with the m about how God is triune, how he became man, and how Mary is the mother of God. No human reaso n no r an y huma n hear t wil l eve r gran t thes e things , muc h les s th e embittered, venomous , blin d hear t o f th e Jews . A s ha s alread y bee n said , wha t Go d cannot refor m with such cruel blows, we will be unable to change with words and works. Moses was unable to reform the Pharaoh by means of plagues, miracles, pleas, or threats ; he had t o le t him drow n i n th e sea.

XV.9 Now, in order to strengthen our faith , we want to deal with a few crass follies o f the Jew s in thei r belie f an d thei r exegesi s o f the Scriptures , sinc e the y s o maliciously revil e ou r faith. I f this should mov e any Jew to refor m an d repent , so much the better. We are now not talking with the Jews but abou t the Jews and their dealings, so that our Germans, too , might b e informed. XV.10 There i s one thin g abou t whic h they boast an d prid e themselve s beyond measure , an d that i s their descen t fro m th e foremos t peopl e o n earth , fro m Abraham , Sarah , Isaac , Rebekah, Jacob, and fro m th e twelve patriarchs, and thu s from th e hol y people o f Israel. St Pau l himsel f admit s thi s when h e say s i n Roman s 9[.5] : Quorum patres, that is , 'To them belon g th e patriarchs , an d o f thei r rac e i s th e Christ, ' etc . An d Chris t himsel f declares i n Joh n 4[.22] , 'Salvatio n i s fro m th e Jews. ' Therefor e the y boast o f being th e noblest, yes, the onl y noble people on earth . I n compariso n wit h them an d i n their eyes we Gentile s (Goyim) ar e no t human ; i n fac t w e hardl y deserv e t o b e considere d poo r worms by them. For we are not of that high and noble blood, lineage, birth, and descent . This is their argument, and indee d I think it is the greatest and stronges t reaso n fo r their pride and boasting. XV. 11 Therefore, Go d ha s t o endur e that i n thei r synagogues , thei r prayers , songs, doctrines , and thei r whole life, they come and stand before him an d plague him grievousl y (if I may speak o f God i n suc h a huma n fashion) . Thu s h e mus t liste n t o thei r boast s an d thei r praises t o hi m fo r settin g the m apar t fro m th e Gentiles , fo r letting the m b e descended from th e hol y patriarchs, and fo r selecting them t o b e his holy and peculia r people, etc . And ther e is no limi t and n o en d to thi s boasting abou t thei r descent an d thei r physical birth from the fathers. XV. 12 And t o fill the measure of their raving, mad, an d stupi d folly , the y boast an d the y thank God, in the first place, because they were created as human beings and no t a s animals; in the second place, becaus e the y are Israelites an d not Goyim (Gentiles); i n the third plac e because the y wer e create d a s male s an d no t a s females . The y di d no t lear n suc h tomfoolery fro m Israel , bu t fro m th e Goyim. Fo r histor y record s tha t th e Gree k Plat o daily accorded God such praise and thanksgiving - i f such arrogance and blasphemy may be termed praise of God. This man, too, praised his gods for these three items: that he was 372

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

a human bein g and not an animal; a male and not a female; a Greek and not a non-Greek or barbarian . Thi s i s a fool' s boast , th e gratitud e o f a barbarian wh o blaspheme s God ! Similarly, the Italians fancy themselves the only human beings; they imagine that all other people i n the worl d ar e non-humans, mer e ducks or mic e by comparison .

XV. 13 No one ca n take awa y from the m thei r prid e concernin g thei r bloo d an d thei r descen t from Israel. In the Old Testament the y lost many a battle in wars over this matter, though no Jew understands this . All the prophets censure d them fo r it, for it betrays an arrogant, carnal presumption devoi d o f spirit an d o f faith. They were also slain and persecute d for this reason. S t John the Baptis t took the m t o tas k severely because of it, saying, 'Do no t presume t o sa y to yourselves , "W e hav e Abraham for ou r father; " fo r I tell you, Go d is able from thes e stones to raise up children t o Abraham' (Matt. 3.9) . H e did not call the m Abraham's children, but a 'brood of vipers' (Matt . 3.7). Oh, that was too insulting for the noble bloo d an d rac e of Israel, and the y declared, 'H e has a demon' (Matt . 11.18) . Ou r Lord also calls them a 'brood of vipers;' furthermore, in John 8[.39, 44] he states: 'If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did ... You are of your father th e devil.' I t wa s intolerable t o the m t o hea r tha t the y were not Abraham' s bu t th e devil' s children, nor ca n they bea r t o hea r thi s today. If they shoul d surrende r thi s boas t an d argument, thei r whol e system which is built o n i t would toppl e an d change . XV. 14 I hol d tha t i f their Messiah , for whom the y hope, shoul d com e an d d o awa y with thei r boast an d it s basis they would crucif y an d blasphem e hi m seve n times worse tha n the y did ou r Messiah ; an d the y woul d als o sa y that h e wa s no t th e tru e Messiah , bu t a deceiving devil. For they have portrayed thei r Messia h to themselve s a s one who woul d strengthen an d increas e such carna l an d arrogan t erro r regardin g nobility o f blood an d lineage. That is the same as saying that he should assis t them in blaspheming God and i n viewing his creatures with disdain, including the women, who are also human beings and the imag e o f Go d a s well a s we; moreover, the y ar e ou r ow n fles h an d blood , suc h a s mother, sister, daughter , housewives , etc . Fo r in accordanc e wit h th e afore-mentione d threefold son g of praise, they do not hol d Sara h (as a woman) to be as noble as Abraham (as a man). Perhap s they wish to hono r themselve s for being born hal f noble, of a noble father, an d hal f ignoble , o f a n ignobl e mother . Bu t enoug h o f thi s tomfooler y an d trickery. XV. 15 We propose to discuss their argument and boast an d prove convincingly before Go d and the world - no t before the Jews, for, as already said, they would accept this neither fro m Moses nor from their Messia h himself - tha t thei r argumen t is quite empt y and stands condemned. CRITIQUE The debate abou t whethe r or no t ther e is a causal connection betwee n certain Christian attitudes an d belief s an d th e phenomeno n o f anti-Semitis m i s ye t t o b e resolved . However, i n Luther' s late r writing s ther e i s a clea r connectio n betwee n hi s religiou s convictions, hi s mod e o f biblical exegesi s and hi s appallin g attitudes toward s Jews . Hi s

373

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

convictions an d prejudice s appear mutuall y reinforcing. His growin g intoleranc e o f all but evangelica l Christians, hi s increasin g convictio n tha t Jew s ar e unconvertible , an d therefore unredeemable , hi s penchant for quoting 'anti-Semitic'(!) biblical passages, an d his adoption o f popular stereotypes about Jews , need not b e related to each other i n any single causal sequence. They provide legitimatio n for eac h other . It i s for thi s reaso n tha t a number o f theologians toda y believe that i t i s essential fo r Christians to fin d les s exclusive ways of expressing their fait h tha n wa s often th e cas e in the pas t ( I hav e argued thi s furthe r i n Prophecy an d Praxis, 1981) . I n al l three classica l authors, but especiall y here in Luther, religious intolerance incline d them , o n occasions , to civi l totalitarianism. Rupp' s conclusio n i s judicious: But, as we follow Luther through the years, we find a signal instance of how we become like what w e hate. We se e a growing obstinacy , a hardening o f heart, a withering o f compassion, a proneness to contemptuous abus e - th e very things he thought were the marks of judgment on the Jews ... What if not pur e doctrine, bu t sufferin g b e a hallmark of the Peopl e of God? And if , as Luther thought, Jew and Gentil e may be bound together i n a solidarit y o f guilt , hav e w e perhap s begu n t o understan d wha t i s th e greater solidarit y of promise? May not Je w and Christia n togethe r explor e thi s mor e excellent way, in penitence an d compassion . (Martin Luther and th e Jews, 1972 , p. 22)

374

EXTRACTS 26-32

KUNG, QUAKERS , WARE, PAUL VI, CAHILL, WCC, AN D RUETHER 1. BACKGROUND Hans Kiing' s Extrac t 2 6 come s fro m Han s Kun g an d Walte r Jens , A Dignified Dying? (SCM Press , Londo n an d Continuum , Ne w York, trans. Joh n Bowden , 1995 : original German titl e Menschenwiirdi g Sterben , pp . 24-7 , 37-8 , 114-16 , 116-17 , 118-21) . The Quakers' Extrac t 27 comes from Alastai r Heron (ed.) , Towards a Quaker View o f Sex: A n essay b y a group o f Friends (Friend s Home Servic e Committee, London , revise d version, 1964, pp. 43-8 and 50). Bishop Kallistos Ware's Extract 28 comes from 'Th e Sacrament of Love: Th e Orthodo x Understandin g o f Marriag e an d it s Breakdown' , Th e Downside Review (109: 375, 1991, pp. 79-89) . Pope Paul VI's Extract 29 comes fro m hi s Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae (Catholi c Trut h Society , London , revise d edition , 1970 , pp. 6- 8 and 10-19) . Lis a Sowl e Cahill' s Extrac t 3 0 comes fro m 'Bioethics , Theolog y an d Socia l Change', Journal o f Religious Ethics, 31:3, 2003, pp. 366-71, 378-9 and 385-6. The World Council o f Churches' Extrac t 3 1 comes fro m 'Racis m i n Theology - Theolog y Against Racism', Faith an d Order Commission (WCC, Geneva, 1975 , Part IV) . And Rosemar y Radford Ruether' s Extrac t 3 2 comes fro m Nair n S. Ateek, Marc H. Elli s and Rosemar y Radford Ruethe r (eds), Faith an d th e Intifada: Palestinian Christian Voices (Orbis , 1992, pp. 147-57). Together with a number o f older theologians , suc h as Yves Congar, Kar l Rahne r and Edward Schillebeeckx , the young Hans Kun g challenged th e Roma n Catholi c Bishop s at the Secon d Vatica n Counci l t o adop t a les s authoritarian , les s imperia l an d mor e consensual styl e o f Churc h leadership . Considerabl y influence d b y th e wor k o f Kar l Earth, and appointed to a chair of theology at Tubingen when he was only 32, Kiing had already become a passionate ecumenist and critic of his own Church's lack of attention t o the Bible . His earl y studies ha d als o convince d hi m tha t Luther' s understanding o f th e doctrine o f justificatio n coul d an d shoul d b e incorporate d withi n Roma n Catholi c theology. By the mid-1960 s his books Justification (1957) , Structures of th e Church (1962) and Th e Church (1967 ) were already creating increasing opposition among traditionalis t Roman Catholics. I n 197 0 his book Infallible? challenge d the m directly . I n the 1990 s his books Global Responsibility (1991 ) an d A Global Ethics for Global Politics and Economics (1997) signalled a more global and inter-religiou s phase of his work. In the introductio n to A Dignified Dying? y Han s Kung and his long-standing Tubinge n colleague, the literary critic Walter Jens , wrote: 'Our plea aims to do two things: first, to introduc e a necessary change of awareness in a frontier area which many people fin d oppressive . Secondly , t o lift th e discussio n t o anothe r ethica l level . Her e w e ar e move d b y th e hop e tha t th e question o f ou r responsibilit y fo r ou r ow n dyin g ca n b e discusse d afres h i n a sober , dignified an d morall y seriou s wa y - withou t dogmatis m an d without fundamentalis t reasoning' (p . x). 375

A TEXTBOOK O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

The grou p of Quaker s tha t produce d Towards a Quaker View of Sex included thre e psychiatrists, tw o headmasters , a barrister , a psychologist , a teache r o f educationall y challenged children, a research zoologist and a marriage guidance counsellor. Th e group started t o mee t i n 195 7 as a response t o 'problem s brought b y young Quake r students , faced wit h homosexual difficulties , wh o came to older Friend s for help and guidance': for them i t 'appeared that th e Societ y of Friends a s such had littl e to sa y to peopl e trouble d sexually, an d tha t a t th e sam e tim e man y Friend s wer e i n seriou s doub t whethe r th e Church's traditiona l vie w spok e t o thi s condition ' (firs t edition , p . 5) . Originall y published i n th e sam e yea r a s Joh n Robinson' s Honest t o Go d (SCM, 1963) , i t cause d considerable interes t an d wa s reprinted severa l time s withi n a few months. Bishop Kallisto s War e lecture s i n th e Divinit y Facult y a t Oxfor d Universit y an d i s author o f the semina l Th e Orthodox Church. By 1968, it was widely expected i n the Wes t that Pau l V I woul d see k t o liberaliz e th e officia l Roma n Catholi c position s o n contraception and , possibly , eve n o n abortion . Vatica n I I ha d contribute d t o thes e expectations, a s had a general concern abou t th e overpopulation o f the world. However , after agonizin g ove r th e issue s fo r severa l months, Pau l finally published hi s Encyclical Humanae Vitae, re-enforcing the traditionalis t position s o f Pius XII. Lisa Sowle Cahill is J. Donal d Monan , SJ , Professo r o f Theolog y a t Bosto n College . A Roma n Catholi c feminist theologian , sh e i s th e autho r o f Sex, Gender an d Christian Ethics (1996 ) an d Family: A Christian Social Perspective (2000) . Produced a s a document of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Counci l o f Churches, Extrac t 3 1 shoul d b e se t i n th e contex t o f a n increasin g concer n withi n th e WCC abou t racis m durin g th e 1960 s an d 1970s . Thi s i s well documente d i n Kennet h Sansbury's Combating Racism: The British Churches and th e WCC Programme to Combat Racism (1975). The WCC Uppsala Assembly of 1968 declared that 'Contemporary racism robs all human right s of their meaning, an d i s an imminen t dange r t o world peace. ' The Central Committe e meetin g a t Canterbur y i n 196 9 se t ou t th e fou r aim s o f th e Programme t o Comba t Racism : '(a) t o mobiliz e the churches i n the worldwide struggle against racism ; (b ) to express i n word an d deed solidarity with the racially oppressed; (c) to ai d th e churche s i n educatin g thei r member s fo r racia l justice; (d ) t o facilitat e th e transfer o f resources , huma n an d material , fo r project s an d programme s i n th e field of racial justice.' Thes e fou r aim s ar e clearly reflecte d i n Extrac t 31 . Rosemary Radfor d Ruethe r come s fro m a Roma n Catholi c backgroun d an d i s no w recognized a s one of the leadin g feminis t theologians . Sh e is Georgia Harkness Professor of Theolog y a t Garret-Evangelica l Theologica l Seminar y i n Evanston , Illinois , an d he r many books includ e Liberation Theology (1972 ) and Faith and Fratricide: Th e Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (1974) . She regards feminism as a means to overcome a number of twentieth-century form s o f 'alienation' : 'I n Nazis m th e reactionar y driv e agains t th e libertarian tradition culminated i n a virulent revival of racism, misogynism, elitism, an d military and nationa l chauvinism . It s victims wer e Jews, Communists, Social Democrat s and libertarian s of all kinds - an d finally, the nascent women' s movement ' (Liberation Theology, pp . 117-18) . While Christianity was not actuall y the originato r o f these form s of alienation, i t 'took over this alienated worl d vie w of late classical civilization ' (p. 122) . But now , 'wome n mus t b e th e spokesme n fo r a ne w humanit y arisin g ou t o f th e reconciliation o f spirit an d body ' (p . 124) . Extract 32 comes fro m a collection o f papers from Palestinians , Christian s an d Reforme d Jews on th e Israel/Palestin e issue . 376

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

2. KE Y ISSUES Kung i s aware that 'activ e help i n dying ' [i n the for m o f either voluntar y euthanasi a o r physician-assisted suicide] is often opposed by Christians (26.1-2) . However, the death of his brothe r ha s influence d hi m t o questio n thi s oppositio n (26.3-4) . H e set s ou t th e traditional theologica l arguments against assisted dying in order t o refut e the m (26.5-6) , while distinguishin g his own position from that of the secula r philosophe r Pete r Singe r (26.7). H e the n propose s a 'middl e way ' base d upo n compassio n an d persona l responsibility (26.8-9) and contrasts this sharply with what he sees as Pope John Paul II's 'rigorism' (26.10-22). Fo r Kung, Christian fait h tha t 'everything is not ove r with death' is finally consonant wit h assiste d dyin g (26.23-4) . The equally radical Quaker Group's approac h is also close to that o f Fletcher's Extract 4. Throughout th e report the argument is against what is seen as the traditional, codified , prescriptive approach o f the 'organized churches'. Thi s latter approac h ha s been tainte d by a literalistic understanding o f the Ada m and Ev e myth, viewing sexual intercours e as inherently sinful (27.1-8) . In rejecting this approach, it is maintained tha t sexual activity is essentially neithe r goo d no r bad : i t can be indulged i n destructively o r constructivel y (27.9). Fo r neithe r homosexual s no r heterosexual s ca n lov e b e codifie d (27.11-12) . Positively, some form o f morality is essential, sinc e all acts have an impact upon society; marriage an d famil y lif e shoul d b e preserved , a t leas t t o provid e a lovin g contex t fo r children; and sexual exploitation o f any sort is sin (27.14). Morality should be creative, as God i s creative , an d shoul d b e grounde d i n persona l experienc e rathe r tha n i n som e external authorit y (27.16-19) . To avoi d misinterpretation , th e Grou p insist s that, a t a n individual level , the traditional Christia n cod e can be enriching if it comes from the heart and that this approach should no t be seen as a justification o f permissiveness or of sexual exploitation (27.20-2) . Ware set s ou t t o depic t th e distinctiv e Easter n Orthodo x understanding o f marriag e and divorce . Orthodo x marriag e i s see n a s a relationa l ico n o f th e Trinit y an d a s a sacrament, ye t paradoxicall y i t ca n als o b e dissolve d (28.1-2) . Viewe d a s a sacrament , Orthodox marriages were originally set in the context of the Eucharist, but toda y this link is often overlooke d (28.3-7) . Orthodox marriag e stresse s mutual love more tha n child bearing and does so in non-contractual term s (28.8-12). Orthodox wedding s contain n o formal mutua l vows : i t i s th e priest , no t th e couple , wh o administer s thi s sacramen t (28.13-14). The distinctive crownin g ceremon y o f Orthodox weddings emphasize s tha t marriage is a 'mystery', that i t is a joyful transfiguration , and tha t i t may involve sacrific e (28.15-18). Fo r th e Orthodox , marriag e i s eternal , ye t i t ca n b e dissolve d (28.19-23) . Ware argue s tha t thi s i s possible becaus e i t i s the Churc h tha t i s entrusted bot h wit h administering th e sacramen t o f marriag e an d wit h permittin g remarriag e i n certai n specified circumstance s (28.24—7) . For the Orthodox, a church divorce, and no t simpl y a civil divorce , i s require d (28.28) . Ther e i s als o a differen t liturg y fo r secon d an d subsequent marriage s which includes penitentia l prayer s (28.29-30) . Paul V I prescribe s a continuit y betwee n th e physica l an d th e spiritua l i n sexuality . While stressing that sexua l activity is 'honourable and good ' (29.24) , he argues that, i f it involves th e 'direc t interruptio n o f th e generativ e process' , i t thereb y become s sinfu l (29.28). All sexual intercourse mus t allo w both it s unitiv e an d procreativ e functions t o operate. I t i s o n thi s principl e tha t bot h induce d abortio n an d certai n form s o f contraception are condemned. He is aware of the population explosion and the change d

377

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

economic structure of the present-day world (29.1-3) and that this has led many to argue for a n acceptance of medicinal contraception (29.4-6). He argues that marital love is fully human an d shoul d b e total , faithfu l an d creativ e (29.10-17) . Within marriage , responsible parenthoo d require s couple s t o recogniz e tha t the y hav e dutie s toward s God, t o themselves , to thei r familie s an d t o huma n societ y (29.18-22) an d tha t on e of these dutie s - base d upo n natura l la w -involve s obedienc e to the principle of always allowing bot h o f th e function s o f sexua l intercours e t o operat e (29.23-4) . Sexua l intercourse whic h i s deliberately contraceptive , direc t sterilization an d induced abortion are al l intrinsicall y wron g (29.27-31) . Spacin g births , fo r goo d reasons , b y takin g advantage of a woman's natura l cycles is allowable, since this is indeed natura l and doe s not temp t peopl e to marita l infidelity o r allow abuse by governments (29.34-8). Paul VI is aware that thi s position wil l not b e acceptable to all , but stil l insists that th e Churc h must no t surrende r its responsibility t o expedienc y (29.39^11). Cahill trace s differin g way s tha t theologian s hav e contribute d t o bioethic s an d champions a mor e activis t approach . Man y theologian s hav e note d ho w a previou s generation, includin g Pau l Ramse y [despit e Extrac t 16] , onc e contribute d directl y t o national policy-changin g bioethics bodies (30.1-4) . She follows Joh n Evans [in his 2002 book Playing God?] arguin g that th e absenc e o f theologian s o n suc h bodie s toda y ha s resulted i n a 'thinner ' debat e (30.5-7) . Ye t Cahil l als o maintain s tha t h e an d man y theologians focu s to o muc h upo n governmen t bodies an d not enoug h upo n othe r area s where Christian faith ma y still be influential i n bioethics (30.8-9). The former focu s ha s distorted theolog y an d identifie d i t to o closel y wit h 'pro-life ' cause s (30.10-11) . Sh e commends instea d a focu s upo n Christia n activis m an d claim s tha t i t ha s bee n particularly effective i n challenging the patentin g of AIDS drugs i n South Afric a (30.12 14). The WCC document argue s that churches are in constant danger of forgetting the poor and powerles s withi n th e worl d an d eve n withi n th e churche s themselve s (31.1-2) . Racism is a sin which might or might not b e helpfully labelled as 'heresy' but whic h does need t o b e discovered an d the n overcom e (31.3-5). To achiev e thi s there is a need fo r church disciplin e expressing the unit y of the Churc h (31.6-7) . In those churche s where formal discipline still exists, it tends to be too individualistic - rathe r than focusing upon the commo n effect s o f repentance-action - an d too associate d wit h excommunicatio n (31.8-11). Wha t i s neede d instea d i s authenticit y an d solidarit y a t th e centr e o f th e Church (31.12-13) . Fo r thi s t o b e achieved , discipline d worshi p aroun d th e unit y o f Baptism and Eucharis t is important, a s well as rigorous prophetic preaching and pastora l care directed agains t racis m (31.15-17) . Education i s also crucial - especiall y theologica l and schoo l educatio n whic h can too easil y be ethnocentri c (31.18-21) . Renewa l means that w e must seek to becom e mor e inclusiv e and mutuall y accountable (31.22-5) . Ruether, too, is concerned with the issue of racism, albeit in a more focused for m tha n Extract 31 . She notes that Middle Eastern Christians are puzzled that Reformed Western Christianity has tended t o support th e territorial claims of Jewish restoration to Palestin e (32.1-7) - althoug h ironicall y restoratio n ha s ofte n bee n resiste d b y Reforme d Jew s (32.8-9). Ruethe r seek s t o trac e th e origin s o f a literalisti c Jewis h belie f tha t Go d promised the m Palestin e alongsid e a Christia n millennialis t suppor t (32.10-13) . Sh e argues strongl y agains t a us e o f th e Holocaus t t o identif y anti-Zionis m wit h anti Semitism (32.14-16) . For her Palestine has always been a land o f many peoples - Jews , Christians an d Muslim s have al l become Arabize d there an d th e Palestinian s ar e thei r 378

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIPS

obvious descendants (32.18-19). For both Jews and Christians 'redemption' should entail a healing of the enmity between nation s - somethin g that th e founding of Israel has not effected (32.20-2) . Traditiona l religiou s faith s ofte n see k t o effec t a tota l syste m informing public and private life - bu t this is problematic in plural modern state s (32.236). Ruethe r maintains tha t th e prope r Christia n respons e t o th e Holocaus t i s to purg e anti-Semitism fro m Christia n teachin g an d fro m societ y generall y - no t t o silenc e criticism o f injustic e t o Palestinian s (32.27-33) . Bot h Jew s an d Christian s shoul d recognize, i n th e contex t o f th e Ara b people , tha t powe r i n th e for m o f dominatio n creates violence (32.36-8) . 3. ETHICAL ARGUMENTS It i s noticeable her e that thos e writin g from a traditional Roma n Catholi c or Orthodo x background tend t o argue deontologically, whereas the Quakers and, in places, Kiing use more personalist arguments. Paul VI (29.7 and 24 ) makes explicit use of natural law and insists tha t precept s derive d fro m thi s la w ar e t o b e obeye d (29.24) . War e argue s deontologically that the apparent conflict between viewing marriage as a sacrament and as eternal, yet allowing divorce and remarriage , is resolved by stressing that 'th e Christ has entrusted t o th e Churc h ful l powe r t o regulat e th e administratio n o f th e sacraments ' (28.24). Even Ruether argues her position deontologically (especially 32.17). The Quakers, in contrast, adopt a consciously personalist position , rejectin g Christia n tradition which 'knows precisel y wha t i s righ t an d wha t i s wrong ' an d insistin g tha t 'lov e canno t b e confined t o a pattern' (27.11) . Their emphasi s is upon persona l experienc e as the mai n source o f authorit y o n mora l an d religiou s issue s (27.16) . An d Kiin g cite s hi s ow n personal experience as influential upo n hi s ethical position o n assiste d dying (26.3-4). Yet element s o f othe r ethica l approache s ar e als o eviden t i n th e Extracts . Pau l V I appears at first to reject consequentialism (29.31), but the n uses consequential arguments to justif y 'natural ' method s o f contraception (29.36-7) . Ware, havin g stressed tha t th e Orthodox positio n o n remarriag e 'is done b y the Church , not arbitrarily , nor a s a weak and eas y concession t o th e more s o f contemporary secula r society', nonetheless add s i n personalist term s tha t i t i s 'i n th e nam e o f Christ' s ow n continuin g compassio n an d loving kindness toward s humanity ' (28.24) . Ruether also adds consequential argument s to her deontological position (e.g . 32.18-19). 4. BASES O F CHRISTIAN ETHICS The Bible has a fairly central place in several of the Extracts here, but i n none is it treated as the only source of authority. Kiin g uses it explicitly i n his arguments fo r assisted dying (26.6 and 23) . For both Ware an d Pau l VI, it i s tradition and , particularly , consistency with previous church or papal teaching, that appear s to be the most importan t influenc e upon thei r positions (e.g . 28.4-7, 11-13, 16-17, 22 and 29.7 , 17 , 27, 39). The use of the Bible o f Paul VI in particula r tend s t o b e illustrativ e (29.1 0 an d 39) . Th e Quakers , th e WCC documen t an d Ruethe r bas e thei r argument s mor e upo n genera l theologica l positions tha n upo n specifi c biblica l references . So , th e Quaker s spen d muc h tim e showing ho w particular interpretation s o f the Bibl e hav e bee n damagin g t o peopl e arguing positivel y tha t a mora l cod e mus t hav e 'it s root s i n th e depth s o f ou r being ' (27.21) - th e WCC document argue s on the basis of the unity of Baptism and Eucharist (31.15), and Ruether for therapeutic understanding of'redemption' (32.20) , and all three maintain a n inclusiv e doctrine o f God (27.26 , 31.22-5 and 32.17) . 379

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

5. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS Secular influences are evident in all of these Extracts. This is even true of those Extracts by Paul VI and Ware which are consciously written to counter what they regard as prevailing secular assumptions . So , eve n whil e War e consciousl y disassociate s th e Orthodo x position o n divorc e an d remarriag e fro m 'th e more s o f contemporary secula r society ' (28.24), he shows that he is well aware of the Western an d Easter n context o f increasing marriage breakdown . I t i s thi s contex t whic h make s a rigoris t positio n o n marriag e difficult fo r any church to maintain consistently. Similarly, Paul VI's position would have been mor e consisten t ha d h e rejecte d all methods o f contraception. But , in respons e t o the socia l change s tha t h e himsel f indicate s (29.1-3) , th e concessio n ha d alread y bee n made that 'natural ' methods o f contraception are allowable. In the debate tha t followed, it soon became apparent that the distinction between 'natural' methods (themselve s often requiring thermometers , ovulatio n charts , etc. ) an d 'artificial ' methods , i s difficul t t o sustain o r justify . The social factors influencing the other Extracts are recognized b y each of them. Kung directly relate s his ow n suppor t fo r euthanasi a (unusua l for a Catholic) t o hi s personal experience (26.3^4). Cahill has long been involved in the sort of ethical advocacy that she champions i n Extrac t 30 . Th e WC C documen t wa s writte n a s a par t o f th e WC C commitment t o combat racis m which had feature d s o strongly over the previous decade. And Ruethe r has also been an activ e observer an d participan t i n Palestinia n and Jewish issues. 6. SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE Paul VI's Humanae Vitae ha s ha d th e mos t widesprea d influenc e upo n societ y at large . Kiing's positio n o n assiste d dyin g ma y wel l hav e mor e suppor t amon g ordinar y churchgoers than it does among church leaders and theologians (a s he hints in 26.15 and 23). In the previous generation Joseph Fletcher's support fo r euthanasia in his Morals and Medicine (1955 ) was often cite d by American euthanasia proponents. Extracts 31 and 3 2 have both prove d deeply controversial. As a part of the wider concern o f the Programm e to Comba t Racism , the WCC has been consistentl y propheti c i n this are a - sometime s antagonizing Wester n churche s i n th e process . I t provide s a n interestin g contras t t o Ramsey's Extract 16 . And Ruether' s Extract 32 has shocked a number o f Orthodox Jews and Christian s alik e - especiall y sinc e sh e made he r initia l reputatio n exposin g anti Semitism withi n Christianity. Yet, i t wa s Pau l VI' s Encyclica l which directl y affecte d th e live s o f ordinar y Roma n Catholics and i t effectively ensure d continued officia l oppositio n b y the Roma n Catholi c Church bot h t o induce d abortio n an d t o medicina l contraceptio n (a s Kun g argue s in 26.12). Eve n thoug h ther e appear s t o b e a differenc e i n th e Wes t betwee n th e actua l practice o f Roma n Catholi c lait y (wh o d o resor t t o induce d abortio n an d medicina l contraception i n commensurat e number s t o non-Roma n Catholics ) an d th e officia l position o f th e Church , th e latte r continues . I t seem s likel y tha t th e effec t o f thi s continuing differenc e amon g articulat e Roman Catholic s ha s bee n t o lea d the m t o b e more critical of authority within the Church . I f this suggestion i s correct, i t provides a n interesting illustration of the way in which theology may sometimes be socially significant in ways unintended b y theologians themselves. CahilPs use of Foucault (30.9-10) suggests an instructiv e example of this. 380

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

FURTHER READING For differin g theologica l position s o n euthanasia , se e m y ow n Euthanasia an d th e Churches (1998). The Reformed ethicist Jame s Gustafson's Protestant and Roman Catholic Ethics (1978) sets Humanae Vitae into it s theological an d socia l context in recent debate, and John Mahoney's The Making of Moral Theology (1987 ) does the same from a Catholi c position. A number o f Reformed and Roma n Catholic contributor s t o Joh n T. Noona n Jr's (ed.) Th e Morality o f Abortion (1970) - includin g Noonan himself , Paul Ramsey and Bernard Haring - mak e important contributions to the ethical debate. Further, Noonan's study Contraception (1965 ) provide s a usefu l histor y o f Roma n Catholi c an d Canonis t attitudes t o contraception . Long' s studie s (se e bibliography) provid e overal l commen taries. Fo r anothe r Orthodo x perspectiv e see S . S. Harakas, Contemporary Moral Issues Facing th e Orthodox Christian (1983 ) an d Toward Transfigured Life: Th e 'Theoria' o f Orthodox Christian Ethics (1983) . Fo r furthe r discussio n o f Christia n contribution s t o bioethics se e Stephe n E . Lammer s an d Alle n Verhe y (eds) , O n Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives i n Medical Ethics (1987) , Neil Messer (ed.), Theological Issues i n Bioethics (2002), and m y own Health Care and Christian Ethics (2006).

EXTRACT 2 6 KUNG Euthanasia 26.1 Active help in dying? Not at all, has been the comment... of opponents with a Christian orientation, wh o includ e no t onl y man y theologians bu t als o som e (b y n o mean s all) lawyers and doctors. Men and women ar e not morall y allowe d t o dispos e o f their lives , they all say. And doctors commen t tha t the docto r i s there to hea l and reduc e suffering , not to kill (the 'Hippocratic oath' is cited). They comment that more healthy and young people than old and sick people would call for mercy killing to be allowed: i n the specifi c situation of hopeless illness this would happen only rarely. Lawyers add that particularly in th e interes t o f a prope r understandin g o f th e freedo m o f th e huma n person , th e constitutional stat e canno t allo w killin g o n request . An d finall y som e theologian s mention a s a decisive argument that huma n lif e rest s on a divine Yes to huma n beings. Life i s God's creatio n and gift , an d thu s in principle is beyond human powe r to control .

26.2 It is evident that often suc h arguments, including those presented by doctors and lawyers, are anythin g bu t purel y 'scientific' . The y have an ideologica l colourin g an d a n open o r concealed philosophical or theological inspiration. Therefore the often hidde n theological arguments i n particula r mus t b e subjecte d t o examination . Ofte n doctor s see m t o b e afraid o f lawyers and lawyer s afraid o f judges; judges afraid o f theologians, who threate n judges, lawyers and doctors with the wrath of God. So theologians should lead the way in clarification. Wha t theologica l commen t ca n be made on activ e help in dying ?

381

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

26.3 I openl y conced e tha t her e I am no t speakin g impartially ... Almost exactl y forty years ago, on 1 1 October 1954, 1 celebrated m y first eucharist as a newly ordained pries t of the Catholic Church in the crypt of St Peter's, Rome, with my family and friends . O n the way there m y brother, wh o wa s twenty-two a t th e time , ha d suffere d a faintin g fit . Nothin g serious, w e al l thought ; h e wa s simpl y overtire d an d exhausted . Afte r thre e weeks ' convalescence in Italy he was taken to one of the world authorities on brain surgery of the time, t o Professo r Krahenbuhl , in Zurich. Th e diagnosis was that h e had a n inoperabl e brain tumour between the cerebellum and th e cortex. Period s in hospital wit h radiatio n and chemotherapy followe d - bu t all in vain. Finall y he was discharged a s incurable. His condition gre w worse and worse. One limb after another , one organ after another , ceased to function, a terribly slow process o f dying with increasingly heavy pressure on the heart, circulation an d breathing , lasting for weeks while all the tim e h e was clearly conscious . Finally there wer e days of gasping until finally - almos t a year to the day after th e first attack - h e choked o n the rising fluid in his lungs. 26.4 Since then I have kept askin g myself whether this i s the deat h tha t Go d gives , that Go d ordains. Must men and women 'submissively' accept this, too, till the end as 'God-given', 'divinely willed', even 'pleasing t o God' ? I still ask myself the questio n today , especiall y after i n preparation fo r a lecture on euthanasia, at the invitation of Professor Ernst Grote, in the neurosurgica l clinic of the University of Tubingen I was able to watch for the first time the opening of a brain, quite by chance a very similar cas e - and again the diagnosis was that i t was inoperable, despit e today's amazingl y precise computertomography, laser techniques an d microsurgery . 10,00 0 peopl e i n German y fal l il l eac h yea r wit h brai n tumours, an d a further 10,00 0 hav e metastases in th e brain . 26.5 Of cours e I have been familia r wit h th e traditiona l argument s o f theology s o to spea k from m y youth. The y go like this: • Huma n lif e i s a 'gif t o f the lov e o f God'; i t i s God's 'gift' , I am told , an d therefore beyond ou r control . Tha t i s correct and remain s true. But something else is also true : in accordanc e wit h God' s will , lif e i s at th e sam e tim e als o a huma n tas k an d thu s made ou r responsibilit y (an d no t tha t o f others) . I t i s a n autonom y base d o n theonomy. • I t is added that human life is solely God's 'creation'. But in accordance with the will of the creator , i s i t no t primaril y a voluntar y 'creation ' b y parents , an d s o fro m th e beginning - a new experience of our time - somethin g for which men and women are responsible? • Peopl e must endure to their 'ordained end', it is argued in return. But my question is: What en d is ordained? Doe s God really control the reduction of human lif e to purel y biological life ? • 'Premature ' giving back of life is said to be a human N o to the divine Yes, a 'rejection of th e rul e o f Go d an d hi s lovin g providence'. I t i s tantamount t o a Violatio n o f a divine law' , a n 'insul t t o th e dignit y o f th e huma n person' , a 'crim e agains t life' , indeed a n 'attac k o n th e huma n race' . Bu t (an d trul y I a m no t jus t thinkin g o f my 382

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

brother's case), what i s the meanin g of such lofty word s in th e fac e o f a life which is definitively destroye d an d i n th e fac e o f intolerabl e suffering ?

26.6 Behind thes e an d simila r argument s ('th e argumen t fro m sovereignty' ) stand s a misguided vie w of God based o n biblica l text s which ar e chosen one-sidedl y an d take n literally: Go d as the creato r who simpl y exercises sovereign control ove r human beings, his servants; their unconditiona l lor d and owner, their absolute ruler, lawgiver, judge and basically also executioner. Bu t not Go d a s the fathe r o f the weak, the suffering , th e lost , who gives life to human beings and cares for them like a mother, the God of the covenant who shows solidarity, who wants to have human beings, in his image, as free, responsibl e partners. S o fo r th e terminall y il l ou r theologica l tas k i s no t a spiritualizin g an d mystification of suffering o r even a pedagogical use of suffering ('purgator y on earth') bu t - i n the footsteps of Jesus, who healed the sick - on e of reducing and removing sufferin g as far as possible. For while suffering certainl y teaches people to pray, in some cases it also teaches the m t o curse . Ther e ar e sai d t o b e theologian s wh o fea r a 'societ y fre e o f suffering' - an d one asks what kind o f world the y live in. Indeed, there ar e theologians who in this connection cal l for a 'share in Christ's suffering' - a s though Jesus would have argued fo r th e intolerabl e sufferin g o f a terminally ill patient kep t alive on drugs .

26.7 However, i n orde r t o avoi d misunderstandings , I immediatel y add : i n oppositio n t o certain advocate s o f activ e hel p i n dyin g lik e th e Australia n mora l philosophe r Pete r Singer, I am by no means of the opinion that people become 'non-persons' or 'no-longer persons' as a result o f an incurabl e illness , the weaknes s o f old ag e or definitiv e loss of consciousness. On e ca n understan d ho w i n particula r thos e wh o ar e seriousl y il l react vigorously t o suc h a vie w (an d occasionally , i n excess , eve n t o an y discussion) . M y standpoint i s precisely the opposite: simply because human beings are human beings and remain s o t o th e end , eve n whe n the y ar e terminall y il l (expectin g deat h withi n a foreseeable period ) o r dyin g (expectin g death i n a short time) , the y have the righ t no t only t o a dignifie d lif e bu t als o t o a dignifie d dyin g an d farewell , a righ t whic h ma y possibly ( I say possibly) b e refuse d the m by endless dependence o n apparatu s or drugs . This ca n happe n whe n i n a process of dying which can las t fo r hour s o r months , eve n years, onl y a vegetabl e existenc e i s possible , safeguarde d b y al l th e technique s o f pharmacological 'immobilization' . Therefore a priori the questio n canno t b e dismissed : what i s to be done i n such cases ? ... 26.8 So as a Christia n an d a theologian I fee l encouraged , afte r a lon g 'consideration o f th e benefits', now to argue publicly for a middle way which is responsible in both theological and Christia n terms : betwee n a n anti-religiou s libertinis m withou t responsibilit y ('unlimited righ t t o voluntar y death' ) an d a reactionar y rigoris m withou t compassio n ('even the intolerabl e i s to b e borne i n submission to Go d as given by God'). And I do this because as a Christia n an d a theologian I am convince d tha t th e all-merciful God , who has given men an d women freedom an d responsibilit y for their lives, has also left t o dying peopl e th e responsibilit y fo r makin g a conscientiou s decisio n abou t th e manne r 383

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

and tim e of their deaths. This is a responsibility which neither th e stat e nor th e church, neither a theologian no r a doctor, ca n take away.

26.9 This self-determination is not a n act of arrogant defiance of God; just as the grace of God and huma n freedo m ar e not exclusive , neither are God's predestination an d huma n self determination. In this sense, self-determination is demarcation over against others: just as no one may urge, necessitate or compel others to die, so too no one may compel them to continue to live. And is there a more personal decision than that of the terminally il l as to whether t o en d o r no t t o en d thei r suffering ? I f God make s th e whol e o f lif e a huma n responsibility, then this responsibility also applies to the last phase of our lives, indeed, it applies even more t o th e rea l emergency of our lives , when i t i s a matter o f dying. Wh y should thi s last phas e of life i n particula r be exempted fro m responsibility ? ... Postscript: The Encyclical Evangelium vitae and the Problem of Help in Dying 26.10 Even ver y critica l contemporaries wil l agre e with som e o f th e statement s mad e b y th e present Pop e [i n 199 5 this was John Paul II] in his encyclical Evangelium vitae. The Pop e is right t o poin t out : • Ther e must be more respect for life, respec t for life a s it comes int o existenc e and for handicapped, sufferin g an d dyin g life . • Unlimite d individualis m an d autonomis m threate n t o tur n int o egotism . Thi s threatens the foundation s o f human societ y in matters great an d small . • Freedo m can be abused by a mentality of 'Whatever gives pleasure is permissible'. In the lon g ru n thi s mus t prov e destructive , no t onl y fo r huma n relationship s an d society, but als o fo r th e ongoin g happiness o f individuals themselves .

26.11 In its 'Declaration on a Global Ethic', the Parliament of the World's Religion s which met in Chicag o i n 199 3 starte d fro m th e presuppositio n tha t i n th e presen t situatio n humankind urgentl y neede d a basi c ethica l orientation : a fundamenta l consensu s o n binding values , irrevocabl e standard s an d persona l attitudes . Ther e wa s nee d fo r a n ethical minimu m (no t ethica l minimalism!) , whic h i n th e firs t plac e include d a 'commitment to a culture of respect for life' (III.l) : 'All people have a right to life , safety , and the free development o f personality in so far as they do not injur e the rights of others. No one has the righ t physically or psychically to torture , injure , much less kill, any other human being. ' 26.12 But i f one compare s th e encyclica l Evangelium vitae with th e 'Declaratio n o n a Globa l Ethic', i t i s immediatel y strikin g tha t wherea s th e latte r strive s toward s a basi c ethica l consensus betwee n th e differen t religions , indee d eve n betwee n believer s an d non believers, in the former, in an apocalyptic picture painted i n black and white, humankind is divided int o a 'culture of life' an d a 'culture of death' (a n expressio n apparentl y used for th e first time i n the churc h b y John O'Connor, a former militar y chaplain an d no w Cardinal o f Ne w York). All those who hav e a differen t vie w from tha t o f th e Pop e o n 384

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

questions o f contraception, abortio n an d hel p i n dyin g belong t o thi s cultur e o f death . For this 'gospel' of the 'representative' focuses on these three points, which do not occu r in th e gospe l of Jesus Christ a t all. The Chicago 'Declaration o n a Global Ethic' did no t take a stan d o n thes e thre e particula r points . Wh y not ? Becaus e her e ther e i s n o consensus, either between the religions or even in any one of the great religions, far less in the Catholic Church .

26.13 Of cours e n o on e ca n prohibi t a religiou s leade r fro m takin g a stan d o n thes e controversial question s a s well . Indee d i t woul d eve n b e extraordinaril y helpfu l i f a religious leade r wer e t o indicat e a convincin g middl e wa y here, betwee n a libertinisti c individualism o n the one hand an d a traditionalist rigoris m o n the other. Bu t this Pope, deeply stamped by Augustinian pessimism and dualism, has resolutely chosen the rigorist way ... 26.14 Instead o f a magisterial orientation we have a magisterial prohibition. The claim is being made tha t i n today's worl d onl y th e Catholi c Church , and i n the Catholi c Churc h only the Pope, knows what the truth is . As the National Catholic Reporter , the leading organ of America n Catholics , remarke d criticall y i n a leadin g articl e o n th e encyclical : 'Th e Catholic Church alone , wit h th e Pop e as its sole inerrant voice, possesse s an d proclaim s God's reveale d truth. Th e message now includes the medium . Sinc e there is little new in moral teaching in this encyclical, the newness here (beginning with Veritatis Splendor [see Extract 4 above] ) i s the Pope' s insistenc e o n bein g th e singula r vehicl e for proclaimin g truth. The effect i s to raise the stakes and to put papa l authority and church credibility on the line' (1 4 April 1995) . 26.15 For man y Catholic s today , thi s whol e clai m i s grotesque; give n al l the catastrophicall y wrong judgments made by Rome in matters of faith and morals, from th e cases of Luther and Galile o throug h th e condemnatio n o f Chines e an d India n form s o f worshi p an d names fo r Go d an d th e condemnatio n o f historical-critical exegesi s an d th e theor y o f evolution t o the condemnation o f freedom o f conscience an d religio n and human right s generally. Yet once agai n this Roma n magisterium prove s to b e unerringly unteachable. And eve n Catholics o f a traditional dispositio n ar e slowly noting the fata l tra p i n which the Firs t Vatican Council' s definitio n of infallibility in 1870 , force d throug h b y Pius IX (the majorit y of German an d Frenc h bishops ha d lef t Rom e previousl y in protest) , ha s landed us ; th e church' s magisteriu m canno t b e reforme d an d therefor e canno t b e corrected .. . 26.16 In thi s encyclica l th e Pop e als o give s what i n th e en d i s traditional Catholi c teaching : 'Certainly the lif e of the body i n its earthly state is not a n absolute goo d fo r the believer, especially as he may be asked to giv e up hi s life fo r a greater good' (no. 47). At the sam e time h e concede s tha t ther e ca n b e situation s o f conflict , lik e tha t o f a n individual o r collective emergency , in which attacking th e lif e o f another perso n ca n be justified. Th e only remarkable thing is that the same Pope who in addition still allows the imposition of 385

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

the death penalty for 'cases of absolute necessity, when it would not be possible otherwise to defen d society ' (no . 56 ) thinks tha t i n question s o f help i n dyin g he must advanc e a thoroughly rigorou s vie w with reference to th e sanctit y of life (whic h now once again is made absolute) .

26.17 Here th e encyclica l does no t introduc e an y ne w perspective s int o th e debate . Fo r th e traditional Catholi c doctrin e i s tha t a perso n mus t no t us e an y media extraordinaria (inappropriate means ) fo r preservin g his o r he r life , an d w e knew that already . S o th e Pope has nothing against not takin g measures to maintain lif e (fo r example by the use of a ventilator) or stopping such measures in hopeless cases. But the decisive question t o be put t o this position whic h allows 'passive help' in dying is: why should th e switchin g off of a ventilator with fatal consequences (= 'passive help in dying') be judged to be morally quite different fro m increasin g a dose of morphine with fatal consequences ( = active help in dying) ? Tha t i s incomprehensible. Doctors , lawyer s and theologian s ar e increasingl y coming to se e this distinction a s theoretically contradictory (ca n a n actio n b e passive?) and o f little use in practice . 26.18 In thi s book , whic h appeare d i n German y almos t a t th e sam e tim e a s th e encyclical , Walter Jen s an d I hav e energeticall y argue d agains t al l huma n arbitrarines s i n th e question o f dying and especiall y against any outside pressure over dying either from th e state (th e Naz i euthanasia) o r societ y ('socia l pressure'). But we have differe d fro m th e encyclical, which at th e decisiv e points radiate s dogmatic coldnes s an d pitiles s rigorism instead of sympathy and solidarit y with those concerned, and we have felt i t necessary to take new perspectives seriously in assessin g the problem s connecte d wit h dying. 26.19 1. As a result of the tremendou s success of modern medicin e and eugenics , people today have been given what is in fact a new period o f life, ofte n lastin g more than twenty years. In certai n cases , however , thi s ca n lea d t o a n undignifie d declin e int o vegetation , frequently ove r many years. In such cases of intolerable suffering i t should b e possible t o help people to ensure that their deaths are not dragged out endlessly and that they can die a dignifie d deat h - i f that is what they want. There should b e no compulsion t o die, but there should be no compulsion to live either. We think it arrogant that anyone - a doctor or whoeve r - shoul d wan t t o decid e whethe r o r no t a patien t feel s a situatio n t o be subjectively intolerable . I n the en d thi s is something tha t onl y the suffere r knows . 26.20 2. The problems of this last phase of life cannot be brushed aside with pseudo-arguments: that i n reality this wish to die just does not exist ; that i t is merely foisted o n people , an d where i t i s expresse d i s merel y a cal l fo r mor e huma n support , hel p an d security . O f course everythin g shoul d b e don e t o giv e sufferin g an d dyin g me n an d wome n a maximum o f huma n support . Tha t i s why Walter Jen s and I ar e als o full y behin d th e efforts o f the hospice movement. Bu t even in this movement ther e are experts who know that (a) old people who are suffering expres s the wish to die in a well-considered way and by no mean s simpl y as the resul t o f a momentary depression , an d (b ) thi s wish canno t 386

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

just b e see n a s somethin g i s foiste d o n the m bu t mus t b e respecte d a s authentic . Shattering testimonies have come to us since the publication of this book in Germany of old people complaining that no one will help them to die and that some doctors just want to talk them out of this desire. What answer is one to give, for example, to an eighty-yearold woma n wh o fo r almos t twent y year s ha s bee n sufferin g fro m a n acut e cas e o f osteoporosis an d constantly has such terrible pains that the desire for a speedy death has been he r 'constan t companion' fo r all that time?

26.21 3. Palliativ e medicin e ha s mad e mos t welcom e progress : i t i s no t onl y absolutel y necessary, but i n mos t case s also extremel y helpful . However, i t i s not th e answe r to all the question s o f lif e an d death . Al l doctor s kno w this : n o therap y t o reliev e pai n i s possible withou t sedation . An d th e highe r th e dos e (an d i t mus t ofte n constantl y b e increased) an d th e mor e i t relieves pain, th e mor e sedativ e its effect is . That mean s that normally th e vigilance , th e wakefulness , th e spiritua l presenc e o f th e patien t i s al l th e weaker. So our questio n is : is a person obliged to live away the last 'artificial' phas e of his or he r life , perfectl y 'tranquillized' , i n som e circumstance s fo r weeks , month s o r eve n years, dosing away in a twilight state? To reject this certainly does not mea n to approve of an unbounded autonomis m ('on e can make what one will of one's life'); i t i s a plea for conscience an d responsibility . 26.22 That brings me to th e decisive point, whic h i s completely missed i n the encyclical . Who has the responsibilit y fo r dying ? As a believer I know that th e lif e o f God i s a gift , bu t I also know that at the same time it is a human responsibility (first o f my parents and then my own). One cannot simpl y 'leave everything to God' at the end of one's life, an y more than on e can at the beginning. And just as the Roma n teaching on birth contro l ha s led into a cul-de-sac, so too has its teaching on help in dying. No, human responsibility does not ceas e i n dying , bu t her e i s calle d fo r on e las t time , t o th e degre e tha t a perso n consciously experiences this phase. And why should I give up responsibilit y i n particular for th e las t phase , havin g bee n aske d t o b e responsibl e throughou t a lon g life ? Wh y should I not b e able to giv e my life back into God' s hand s after a mature examination of my conscience ? Precisel y because a huma n bein g neve r cease s t o b e a 'person ' (her e I differ fro m P . Singer), he or sh e should b e abl e to mak e a decision i n persona l dignity. 'You shall not kill!' Certainly. But here it is not a question of 'murder', which presupposes lower motives and maliciousness . No , what is at issue is the 'surrender' of my own life i n full responsibility , an d i n some circumstances I may be dependent o n th e hel p of others to d o so. 26.23 One last thing: as a theologian I have attempted to develop a new view of dignified dyin g which I hope will one day be understood eve n in Rome. Precisely because as a Christian I rely in reasonable trust ( = faith) tha t everything is not ove r with death, but tha t I shall be taken up into a last dimension beyond spac e and time, into the eternal life of God, then in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount I need not be so terribly 'anxious' about 'adding a cubit' to m y span o f life (cf . Matt. 6.27) . 387

A TEXTBOOK OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS 26.24

Granted, non e o f u s yet knows what ou r deat h wil l be lik e and ho w muc h courag e we shall have to die; every death i s different. Bu t we may express a hope that, if ours is not t o be a sudden death , w e may be able to tak e leave of this world supporte d b y true friend s and with the help of an understanding doctor, i n composure an d confidence, in gratitude and tranqui l expectation .

EXTRACT 2 7 QUAKER GROUP Towards a Quaker View of Sex 27.1 It will be relevant at this point to refe r to the history o f the Church's attitud e t o sexuality throughout th e centuries , an d t o element s i n tha t attitud e tha t see m inconsisten t wit h some o f the deepes t insight s in th e Bible .

27.2 Throughout nearl y all its history and i n some section s o f the Churc h today, th e myt h of Adam an d Ev e (called without justificatio n th e Fal l o f Man) is treated a s though i t were historical fac t o n whic h logical arguments can be built. I t this way, sexuality came to b e regarded a s necessarily polluted wit h si n i n tha t event . Eve n whe n rejecte d a s historical fact, thi s myth still has its effect upo n th e attitude o f some Christian s to sexuality ; i t will therefore b e wis e t o thin k mor e abou t it . First , this , lik e othe r myths , ha d a n earlie r Babylonian origi n an d wa s used fo r religiou s purposes b y th e Jewis h teachers . Further , like all myths, it is a poetic and symbolic representation o f the condition and predicamen t of man . I t i s no t exclusivel y or eve n primaril y concerne d wit h sexuality . I t i s a myt h representing th e transitio n o f man , eithe r i n hi s racia l histor y (phylogenesis ) o r hi s development fo r babyhood (ontogenesis ) fro m a n unreflectiv e obedienc e t o instinc t t o a condition i n which he is responsible fo r his actions, i n which he can reflec t o n the m an d make judgments and moral choices, weighing up possible course s of action in the light of a concept o f good and evil. It is a story, not o f man's fall, but o f man's growing up, and of the pai n tha t growin g u p involves . I t i s significant tha t Go d i s recorded a s saying (Gen. 3.22): "Behold, th e man i s become as one of us, to know good an d evil." To recognize and love what is good i s to know also what is evil, to fea r it and to be tempted b y it. To know the goo d i s to kno w joy , bu t i t i s also t o experienc e pain , t o b e tempte d t o prid e an d presumption. 27.3 It is unfortunate that sexual intercourse takes place between Adam and Ev e only after th e expulsion fro m th e Garden ; thi s perhap s provide s a n excus e fo r thinkin g tha t sexua l intimacy is associated with a sinful an d disobedien t state . Bu t this is not give n in the tex t nor i t i s a necessary implication. Indee d Ev e claims th e hel p o f Go d i n th e matter . Th e shame associate d wit h nakedness immediatel y afte r th e eatin g of the frui t o f the tre e of knowledge need not imply that sex became tainted there and then with sin: it may imply a recognition tha t ou r sexualit y more tha n anythin g else in u s can lif t u s to th e height s of 388

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIPS

self-realization o r plung e u s into degradation ; i t i s the focu s o f our self-awareness . The awareness o f nakednes s ma y furthe r b e a symbo l o f th e awarenes s o f vulnerability , o f exposure to pai n that mus t com e with self-consciousness.

27.4 No doub t fro m th e earlies t day s o f Christianit y ther e hav e bee n me n an d wome n fo r whom th e sexua l relationshi p wa s illumined an d deepene d b y the Christia n messag e of love, fo r who m i t expresse d a tru e equality , a n equal-side d valuatio n an d respect , fo r whom coitu s was an expressio n of tenderness an d unity , not merel y the gratificatio n of animal urges . But it is one of the great tragedies o f history that not unti l recent time s had this implicatio n o f Christianity found publi c expression. 27.5 Dr. Sherwin Bailey, a leading Anglican authority on thi s subject, can find no evidenc e of this expressio n i n an y theologica l writin g befor e th e appearanc e i n th e seventeent h century of Holy Living, by Jeremy Taylor, a married bisho p o f the Englis h Churc h who owed much to the support an d companionship o f his wife. I n that book coitu s is for the first time referred to as an act that relates two people in togetherness. It was an experience "to lighte n th e care s an d sadnes s o f household affairs , an d t o endea r eac h other. " Dr . Bailey writes, "Taylor maintain s that marriag e is the quee n of friendships, and husban d and wife the best o f all friends; the love that binds them together is a 'union of all things excellent'; it contains i n it proportion an d satisfactio n and res t and confidence " (Bailey , 1959). 27.6 In contrast t o this , fo r the previous fifteen hundred year s almost ever y writer and leader in th e Church , bot h Catholi c an d Reformed , regarded sexualit y as unavoidably tainte d with sin , an d th e sex-relationshi p i n marriag e (apar t fro m procreation ) a s a license d outlet fo r the bestial impulses in man. This latter concept o f marriage is overwhelmingly repulsive t o man y of us now, ye t it i s no exaggeratio n to sa y that i t ha s lingered in th e Church almost to the present day, and only recently has it become possible to be married in church without hearing a n echo of it in the marriag e service . 27.7 Dr. Sherwin Bailey , writing o f earlier centuries , says : "... the genera l impressio n lef t b y the Church' s teachin g upo n simpl e an d unlearne d peopl e ca n onl y hav e been tha t th e physical relationshi p o f th e sexe s wa s regarde d b y religio n a s unworthy , i f no t a s shameless an d obscene . Th e effec t o f such teachin g mus t necessaril y have been grave ; it caused a distortio n o f principle s an d value s whic h ha s left a n indelibl e mar k upo n Christian sexua l though t an d w e can onl y gues s a t th e psychologica l disturbance s an d conflicts whic h i t ha s produced i n th e live s of individuals" (Bailey , 1959) . 27.8 Only i n th e presen t centur y have Christians dare d i n an y general way to follo w i n th e steps of Jeremy Taylor and to accept that, irrespective of any other purpose, coitus can be justified an d dignifie d as the expressio n o f a deep relatio n between tw o persons. We do not blam e Christianit y an d Christian s o f earlie r centuries ; w e ca n see k th e origi n o f 389

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

misconceived attitude s i n the compromise between paga n an d Christia n though t an d in the socia l conditions of the Dar k Ages.

27.9 We hav e the n t o rejec t th e ide a tha t ther e i s anythin g necessaril y sinfu l abou t sexua l activity. A better understandin g o f the natur e an d valu e of myth, an d a more scientifi c approach t o problem s o f huma n behaviour , hav e delivered man y Christian s fro m thi s oppressive and destructiv e idea. Sexual activity is essentially neither good no r evil ; it is a normal biologica l activity which, like most othe r huma n activities , can b e indulge d i n destructively or creatively. 27.10 Further, if we take impulses and experiences that are potentially wholesome and in a large measure unavoidabl e an d characteriz e thes e a s sinful , w e creat e a grea t volum e o f unnecessary guil t an d a n explosiv e tensio n withi n th e personality . When , a s s o ofte n happens, the impuls e break s throug h th e restriction , i t does so with a ruthlessness an d destructive energ y tha t migh t no t otherwis e hav e bee n there . A distorte d Christianit y must bea r som e o f the blam e fo r the sexua l disorder s o f society. A Way Forward 27.11 In trying to summariz e the feelings an d judgments that have come to u s in the course of our severa l years' deliberations, we must keep this historical survey in mind. I t support s us i n rejectin g almos t completel y th e traditiona l approac h o f th e organize d Christia n church to morality , with its supposition tha t i t knows precisely what is right and what is wrong, that this distinction can be made in terms of an external pattern of behaviour, and that th e greates t goo d wil l com e onl y throug h universa l adherenc e t o tha t pattern . Nothing that has come to light in the course of our studies has altered the conviction that came t o u s when w e began t o examin e th e actua l experience s o f people: the convictio n that lov e cannot b e confine d t o a pattern. The waywardness of love is part o f its nature and thi s is both it s glory and it s tragedy. I f love di d no t ten d t o lea p ever y barrier, if it could b e tamed, i t woul d no t b e the tremendou s creativ e power w e know i t t o b e an d want i t to be .

27.12 So we are concerne d wit h th e homosexual s wh o sa y to eac h othe r " I lov e you" i n th e hopeless and bitter awareness of a hostile criminal code and hypocritica l public opinion , and als o wit h th e anguis h of men an d wome n wh o kno w the y love on e anothe r whe n marriage i s impossibl e an d onl y sufferin g ca n b e envisaged . We recogniz e that , whil e most example s o f th e "eterna l triangle " ar e produce d b y boredo m an d primitiv e misconduct, others may arise from th e fac t tha t the very experience of loving one person with dept h an d perceptio n ma y sensitiz e a ma n o r woma n t o th e lovabl e qualitie s i n others. 27.13 We think it our duty , not to stand on the peak of perfectionism, asking for an impossibl e conformity whil e the tid e of human lif e sweep s by us, but t o recognize , in compassion , 390

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

the complication s an d bewildermen t tha t lov e creates and t o as k how we can discover a constructive wa y in eac h o f a n immens e variet y o f particula r experiences . I t i s not b y checking our impuls e to love that we keep love sweet. The man who swallows the words "I lov e you" whe n h e meets anothe r woman , ma y in that momen t an d fo r tha t reaso n begin to resent his wife's existence; but i t is also true that love may be creative if honestly acknowledged thoug h no t openl y confessed . W e nee d t o kno w muc h mor e abou t ourselves and wha t we do t o ou r inne r lif e whe n we follow code s o r ideal s tha t d o no t come fro m th e heart .

27.14 Those wh o hav e read s o fa r wil l recogniz e how difficul t i t ha s bee n fo r u s t o com e t o definite conclusions as to what people ought or ought not to do. But although we cannot produce a ready-made external morality to replace the conventional code , there are some things about whic h we can be definite . Th e first is that there must be morality o f some sort to govern sexual relationships. A n experienc e s o profoun d i n it s effec t upo n peopl e an d upon the community canno t be left wholl y to privat e judgment. It will never be right for two people to say to each other "we'll do what we want, and what happens between us is nobody else's business." However private an act, it is never without its impact on society, and we must never behave as though society - whic h includes our other friend s - di d not exist. Secondly, th e need t o preserve marriage and family life ha s been i n th e forefront o f ou r minds throughout ou r work. I t i s i n marriag e tha t sexua l impulse s hav e thei r greates t opportunity fo r joyful an d creativ e expression, and where two people can enter into each other's lives and hearts most intimately . Her e the greatest freedom ca n be experienced the freedo m conferre d b y a n unreserve d commitmen t t o eac h other , b y lovin g an d fearless friendship , an d b y opennes s t o th e world . I n marriage , tw o peopl e thu s committed ca n bring children int o the world, provide them with the security of love and home and i n this way fulfil thei r sexual nature. Finally, w e accept th e definition o f sin given by an Anglican broadcaster, as covering those actions that involve exploitation of the other person. Thi s i s a concep t o f wrongdoin g tha t applie s bot h t o homosexua l an d heterosexual action s an d t o action s withi n marriag e as well a s outside it . I t condemn s as fundamentall y immora l ever y sexua l actio n tha t i s not , a s fa r a s i s humanl y ascertainable, th e resul t o f a mutua l decision . I t condemn s seductio n an d eve n persuasion, an d ever y instanc e o f coitu s which , b y reaso n o f disparit y o f ag e o r intelligence or emotiona l condition, cannot b e a matter o f mutual responsibility . 27.15 It i s clear tha t w e need a muc h deepe r morality , on e tha t wil l enabl e peopl e t o fin d a constructive way through eve n the most difficul t an d unpredictable situation s - a way that i s not simpl y one of withdrawal and abnegation. There are many who say that when people fin d themselve s i n a situation wher e it i s difficult t o b e consistentl y moral , the y must practis e self-denia l an d "bea r thei r cross" . Thi s i s often th e righ t way ; but i t i s a serious misconceptio n o f the Cros s t o sugges t that i t i s related onl y t o self-denial. 27.16 Morality should b e creative. God i s primarily Creator, no t rule-maker . Quakerism fro m the beginnin g rejecte d th e ide a o f particula r observances , ritual s o r sacrament , an d instead regarde d th e whol e o f life' s activitie s a s potentiall y sacramental . Th e Quake r 391

A TEXTBOOK O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

movement aros e in a time o f spiritual stirring. By rejecting al l authority save that o f th e Holy Spirit and the headship of Christ, its vital witness was to an authority which begins in personal experience, in the encounter of man an d God in the human spiri t and mind . Quakerism begin s with a search an d it s method i s experimental .

27.17 Every true Christian, of whatever branch of the Church, accepts that th e whole of his lif e must b e brought befor e God . Th e Societ y of Friends place s particula r emphasi s o n ou r individual and personal responsibility . We cannot accep t as true a statement tha t is given us merel y because i t i s given wit h th e authorit y o f traditio n o r a Church . W e hav e t o make that trut h ou r own - i f it is a truth - throug h diligen t an d prayerful searc h and a rigorous disciplin e of thought an d feeling . Ma n i s intended t o b e a moral being . That i s not t o sa y that h e should accep t a formal morality , a n observance o f mores, bu t tha t his actions shoul d com e unde r searchin g scrutiny in th e ligh t that come s fro m th e Gospel s and th e workin g o f God within us . 27.18 There have been periods in our Quake r history when the effort t o achieve consistency and integrity toppled over into a humourless scrupulosity, leading to a restricted lif e in which a patter n o f conduc t wa s secure d a t th e expens e o f warmt h an d jo y an d creativeness . Friends, if they keep in mind th e need to avoid this error, could help to discover that kin d of conduct an d inner discipline through which the sexual energy of men and women ca n bring healt h o f min d an d spiri t t o a worl d wher e man' s energ y alway s threaten s t o become destructive . We need a release of love, warmth an d generosit y into th e world, in the everyday contacts of life, a positive force that wil l weaken our fea r o f one another an d our tendencies toward aggressio n and power-seeking. We need to recognize fearlessly and thankfully th e sexua l origin o f this force . 27.19 This searc h i s a mov e forwar d int o th e unknown ; i t implie s a hig h standar d o f responsibility, thinkin g and awareness - somethin g muc h harde r tha n simpl e obedienc e to a mora l code . Further, the responsibilit y tha t i t implie s canno t b e accepte d alone ; i t must b e responsibilit y withi n a grou p whos e member s ar e equall y committe d t o th e search fo r God' s will . 27.20 Perhaps ou r las t word s shoul d b e t o those , equall y awar e o f th e tragedy , wh o ma y b e distressed and put of f by our rejectio n of a morality that has seemed to them a product of Christianity. We do know, from th e intimate experience of several of us, that i t is possible to giv e substance t o th e traditional code, t o liv e within it s requirements, enriche d b y an experience of love at its most generous and tender, and conscious of our debt to Christ in showing us what love implies. We would ask those who cannot easil y follow our thought s to recogniz e what has driven u s - Christian s an d Friends, trying to live up to the high standard o f integrity that ou r religious society ask s of us - t o our insisten t questioning . 392

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

27.21

It i s the awarenes s that th e traditiona l code , i n itself , doe s no t com e fro m th e heart ; for the grea t majority of men an d wome n i t has no root s i n feelin g o r tru e conviction . W e have been seeking a morality that will indeed have its roots in the depths of our being and in ou r awarenes s of the tru e need s o f our fellows . 27.22 We believe that there is indeed a place for discipline, but tha t i t can only be fully healthy as well as fully Christian when it is found i n application to th e whole of life. The challenge to each of us is clear: accustom yourself to seeking God's will and to the experience of his love and power, become used in your daily life to the simple but tremendou s spiritual fact that wha t Go d ask s he enables, provide d onl y and alway s that w e want t o d o hi s will.

EXTRACT 2 8 WARE Marriage and divorce - an Orthodox perspective 28.1 Marriage, th e 'sacramen t o f love' , i s a direc t expressio n o f ou r huma n personhoo d according t o th e imag e an d likenes s o f th e Hol y Trinity . Forme d a s a n ico n o f th e Trinitarian God , th e huma n perso n i s made fo r mutual love ; an d tha t means , first and foremost, th e love between man an d woman. As the creation stor y in the first chapter of Genesis affirms, 'Go d created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, mal e and femal e he created them' (Gen. 1.27) . The differentiation o f human beings into male and female , accordin g to the 'Priestly' source in Genesis, is nothing less than a reflection o f the divine image. The image of God is given, not t o the man alone or to th e woman alone , bu t t o th e tw o o f the m together . I t come s t o it s fulfilmen t onl y i n th e 'between' tha t unite s the m t o eac h other . Personhoo d i s a mutual gift ; ther e i s no tru e human unles s there are at least two humans i n communion wit h each other. To say 'I am made in God's image ' is to affirm : ' I need you in order t o be myself. The divine image is in this way a 'relational' image, manifested not i n isolation but i n community and , above all, in the primordial bon d between husband an d wif e tha t i s the foundation o f all other forms o f social life . Monastic s an d la y people no t calle d t o matrimony , i f they are to b e authentically human , nee d t o realiz e i n som e othe r wa y the capacit y fo r mutua l lov e which find s it s primar y expressio n throug h th e man-woma n relationshi p withi n marriage.

28.2 In it s teachin g o n marriage , a s a t man y othe r points , th e Orthodo x Churc h adopt s a standpoint tha t ha s frequently puzzle d Western Christians . We affir m tw o things that a t first sight might be thought inconsistent : marriag e is a sacrament, and yet under certai n circumstances i t may be dissolved. W e believe firmly in the sacramenta l characte r of the marriage union , bu t accordin g t o th e Orthodo x vie w sacramentalit y doe s no t entai l indissolubility. Th e Churc h ha s powe r t o permi t a divorce , followe d b y a secon d marriage; an d als o a secon d divorce , followe d b y a thir d marriage . A fourth marriage , 393

A TEXTBOOK OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS

however, is entirely forbidden in Orthodox Cano n Law, whether after divorc e or after th e death of the previou s spouses .

28.3 Let us look, then, at the Orthodox theology of the sacrament of marriage, and in the light of this let us assess the pastoral attitude of Orthodoxy toward s marital breakdown. What is our interpretatio n o f marriage a s the sacrament o f love, an d wha t i s to be done when this sacrament o f love turns int o a n occasio n o f hatred an d mutua l destruction? The sacramentality of marriage 28.4 There is, first of all, no doubt whatever that the Orthodox Churc h looks o n marriage as a sacrament or , t o us e the Gree k term, a 'mystery ' (mysterion). 'Thi s i s a grea t mystery ' (Eph. 5.32) , i t i s said i n th e epistl e readin g a t th e weddin g service ; and , whateve r th e original intentio n o f th e autho r o f Ephesians , thi s phras e i s a t onc e assume d b y a contemporary Orthodo x listene r t o mea n 'Thi s i s a grea t sacrament' . Sinc e th e seventeenth centur y Orthodox manual s have invariably included marriag e in th e lis t of the seven sacraments. It is true that Orthodox y attache s no strict doctrinal significanc e to the numbe r 'seven' , an d make s n o shar p distinctio n betwee n 'sacraments ' an d 'sacramentals'; but , i f th e sacrament s are , i n fact , t o b e numbered , marriag e i s undoubtedly to b e reckoned on e o f the seven .

28.5 In th e Gree k East, a s in th e Lati n West, i t was only graduall y that th e Churc h cam e t o regard marriag e a s a distinc t sacrament . Fro m th e outse t th e Churc h naturall y too k a direct pastora l interes t i n th e marriage s contracte d b y baptize d Christians . 'Me n an d women wh o ente r int o th e unio n o f marriage', states St Ignatius of Antioch (c.11 0 CE) , 'should do this with the bishop's consent , so that the marriage may be in accordance with the Lord' s wil l an d no t becaus e o f carna l desire' . Bu t ther e wa s initiall y n o rit e o f Christian marriage separate from th e Eucharistic Liturgy. A Christian couple first entered into a civil marriage performed by the magistrate; then they went to receive the Eucharist together in church, and it was this joint reception of Holy Communion tha t was regarded as blessing and sealin g their marital unio n i n Christ. Tertullian, writing around 200 , has this situatio n i n min d whe n h e speak s o f 'tha t marriage , i n whic h th e Churc h act s a s intermediary, which the oblatio n confirms , and th e blessing seals'. I n the Gree k East, by the end of the fourt h century , the blessing in church had com e t o includ e what remain s the mos t strikin g outwar d actio n i n th e Orthodo x marriag e rite , th e crownin g o f bridegroom an d bride . 28.6 But until the ninth century the crowning was merely accompanied b y a short prayer , and it was always done during th e Eucharist ; moreover , i t was the civi l ceremony befor e th e magistrate that was considered legall y binding in the eye s of Church and State . Marriage did no t pas s full y unde r th e jurisdiction of the Churc h until around th e year 893, when the Emperor Le o VI the Wise in his Novella 89 laid down that a religious wedding shoul d henceforward b e obligatory . 394

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIPS

28.7

In th e firs t nin e centuries , then , marriag e a s a religiou s rit e wa s incorporated int o th e Eucharist. This is surely a point o f cardinal importance. Only when marriage is viewed in a Eucharisti c context ca n it s sacramental nature b e trul y appreciated. Unfortunatel y in modern Orthodo x practic e marriag e i s almost alway s celebrated apar t fro m th e divin e Liturgy, an d s o thi s vita l Eucharisti c lin k i s overlooked . I t i s precisel y because o f th e connection between marriage an d th e Eucharis t tha t mixe d marriage s giv e rise t o suc h acute pastoral problems . Sinc e the Orthodo x authoritie s scarcel y ever fee l abl e to allo w exceptions t o the general rule that prohibit s intercommunio n acros s church boundaries , the coupl e is permanently prevente d fro m receivin g Holy Communion together .

28.8 What is implied theologically by regarding marriage as a 'mystery' or sacrament? I n every sacrament, it is God himself, invisibly present, who is the true agent. 'It is Father, Son and Holy Spiri t wh o dispens e an d orde r al l things' , say s S t Joh n Chrysostom ; 'th e pries t merely lends hi s tongue an d supplie s his hand.' A sacrament, in other words , i s a gracegiving actio n performed b y Christ , ever-presen t an d ever-activ e withi n th e Churc h through the Holy Spirit. Viewed specifically as a sacramental 'mystery' , then, marriage is a divin e operation , the wor k o f Christ th e on e Hig h Priest . Recallin g th e blessin g tha t Jesus gave by his presence at the marriag e in Cana , one o f the prayer s invokes the same blessing on the marriage now being celebrated: 'As you were present there, be present also here with your invisible protection, an d bless this marriage.' As the next prayer affirms, i t is Christ who is the hierourgos of the marriage, the liturgist or celebrant. The sacrament of marriage i s therefor e muc h mor e tha n a contrac t betwee n tw o human s o f whic h th e Church take s cognizance. Primarily i t is an action performed b y God himself, operating through th e perso n o f the officiatin g priest . The purpose of marriage 28.9 The Anglica n 166 2 Boo k o f Commo n Prayer , i n a well-know n passage , succinctl y indicates three reason s for the institution of marriage: 'fo r th e procreatio n of children', 'for a remedy against sin and to avoid fornication' , and 'for ... mutual society, help and comfort' (mentione d i n that order). Luther gives the same three reasons, proles, medidna et adjutorium, an d occasionall y Orthodo x writer s d o likewise . Bu t significantl y i n th e Orthodox weddin g servic e itself there i s no allusio n whatever to th e secon d o r negativ e reason, ' a remed y agains t sin' . This i s the mor e surprising , sinc e th e Gree k Fathers, in common wit h St Augustine, are for the most part somewha t unenthusiasti c in their view of marriage .

28.10 It is only the other tw o reasons, both of them positive - mutua l love and the bearing of children - tha t ar e mentioned i n the prayers at a wedding. The liturgical texts speak , in the first place, abou t 'unit y ... a bond o f affection tha t canno t b e broken ... oneness of mind ... mutual love in the bond of peace', and, mos t strikingl y of all, 'concord of soul and body'. The love between wife and husband, as this last phrase indicates, exists at every level, physical and spiritual. No distinction i s to be made between soul and body; the view of personhoo d underlyin g th e servic e i s thoroughly holistic . Secondly , an d wit h equa l 395

A TEXTBOOK OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

emphasis, the prayer s speak of the 'gif t o f children': 'Grant them th e frui t o f the womb , fair offsprin g .. . Ma y they se e their children' s childre n lik e newly-plante d oliv e tree s around thei r table. '

28.11 There i s no suggestio n i n th e tex t o f th e weddin g servic e tha t on e o f thes e tw o thing s rather than the other is the 'primary aim' of the sacrament. We Orthodox hav e always felt unhappy abou t th e rulin g give n by the Hol y Offic e a t Rom e i n 194 4 that th e 'primar y purpose' o f marriage i s 'the generatio n an d bringing-u p o f offspring' , an d no t mutua l love. Fortunately suc h language i s avoided by Vatican II , which deliberately refrains from making an y distinctio n betwee n 'primary ' an d 'secondary ' purposes . I t i s surel y unnecessary and misleadin g to mak e any contrast betwee n mutua l love and procreation . God has joined th e tw o together, so that th e lov e o f the couple , expresse d physicall y as well as spiritually, leads in the norma l cours e o f events to th e birth o f children. A s Pope John Pau l II has expressed it , i n words tha t Orthodo x ca n gladl y make thei r own : 'Th e love o f husban d an d wif e i n God' s pla n lead s beyond itsel f and ne w lif e i s generated, a family i s born.' Go d ha s established a connection betwee n th e tw o things , an d togethe r they constitute one single aim and not two. Nowhere in the New Testament i s it said tha t the bearing of children i s the main purpos e o f marriage. On th e contrary, childbirt h an d love are linked together: 'Woman will be saved through bearing children, i f she continues in fait h an d lov e an d holiness ' ( 1 Tim. 2.15) . 28.12 Any description, then , o f the purpos e o f marriage need s to be broad enoug h t o includ e both mutua l lov e an d childbearin g a t once . I t i s bes t t o sa y simpl y tha t th e ai m o f marriage i s the mutua l sanctificatio n o f husband an d wife , thei r transfiguration through the reciprocal gift an d unio n of their two lives. In the words of an Arab Orthodox bishop , Metropolitan Georg e Khodre, 'Marriage has no other end than that the husband and wif e prepare fo r th e comin g o f God.' 'Th e unio n betwee n husban d an d wife' , write s Father John Meyendorff , 'i s a n en d i n itself ; i t i s a n eterna l unio n betwee n tw o uniqu e an d eternal personalities.' From this it follows that , even when Go d does not gran t the gif t o f children, a marriage ma y still exis t i n its true fullness . The ministers of the sacrament 28.13 A Western Christian , present fo r the first time at an Orthodox wedding , will probably be surprised b y two things, by both a n absence and a presence. Somethin g i s missing which he would expec t t o find ; an d somethin g happen s whic h doe s no t occu r i n th e Wester n ceremony. Absen t fro m the Orthodo x Servic e is the centra l even t in the Wester n ceremony, th e exchange of formal vows . In the Gree k practice the coupl e utter n o word s of consen t an d mak e n o explici t promise s durin g th e cours e o f th e servic e itself , an d indeed the y ar e neithe r o f the m require d t o sa y anythin g a t all . Edition s o f th e Euchologion ('Boo k o f Prayers' ) issue d i n recen t year s b y th e Churc h o f Greec e stat e simply that, befor e th e servic e begins, 'th e priest ask s them t o testify , whethe r th e brid e wants the bridegroom; and , likewise , whether th e bridegroom want s the bride'. It i s not indicated wha t precise for m the priest's questions an d the couple's answer s shall take. But this rubri c i s o f ver y recen t date , an d i s no t t o b e foun d i n th e Gree k servic e book s

396

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIPS

published i n the nineteenth an d the early twentieth century , which make no referenc e t o the puttin g o f an y questions . Th e Russia n Church , however , doe s prescrib e specifi c questions; these were introduced int o the Slavonic service books in the early seventeenth century b y Metropolita n Pete r Moghil a o f Kiev , wh o wa s directl y influence d b y th e Roman Catholi c practice . Th e questions, whic h occur a t the en d o f the first part o f the service, th e Betrothal , an d befor e th e beginnin g o f th e mai n par t o f th e wedding , th e Office o f Crowning, are two in number: 'Do you, N., have a good, fre e and unconstraine d will and a firm intention t o take as your wife this woman, N., whom you see here before you? Have you promised yourself to any other bride?' The same questions are then put t o the bride. Even in the Russian use, apart fro m thi s there are no promises an d no explicit vows. Th e contractua l emphasis , s o marke d i n th e Wester n Service , i s almos t entirel y absent fro m th e Orthodo x rite.

28.14 Behind this difference i n liturgical practice there lies a difference i n sacramental theology . According t o Roma n Catholi c teaching , i t i s the coupl e wh o ar e th e minister s o f th e sacrament, whereas in the Orthodox view it is the officiatin g priest . The marriage rite, as understood b y Orthodoxy, i s not a contract o r agreement made between the two partners but a blessing conferred by the Church . Th e fre e consen t o f the coupl e is , of course, a n essential precondition , bu t i t doe s no t itsel f constitut e th e sacrament . Thi s divergenc e between Orthodox y an d Rome , so far from bein g a mere technicality , i s relevant to th e question o f divorce. The ring and the crown 28.15 Let u s tur n no w fro m th e absenc e t o th e presence . Th e Orthodo x marriag e servic e is divided int o tw o parts, originall y celebrated separatel y but no w always held a t the same time: the Betrothal and the Crowning. At the Betrothal the chief ceremony is the blessing of th e rings , whic h ar e place d o n th e hand s o f bridegroo m an d bride , an d ar e the n exchanged three times. The rings symbolize, in Orthodox y a s in the West , the pledg e of mutual faithfulnes s mad e between th e tw o partners. Bu t after this , in the second par t of the service, there follows a rite for which there is no paralle l in the West: the Crowning . The priest takes two crowns - i n the Greek practice these are garlands of flowers, usually artificial ( I am sorry to say), while in the Russian practice they are made of gold, silver or other meta l - an d he makes the sign of the Cross with them ove r the couple; the crowns are then place d o n o r hel d ove r thei r head s and , a s with th e rings , they are exchanged three times. The threefold exchange, first of the rings and then of the crowns, underlines the reciproca l characte r o f marriage, it s true characte r a s a mutual gif t o f personhood.

28.16 The Crownin g i s the centra l even t i n the Orthodo x service for a first marriage. It i s the Crowning, togethe r wit h th e thre e prayer s tha t immediatel y preced e i t an d mor e especially the thir d o f these prayers, in which th e pries t joins together th e hand s o f the couple tha t constitute s th e distinctiv e an d essentia l rit e i n th e sacramen t o f marriage. Through their symbolism th e crowns reveal the basic intention o f marriage as a 'mystery'. Originally a featur e o f pagan wedding ceremonies , the y were given a deeper an d riche r meaning when adopted by the Church. Their significanc e i s double. In the first place, as 397

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

with th e crown s worn b y victors i n athleti c contests , the y ar e a 'symbo l o f victory', t o quote S t Joh n Chrysosto m - th e victor y o f lov e ove r lust , o f self-contro l ove r self indulgence, o f share d personhoo d ove r narcissism . Fo r whil e sexualit y i s indee d a gif t from God, this gift ha s to be rightly used; it needs to be made truly personal, a n occasio n of mutua l exchang e and no t o f private pleasure. Th e Crownin g expresse s precisel y thi s call t o joyfu l an d victoriou s transfiguration.

28.17 The crowns, however , hav e also a second meaning : the y are crowns o f martyrdom. Th e service include s repeate d reference s t o crossbearin g an d martyrdom . In th e prayer s fo r the couple, the priest asks : 'Remember them, O Lord our God , as you remembered you r Forty Holy Martyrs, sending down upon them crowns from heave n ... May that joy come upon the m tha t blesse d Helen a fel t whe n sh e foun d th e preciou s cross. ' Durin g th e procession tha t comes towards the end of the service, the choir sings: 'Holy Martyrs, who fought th e goo d figh t an d hav e received your crowns , entrea t th e Lor d that h e will have mercy o n ou r souls. ' Th e jo y o f th e marriag e feas t i s also th e jo y o f th e Cross . I n th e words o f Paul Evdokimov, 'Perfec t lov e i s love crucified. ' 28.18 In all this the Church has, of course, no intention of advocating a morbid cul t of sufferin g for it s own sake. Ma n and woma n marr y i n Christ no t fo r mutual hur t but fo r mutua l happiness. Ther e can , however , b e n o tru e marriag e withou t a readines s fo r sacrifice , without a kenosis or self-emptying , s o that eac h may live in the other . I n ever y Christian marriage there has to be an ascetic element, a cutting-off o f self-will; it is not onl y monk s and nun s bu t al l alike , whethe r marrie d o r unmarried , wh o ar e calle d t o follo w th e 'narrow way'. If so many marriages break down i n our contemporar y society , i s not th e main reason because the partners are not i n practice willing to accept this conjugal ascesis, and perhap s hav e never eve n been tol d abou t it ? 28.19 The crown s hav e also an eschatologica l significance. A t the conclusio n o f the service , as the pries t remove s the m fro m th e head s of the couple , he prays t o God : 'Tak e up thei r crowns into your kingdom.' As a vocation o r calling, marriage is not stati c but dynamic , not s o muc h a stat e a s a process . A perso n doe s no t fulfi l hi s o r he r vocatio n t o matrimony simpl y by getting married, fo r that i s only the beginning, th e first step o f the journey. An d thi s share d journe y extend s beyon d tim e an d spac e int o th e kingdo m o f God. I t involve s a movement fro m thi s presen t ag e into th e ag e to come . A s a journey into th e kingdom , then , marriag e i s not merel y for lif e bu t fo r eternity. Nowher e i n th e Orthodox servic e do we use the words 'till death us do part'. I know a Russian lady in the Orthodox communit y at Oxfor d whos e husband die d te n years ago, but wh o steadfastly refuses to be called his widow: 'I am his wife', she rightly insists. The married relationshi p is not terminate d b y death . 28.20 In the ancient Church, because of this strong sense of the eternity of the marriage bond, a second marriag e after th e death o f the first partner, whil e not forbidden , wa s commonl y discouraged (cf . 1 Cor. 7.8-9 an d 39-40). The second-century Apologist, St Athenagoras, 398

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

goes s o fa r a s t o stigmatiz e a secon d unio n a s 'respectabl e adultery' . Bu t th e rigoris t standpoint o f th e Montanist s an d Novatianists , wh o altogethe r prohibite d remarriage , was not endorse d b y the Easter n Church as a whole. S t John Chrysostom insists that i t is heretical t o condemn a secon d marriag e a s sinful ; 'th e secon d marriag e i s good' , h e writes, although he adds that i t is not a s good as a first marriage, while virginity is best of all. Ye t a secon d marriag e b y a wido w o r widower , whil e no t sinful , i s see n a s a condescension t o human weakness, a falling-short of the true Christian ideal of the single union. Th e fourth-centur y Canons o f Laodice a say that thos e wh o hav e been 'lawfull y joined in second marriages ' may receive Holy Communion onl y 'by indulgence' and afte r a period of prayer and fasting , while St Basil the Great requires those who marry a second time t o abstai n fro m Communio n fo r a perio d o f on e o r eve n tw o years ; bu t thes e regulations ar e no t toda y applied . Member s o f th e marrie d clerg y i n th e Orthodo x Church, however, still remain committed t o the ideal standard of a unique union, and if a priest's o r deacon' s wif e dies , h e cannot remarry .

28.21 Such, then, i s the many-side d meanin g of the crown s i n the Orthodo x marriage service. They symbolize joyful victory , inne r martyrdom , th e eternity of the marriag e bond. But what is to happen i f the married life of the couple, instead of bringing about thei r shared sanctification, endanger s thei r salvatio n an d prove s a foretaste o f hell? The Church's power to dissolve the marriage bond 28.22 'The whole Church is the Churc h of the Penitent', says St Ephrem the Syrian ; 'the whole Church i s the Churc h o f thos e wh o ar e perishing. ' Th e Finnis h Orthodo x writer , Tit o Colliander, record s a conversation betwee n a monk an d a layman, which aptly describes married life as well as monasticism. 'What do you do there in the monastery?' the layman asks. And th e mon k replies : 'W e fal l an d ge t up, fal l an d ge t up, fal l an d ge t u p again. ' Evdokimov quotes a n early monastic text : 'Purit y of heart i s to sho w love for those who fall'. I n th e word s o f Chris t himself , 'I di d no t com e t o cal l th e virtuous , bu t sinners ' (Mark 2.17). It is in such a perspective as this that we should se t the questio n o f divorce and remarriage . 28.23 In th e discussio n tha t follow s I shal l us e the wor d 'divorce ' i n it s ful l sense , t o signif y divorce a vinculo, the dissolution of the sacramental marriage bond. I shall not emplo y it in the lesser sense of divorce a mensa et thoro, or legal separation; nor agai n in the sense of a decre e of nullity, that is , a declaration tha t th e marriag e never properl y existed i n th e first place . 28.24 How ca n i t b e tha t th e Orthodo x Churc h affirm s it s clea r belie f i n th e sacramenta l character and , indeed , th e eternit y o f marriage , an d ye t a t th e sam e tim e accept s th e possibility that a marriage may be ended b y divorce? It has to be remembered firs t o f all that Orthodox y see s th e sacramen t o f marriage , no t primaril y a s a juridica l contrac t between th e tw o partners , bu t a s a divine action , effecte d b y Christ withi n th e Churc h through th e blessin g o f th e priest . Needles s t o say , th e Roma n Catholi c Churc h als o

399

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIAN ETHIC S

regards th e sacramenta l blessin g o f a marriag e a s a divin e action ; bu t i n th e Wes t fa r greater emphasi s ha s been place d on the partners a s ministers of the marriage , an d this has contributed t o a different attitud e towards divorce. The basic principle underlying the Orthodox practic e is our conviction that Christ has entrusted to the Church full powe r to regulate th e administratio n o f th e sacraments . I f eac h sacramen t i s a divin e action , effected b y Christ within the Church, then the Church , as steward of the sacrament s an d by virtue of the authorit y to bin d an d loos e conferre d upon i t by Christ himsel f (Matt . 16.19; 18.18 ; John 20.23), has the right to release the couple from th e marriage bond and to permit a remarriage. This is done by the Church, not arbitrarily, nor as a weak and easy concession t o the mores of contemporary secula r society, but in the name of Christ's own continuing compassio n an d lovin g kindness toward s humanity . Grounds for divorce 28.25

Before considerin g th e reasons , whethe r Scriptura l or pastoral , advance d b y Orthodo x writers to justif y th e granting of divorce, let us look at the actual practice followed when dissolving a marriage . I t i s sometime s claime d that , unti l ver y recen t times , th e onl y ground fo r divorc e allowe d i n Orthodo x Cano n La w was adultery. I n reality , from th e Byzantine perio d onwards , a numbe r o f othe r ground s hav e als o bee n admitted . Th e main reason s recognized i n current practic e ar e the following : (i) Adulter y by either the ma n o r th e woman (cf . Matt. 19.9) . (ii) Apostas y fro m th e Christia n fait h b y either partne r (cf . 1 Cor. 7.12-15) . (iii) Adoptio n of the monasti c lif e b y one partner . (Thi s can be done onl y with th e consent o f the othe r partner ; an d i n suc h a cas e the latte r i s not permitte d t o remarry.) (iv) Th e procurin g o f a n abortio n b y th e wif e withou t th e husband' s knowledge . (Abortion i s in an y case strictly forbidden i n th e Orthodo x Church. ) (v) Inabilit y by th e ma n t o consummat e th e marriage . (I n Orthodo x Cano n Law this does not render the marriage null, but i t is regarded as grounds for divorce.) (vi) Grav e malady (suc h a s leprosy o r syphilis) , voluntar y mutilation , or incurabl e madness. (vii) Threat s against the lif e o f one spous e o n th e par t o f the other , (viii) Th e deliberat e abandonmen t o f on e partne r b y th e other , o r th e permanen t disappearance of one partner . (ix) Th e condemnatio n o f on e partne r fo r a seriou s crime , involvin g prolonge d imprisonment. (x) Implacabl e hatred , involvin g a tota l breakdow n i n persona l relations . (Th e earliest exampl e o f a divorce being granted fo r thi s reason i s a decision b y th e Holy Synod at Constantinople in December 1315 ; there are a number of similar decisions by the Ecumenica l Patriarchate in the nineteent h century . But som e Orthodox canonists deny that implacabl e hatre d constitutes prope r grounds for divorce.)

400

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S 28.26

As Paul Evdokimov points out , al l these reasons ca n be seen as different form s o f death : 'religious deat h throug h apostasy ; civi l death , throug h condemnation ; bodil y death , through absence , grav e malady or madness; the death o f the mutual love that i s the very essence of the sacrament, throug h adultery , threats agains t the other's life , o r implacabl e hatred'. 28.27 For a correct appreciation o f the Orthodox canonica l practice, two further point s need t o be kept i n view: 28.28 First, a church divorce is required; it is not sufficien t fo r a decree to be granted merely by the civil courts. I n Greek Orthodoxy, durin g the later Byzantine and the Turkish periods , divorce case s fel l unde r ecclesiastica l jurisdiction , an d wer e th e responsibilit y o f th e church courts; an d this was also the case in Russia until 1917 . I n modern Greec e a mixed system has prevailed. The case is first referred t o the diocesan bishop, wh o seeks to bring about a reconciliation. I f his effort s fail , th e actua l divorce proceeding s ma y then begin , and thes e ar e conducte d i n th e civi l court . Shoul d th e civi l court decid e tha t ther e ar e grounds fo r a divorce, the dossie r i s referred bac k to th e bishop; an d onl y if he gives his consent doe s the divorc e decre e finally come int o effect . (Th e situation i n Greece is now more complex, as a result of the introduction o f civil marriage in 1982.) In a country such as Britain, where the Orthodo x Churc h i s separated fro m th e State , for obvious reason s the Orthodo x authoritie s ar e prohibite d fro m issuin g a churc h divorc e befor e a civi l divorce ha s bee n grante d i n th e Britis h courts . Th e Orthodo x ecclesiastica l court , however, is not oblige d automaticall y t o endors e wha t th e Stat e ha s decided. Th e case is re-examined, and onl y if it is felt that ther e are sufficient ground s for a divorce according to Orthodo x Cano n La w does the ecclesiastica l court permi t th e celebratio n o f a second marriage in church . 28.29 Secondly, ther e i s a specia l servic e fo r a secon d marriage , differin g i n importan t way s from th e norma l weddin g service . Thi s make s i t clea r tha t th e secon d union , althoug h blessed by the Church, can never be exactly the same as the first. St Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (806—815) , specified that the ceremony of Crowning should be omitte d at a second marriage; bu t sinc e the thirteenth century, a t any rate within th e jurisdiction of the Ecumenica l Patriarchate, i t ha s been customar y t o allo w the Crowning . Befor e i t occurs, however, two long penitential prayers are said, which give to the second marriage service a spirit altogethe r differen t fro m tha t whic h prevails at a first marriage. Th e first prayer begins : ' O Master , Lor d ou r Go d ... hav e merc y o n ou r sins , an d forgiv e th e transgressions o f thes e you r servants , callin g the m t o repentanc e an d grantin g the m pardon o f thei r offence s an d purificatio n fro m thei r sin s .. . Yo u kno w th e frailt y o f human nature. ' 28.30 The prayer goe s o n t o mentio n Biblical figures who received forgiveness , suc h a s Rahab the harlot (Josh . 2.1-24; Heb. 11.31 ; Jas. 2.25) and th e repentan t publica n (Luk e 18.10 401

A TEXTBOOK OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

14). The second prayer speaks of the couple as 'unable to bear the heat and burden of the day, and not having the strength t o endure the burning desire s of the flesh', and it quotes St Paul's words, 'It i s better to marr y than to burn' ( 1 Cor. 7.9) . The notion o f marriage as ' a remed y agains t sin', conspicuousl y absen t fro m th e servic e for a firs t marriage , is thus heavil y emphasized i n the rit e for a second unio n .. .

EXTRACT 2 9 PAUL VI Birth control 29.1 The change s that hav e taken plac e ar e i n fac t o f considerabl e importanc e an d concer n different problems . I n th e firs t plac e ther e i s th e questio n o f th e rapi d increas e i n population which has made many fear that world populatio n is going to grow faster than available resources , wit h th e consequenc e tha t man y familie s an d developin g countrie s are being faced wit h greater hardships. This fact ca n easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take radical measure s t o avert this danger. Ther e i s also the fact tha t not onl y working an d housin g conditions , bu t th e greate r demands mad e bot h i n th e economi c and educationa l field require that kind o f life i n which it is frequently extremely difficul t these days to provid e fo r a large family .

29.2 It i s also apparen t that , wit h the ne w understandin g o f the dignit y of woman, an d he r place in society, there has been an appreciation of the value of love in marriage and of the meaning o f intimate marrie d lif e i n th e ligh t o f that love. 29.3 But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the dominatio n an d rationa l organisatio n o f the force s o f nature to th e poin t tha t h e is endeavouring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life - ove r his body, over his min d an d emotions , ove r hi s socia l life , an d eve n ove r th e law s tha t regulat e th e transmission o f life . 29.4 This new state of things gives rise to ne w questions. Grante d the condition s o f life toda y and taking into account th e relevance of married love to the harmony and mutual fidelity of husband and wife , woul d i t not b e right to revie w the mora l norms i n forc e til l now, especially whe n i t i s fel t tha t thes e ca n b e observed , onl y wit h th e graves t difficulty , sometimes only by heroic effort ? 29.5 Moreover, i f one wer e to appl y here th e so-calle d principl e o f totality, coul d i t no t b e accepted tha t th e intentio n t o hav e a les s prolifi c bu t mor e rationall y planne d famil y might no t transfor m a n actio n whic h render s natural processe s infertile int o a licit an d provident contro l o f birth? Could i t no t b e admitted , i n othe r words , tha t procreativ e 402

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

finality applies t o th e totalit y o f married lif e rathe r tha n t o eac h singl e act ? I t i s being asked whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not com e when the transmissio n o f life shoul d b e regulated by their intelligenc e and will rather tha n throug h th e specifi c rhythm s of their ow n bodies .

29.6 This kin d o f questio n require d fro m th e teachin g authorit y o f th e Churc h a ne w an d deeper reflection o n the principles o f the moral teaching on marriage - a teaching which is based o n th e natura l law as illuminated an d enriche d b y divine Revelation. 29.7 Let n o Catholi c b e hear d t o asser t tha t th e interpretatio n o f th e natura l mora l la w is outside th e competenc e of the Church' s Magisterium. I t i s in fac t indisputable , a s Ou r Predecessors hav e man y time s declared , tha t Jesu s Christ , whe n h e communicate d hi s divine powe r t o Pete r an d th e othe r apostle s an d sen t the m t o teac h al l nation s hi s commandments, constitute d the m a s th e authenti c guardian s an d interpreter s o f th e whole moral law, not only , that is , of the law of the gospel but als o of the natural law, the reason being that th e natura l law declares the wil l of God, and it s faithfu l observanc e is necessary fo r men's eterna l salvation . 29.8 The Church, in carrying out this mandate, has always provided consisten t teaching on the nature of marriage, on the correct use of conjugal rights, and on all the duties of husband and wife . Thi s is especially true in recen t time s ... 29.9 The question of the birth of children, like every other question which touches human life , is too large to be resolved by limited criteria, such as are provided by biology, psychology, demography o r sociology . I t i s th e whol e ma n an d th e whol e comple x o f hi s responsibilities tha t mus t b e considered , no t onl y wha t i s natura l an d limite d t o thi s earth, bu t als o wha t i s supernatura l an d eternal . An d sinc e i n th e attemp t t o justif y artificial method s o f birt h contro l man y appea l t o th e demand s o f marrie d lov e o r o f 'responsible parenthood', these two important realitie s of married life must be accurately defined an d analysed . Thi s i s what W e mean t o do , wit h specia l referenc e to wha t th e Second Vatica n Counci l taugh t wit h th e highes t authorit y i n it s Pastora l Constitutio n Gaudium et Spes. 29.10 Married lov e particularl y reveal s it s tru e natur e an d nobilit y whe n w e realis e tha t i t derives fro m Go d an d find s it s supreme origi n i n hi m wh o 'i s Love' , th e Fathe r 'fro m whom ever y family i n heave n an d o n eart h is named' (Eph . 3.15) . 29.11 Marriage, then, i s far from bein g the effec t o f chance or th e resul t o f the blind evolutio n of natura l forces . I t i s in realit y the wis e and providen t institutio n o f God th e Creator , whose purpose was to establish in man his loving design. As a consequence, husband an d wife, throug h tha t mutua l gif t o f themselves , whic h i s specifi c an d exclusiv e to the m 403

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

alone, see k t o develo p tha t kin d o f persona l unio n i n whic h the y complemen t on e another i n orde r t o co-operat e wit h God i n th e generatio n an d educatio n o f new lives.

29.12 Furthermore, the marriage of those who have been baptised is invested with the dignity of a Sacramenta l sign of grace, for i t represent s the unio n o f Chris t an d hi s Church . 29.13 In th e ligh t o f thes e fact s th e characteristi c features an d exigencie s of married lov e ar e clearly indicated, an d i t i s of the highes t importanc e t o evaluat e the m exactly . 29.14 This love is above all fully human, a compound o f sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive . It is also, and above all, an act of the fre e will, whose dynamism ensures that not onl y does it endure through the joys and sorrow s of daily life, but als o that i t grows, so that husban d an d wif e become i n a way one hear t and one soul, and togethe r attai n thei r huma n fulfilment . 29.15 Then i t is a love which is total - tha t ver y special form o f personal friendshi p in which husband an d wif e generousl y shar e everything , allowing no unreasonabl e exception s o r thinking just of their ow n interests . Whoeve r reall y loves hi s partner love s not onl y fo r what he receives, but loves that partner for her own sake, content t o be able to enrich th e other wit h th e gif t o f himself. 29.16 Again, married lov e is faithful an d exclusive of all other, and thi s until death. This is how husband an d wif e understoo d i t o n th e da y o n which , full y awar e o f wha t the y wer e doing, they freely vowe d themselve s t o on e another i n marriage. Thoug h thi s fidelity of husband an d wif e sometime s present s difficulties, n o one ca n assert tha t it is impossible, for i t i s always honourable an d worth y o f the highes t esteem . Th e exampl e o f so many married persons dow n through the centuries shows not onl y that fidelit y is co-natural to marriage but als o tha t i t i s the sourc e of profound an d endurin g happiness . 29.17 And finall y thi s love is creative of life, fo r i t i s not exhauste d by the lovin g interchange of husband an d wife , bu t als o contrive s t o g o beyon d thi s t o brin g ne w lif e int o being . 'Marriage an d marrie d lov e ar e b y thei r characte r ordaine d t o th e procreatio n an d bringing up o f children. Children are the outstanding gif t o f marriage, and contribut e in the highes t degree to th e parents' welfare ' (Gaudium e t Spes, pp . 1070-2) . 29.18 Married love , therefore , require s o f husband an d wif e th e ful l awarenes s o f thei r obligations i n th e matte r o f responsibl e parenthood , whic h today , rightl y enough , i s much insiste d upon , bu t which , at the same time, shoul d b e rightly understood. Hence , this mus t b e studie d i n th e ligh t o f th e variou s inter-relate d argument s whic h ar e it s justification. 404

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

29.19 If firs t w e conside r i t i n relatio n t o th e biologica l processe s involved , responsibl e parenthood i s t o b e understoo d a s th e knowledg e an d observanc e o f thei r specifi c functions. Huma n intelligenc e discover s in th e facult y o f procreating life , th e biologica l laws which involv e human personality . 29.20 If, o n th e othe r hand , w e examine th e innat e drive s and emotion s o f man , responsibl e parenthood expresse s the dominatio n whic h reason an d wil l must exer t ove r them .

29.21 But if we then attend to relevant physical, economic, psychologica l and socia l conditions, those ar e considered t o exercis e responsible parenthoo d wh o prudentl y an d generously decide t o hav e a large family , o r who , fo r seriou s reason s an d wit h du e respec t t o th e moral law , choos e t o hav e n o mor e childre n fo r th e tim e bein g o r eve n fo r a n indeterminate period . 29.22 Responsible parenthood , moreover , i n th e term s i n whic h w e use the phrase , retain s a further an d deepe r significanc e o f paramount importanc e whic h refer s t o th e objectiv e moral orde r institute d b y Go d - th e orde r o f whic h a righ t conscienc e i s th e tru e interpreter. A s a consequence th e commitmen t t o responsibl e parenthoo d require s that husband an d wife, keeping a right order o f priorities, recognise their own duties towards God, themselves, their familie s an d huma n society . 29.23 From this it follows tha t they are not fre e t o do as they like in the service of transmitting life, o n th e suppositio n tha t i t i s lawfu l fo r the m t o decid e independentl y o f othe r considerations wha t i s the righ t cours e t o follow . O n th e contrary , the y ar e boun d t o ensure that what they do corresponds t o th e will of God the Creator . Th e very nature of marriage and its use makes this clear, while the constant teaching of the Church affirms it . 29.24 The sexua l activity, in which husban d an d wif e ar e intimatel y and chastel y unite d wit h one another, throug h which human lif e i s transmitted, is, as the recen t Counci l recalled, 'honourable an d good' . I t doe s not , moreover , ceas e t o b e legitimat e eve n when , fo r reasons independen t o f their will, it is foreseen t o b e infertile. Fo r its natural adaptatio n to th e expressio n an d strengthenin g o f th e unio n o f husban d an d wif e i s not thereb y suppressed. Th e fact s are , as experience shows, that new life i s not th e resul t of each an d every ac t o f sexua l intercourse . Go d ha s wisel y ordere d th e law s o f natur e an d th e incidence o f fertilit y i n suc h a wa y tha t successiv e births ar e alread y naturall y spaced through the inherent operatio n of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observanc e o f th e precept s o f th e natura l law , whic h i t interpret s b y it s constan t doctrine, teaches as absolutely required that i n any use whatever of marriage there must be no impairmen t o f its natural capacit y to procreat e human life . 405

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S 29.25

This particular doctrine, ofte n expounde d b y the Magisterium of the Church, is based o n the inseparable connection, establishe d by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between th e unitiv e significanc e an d th e procreativ e significanc e whic h ar e both inherent t o th e marriag e act. 29.26 The reason i s that th e marriag e act, because of its fundamental structure, while it unite s husband an d wife in the closest intimacy, als o brings into operatio n law s written int o th e actual nature of man an d o f woman fo r th e generatio n o f new life. An d i f each of these essential qualities, the unitiv e and th e procreative , i s preserved, the us e of marriage full y retains it s sense o f true mutua l lov e an d it s ordination t o th e suprem e responsibilit y o f parenthood t o which man i s called. W e believe that ou r contemporarie s ar e particularly capable o f seeing that thi s teaching i s in harmon y wit h huma n reason . 29.27 For men rightly observe that to force the use of marriage on one's partner without regar d to his or her condition or personal an d reasonable wishe s in the matter, i s no true ac t of love, an d therefor e offends th e mora l orde r i n it s particular applicatio n t o th e intimat e relationship o f husban d an d wife . I n th e sam e way , i f the y reflect , the y mus t als o recognise tha t a n ac t o f mutua l lov e whic h impair s th e capacit y to transmi t lif e whic h God th e Creator , throug h specifi c laws , ha s buil t int o it , frustrate s hi s desig n whic h constitutes th e norm s o f marriage, and contradict s th e wil l of the Autho r o f life. Hence , to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose , is equall y repugnan t t o th e natur e o f ma n an d o f woman, strike s a t th e hear t o f thei r relationship and is consequently in opposition t o the plan of God and his holy will. But to experience th e gif t o f marrie d lov e whil e respectin g th e law s o f conceptio n i s t o acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rathe r the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion ove r his body in general, s o also, and with more particular reason , he has no such dominio n ove r his specificall y sexua l faculties , fo r thes e ar e concerne d b y thei r ver y natur e wit h th e generation o f life, o f which Go d is the source. Fo r human lif e i s sacred - al l men mus t recognise tha t fact , Ou r Predecessor , Pop e Joh n XXIII , recalled , 'sinc e fro m it s firs t beginnings i t call s fo r th e creativ e action o f God' (Mater e t Magistra 1961) . 29.28 Therefore we base first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when we are oblige d onc e mor e t o declar e tha t th e direc t interruptio n o f the generativ e proces s already begu n and , abov e all , direc t abortion , eve n fo r therapeuti c reasons , ar e t o b e absolutely exclude d a s lawful mean s o f controlling th e birt h o f children . 29.29 Equally t o b e condemned , a s th e Magisteriu m o f th e Churc h ha s affirme d o n variou s occasions, i s direct sterilisation, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary . 406

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

29.30 Similarly excluded i s any action , whic h either before, a t th e momen t of , o r afte r sexua l intercourse, i s specifically intende d t o preven t procreatio n - whethe r as an end or as a means.

29.31 Neither i s it valid t o argue , a s a justification fo r sexual intercours e whic h i s deliberatel y contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with the normal relation s of past and futur e t o for m a single entity, and so be qualifie d b y exactl y th e sam e mora l goodnes s a s these . Thoug h i t i s tru e tha t sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order t o avoid a greater or in order to promote a greater good, i t is never lawful, eve n for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it - i n other words, to intend positively something which intrinsically contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention i s to protec t or promote th e welfare o f an individual, of a family o r of society in general. Consequently i t is a serious error to think that a whole married lif e of otherwis e norma l relation s ca n justif y sexua l intercours e whic h i s deliberatel y contraceptive an d s o intrinsically wrong . 29.32 But the Church in no way regards as unlawful therapeuti c means considered necessar y to cure organi c diseases , eve n thoug h the y als o hav e a contraceptiv e effect , an d thi s i s foreseen - provide d tha t thi s contraceptive effec t i s not directly intended fo r any motive whatsoever. 29.33 However, a s W e note d earlier , som e peopl e toda y rais e th e objectio n agains t thi s particular doctrin e o f the Churc h concernin g th e mora l law s governing marriage , that human intelligenc e ha s both th e righ t an d th e responsibilit y t o contro l thos e force s o f irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them towards ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth contro l i f by so doing the harmony and peac e of a family are better served and more suitable conditions ar e provided for the education o f children already born. T o this question w e must giv e a clear reply. The Church is the first to prais e and commen d the applicatio n o f human intelligenc e to a n activity in which a rational creatur e such as man i s so closel y associate d wit h hi s Creator . Bu t sh e affirm s tha t thi s mus t b e don e within th e limit s o f the orde r o f reality established b y God . 29.34 If therefore there are reasonable ground s for spacing births, arisin g from th e physica l or psychological conditio n o f husband o r wife, o r fro m externa l circumstances, the Churc h teaches tha t the n marrie d peopl e ma y take advantage of the natura l cycles immanent i n the reproductive system an d use their marriage a t precisely thos e times that are infertile , and i n thi s wa y contro l birth , a wa y whic h doe s no t i n th e leas t offen d th e mora l principles which we have just explained . 407

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

29.35 Neither th e Churc h no r he r doctrin e i s inconsisten t whe n sh e consider s i t lawfu l fo r married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemn s as always unlawful the use of means which directly exclude conception, eve n when the reason s given for th e latter practic e are neither trivia l nor immoral . I n reality , these two case s are completel y different. I n the former married couples rightly use a facility provided them by nature. In the latte r the y obstruct th e natura l developmen t o f the generativ e process. I t canno t b e denied tha t i n each case married couples, for acceptable reasons , are both perfectly clear in their intention t o avoid children and mean to make sure that none will be born. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the forme r cas e that husband an d wif e ar e ready to abstain fro m intercours e durin g the fertil e perio d a s often a s for reasonabl e motive s th e birth of another child is not desirable . And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimac y t o expres s thei r mutua l love an d safeguar d their fidelit y towards one another. I n doin g thi s they certainly give proof o f a true an d authenti c love . 29.36 Responsible me n ca n becom e mor e deepl y convinced o f th e trut h o f th e doctrin e lai d down b y th e Churc h o n thi s issu e if they reflec t o n th e consequence s o f methods an d plans for the artificial restriction of increases in the birth-rate. Let them first consider ho w easily this course of action can lead to the way being wide open to marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not muc h experience is needed t o be full y awar e of human weaknes s an d to understan d tha t me n - an d especially th e young, wh o are so exposed t o temptation - nee d incentive s to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect tha t gives cause for alarm is that a man wh o grow s accustome d t o th e us e o f contraceptiv e method s ma y forge t th e reverence du e t o a woman , and , disregardin g her physica l and emotiona l equilibrium , reduce he r to being a mere instrumen t fo r the satisfaction o f his own desires, no longe r considering he r a s his partner whom h e should surroun d wit h car e and affection . 29.37 Finally, grave consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into th e hands o f those public authorities who car e little for the precept s of the moral law . Wh o will blame a Government which in its attempt t o resolv e the problems affectin g a n entire country resort s to the sam e measures a s are regarded as lawful b y married people in the solution o f a particula r famil y difficulty ? Wh o wil l preven t publi c authoritie s fro m favouring thos e contraceptiv e methods whic h they consider mor e effective ? Shoul d the y regard thi s a s necessary , the y ma y eve n impos e thei r us e o n everyone . I t coul d wel l happen, therefore , tha t whe n people , eithe r individuall y o r i n famil y o r socia l life , experience the inheren t difficultie s o f the divin e law and ar e determined t o avoi d them , they may be giving into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal an d intimat e responsibilit y o f husband an d wife . 29.38 Consequently, unles s we are willing that th e responsibilit y o f procreating lif e shoul d b e left t o the arbitrary decision of men, we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and it s natural function s - limits , le t i t b e said , whic h n o one , whethe r a s a privat e individua l o r a s a publi c 408

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

authority, ca n lawfull y exceed . Thes e limit s ar e expressl y impose d becaus e o f th e reverence due to the whole human organism and its natural functions, in the light of the principles, which We stated earlier , and accordin g to a correct understandin g of the socalled 'principl e of totality', enunciated by Our Predecessor , Pope Pius XII. 29.39 It is to be anticipated tha t not everyon e perhaps will easily accept this particular teaching. There i s to o muc h clamorou s outcr y agains t th e voic e o f th e Church , an d thi s i s intensified b y moder n mean s o f communication . I t shoul d caus e n o surpris e tha t th e Church, any less than her divine Founder, is destined t o be a 'sign of contradiction' (Lk. 2.34). Sh e does not , becaus e o f this , evad e th e dut y impose d o n he r o f proclaimin g humbly but firmly the entire moral law , both natura l and evangelical. 29.40 Since the Church did not mak e either of these laws, she cannot b e their arbite r - onl y their guardia n and interpreter . I t can never be righ t fo r her t o declar e lawfu l wha t is in fact unlawful , because this, by its very nature, is always opposed t o the true good of man.

29.41 By vindicating the integrit y of the mora l la w of marriage, the Churc h i s convinced tha t she is contributing t o th e creatio n o f a truly human civilisation . Sh e urges man no t t o betray his personal responsibilities by putting all his faith i n technical expedients . In this way she defends the dignit y of husband an d wife . Thi s cours e o f action show s that th e Church, loyal to the example and teaching of the divine Saviour, is sincere and unselfis h in her regard fo r men whom sh e strives to help eve n now during this earthly pilgrimag e 'to share as sons i n th e lif e o f the livin g God, the Fathe r of all men'.

EXTRACT 3 0 CAHILL Bioethics and AIDS 30.1 Three o r fou r decade s ago , theologian s lik e Pau l Ramsey , Jame s Gustafson , Richard McCormick, an d Kare n Lebacq z served on nationa l policy-changin g bodies suc h as The National Commissio n o n th e Protectio n o f Huma n Subject s o f Biomedica l an d Behavioral Researc h (1974 ) an d th e President' s Commissio n fo r th e Stud y o f Ethica l Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979). Theologians were among the highly visible figures who founded and worked in bioethics institutes such as The Institute o f Religion at the Texas Medical Center in Houston (1954) ; the Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences, later to become the Hastings Center (1961); and th e Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University (1971). Theologians of the time not only wer e addressing problem s i n applie d ethic s wit h mor e focu s an d frequenc y tha n philosophers; the y als o cam e fro m long-standin g communitie s o f reflectio n o n basi c human enigma s like the meaning s of life, death , an d suffering . 409

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

30.22

These early theological participants in bioethics debates were not hesitan t t o use religious imagery, arguments, an d principles. For example, Gustafso n define d th e contributions of theology to medica l ethics by lifting ou t thre e themes: Go d intends th e well-being of the creation; God preserve s an d order s th e creation , a s well as creates new possibilities; an d humans are finite and sinful agent s who have great power to determine whether the wellbeing o f th e creatio n i s sustaine d o r not . Ye t Gustafso n sa w theologian s a s adoptin g different mode s o f discours e a t differen t times , fo r differen t purposes . Thes e coul d include narrative, prophetic, an d ethica l form s tha t wer e explicitly rooted i n theologica l premises; the y also include d type s of ethical an d polic y discours e tha t wer e not. Polic y discourse i n particular requires persons with institutional role s to formulate options an d recommendations withi n th e availabl e limit s an d possibilities , bot h i n term s o f th e practical adjustment s that ar e feasibl e an d th e argumentatio n tha t wil l be persuasive .

30.3 Paul Ramsey , an ardent champio n o f a biblical, covenantal ethic , use d creatio n imager y from th e Prologue to John's Gospel to argue against reproductive technologies. However , in addressin g th e Britis h governmen t wit h testimon y agains t i n vitro fertilization , hi s language wa s no t overtl y theological . Instead , h e appeale d t o a human e sens e o f th e dignity an d good s o f parenthood , an d predicte d "furthe r assault s upo n th e natura l foundations o f th e integrit y o f th e marriag e relation , an d ne w way s towar d th e manufactury o f children" . Similarly , th e Catholi c theologia n Richar d McCormic k wa s attentive to the "Christian convictio n that the sexual love that generates ought to becom e in principl e th e parenta l lov e tha t nurtures" . However , h e argue d agains t dono r insemination o n the basis of what he regarded a s a human appreciatio n o f marriage and parenthood: i t "separates procreatio n fro m marriage , or the procreative spher e fro m th e sphere of marital love, in a way that i s either violative of the marriage covenant o r likely to b e destructive of it an d th e family" . 30.4

By the end o f the 1970s , bioethics enjoyed grea t cultura l credibility , according t o Danie l Callahan, founder, with Willard Gaylin, of The Hastings Center. This came about becaus e most bioethicists adopted a n "interesting an d helpful" approach t o biomedical dilemmas, rather than railing against the establishment, and also because "they wer e quite willing to talk in a fully secular way." In fact, bioethics became popular because it was able "to pus h religion aside". This, accordin g to critics , was precisely what led theologians i n bioethic s eventually t o los e thei r influence . Theologian s succumbe d t o th e pressur e t o fram e th e issues an d t o spea k "i n a commo n secula r mode" . Religio n becam e intimidate d fro m "speaking i n it s ow n voice," or cam e t o b e viewed a s able to spea k with integrit y only within "th e confine s of particular religiou s communities".

30.5 Among others , Joh n H . Evans , who focuse s especiall y o n geneti c science , lament s th e ascendancy o f a n approac h t o bioethic s centere d o n th e fou r "secular " principle s o f autonomy, beneficence , non-maleficence , an d justice . Evan s employ s a distinctio n between "thick " and "thin" theories of the good tha t ultimately goe s back to John Rawls. Rawls distinguished between a "thin" and a "fuller" theor y o f the goo d i n orde r t o get 410

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

people to come to the table of public decision-making agreed that certain primary goods should b e secured for all in a just society. He maintained that socia l inequalities are just only insofa r a s the y wor k t o secur e thes e primar y good s fo r society' s leas t favore d members. Evans' s complain t i s tha t th e consequen t "thinning " o f publi c debat e ha s "eviscerated" the discourse neede d t o mak e important decision s abou t whethe r huma n genetic engineerin g i s compatibl e wit h worth y societa l ends , sinc e discussio n o f thos e ends i s ruled ou t o f bounds i n th e firs t place .

30.6 In hi s view , th e polic y discours e o n geneti c engineerin g i n th e Unite d State s i s bot h exemplified an d shape d b y Splicing Life (1983) , a repor t o f a presidentia l advisor y commission o n geneti c engineering . Th e commissio n entertaine d th e concern s o f theologians and religiou s leader s abou t th e aims o f genetic engineerin g and it s ultimate effects o n huma n lif e an d o n societies . Ye t th e fina l repor t terme d th e theologica l concerns "vague," and focused on more concrete problems (e.g. , creating animal-human hybrids) that the theological objections coul d no t definitivel y resolve. Thus the concerns that the creation of new life forms oversteps the boundaries of prudence and humility, or that the poor are being left behind in the development of genetic technologies, are left ou t of account i n the fina l reckoning of the ethic s and legalit y of genetic engineering. Evans maintains that mor e recen t debate s ove r cloning hav e served t o consolidat e th e forma l rationality of "bioethics," and to further eliminat e "thick" traditions and perspectives on the large r end s o f biomedicine fro m publi c debate . Instead , autonom y ha s becom e a n unexamined end in itself and few if any limits have been imposed by law or regulation on the adventure s of science. 30.7 Evans's ideal , fo r which he believes the prospect s to b e bleak, i s for citizen s to liste n t o professional debate s about geneti c engineering, take their concerns back to their "thick" communities of belief and value, and then bring the "demands" of their group regarding ends "t o th e public' s electe d officials" . T o reinvigorat e publi c debate , h e recommend s that separat e commissions be established t o dea l with societa l ends , an d wit h means t o ends. Professional s might serv e o n th e latter , bu t no t th e former . These commission s might solici t publi c participatio n throug h loca l consultation s an d surveys , possibl y adapting the model used by the State of Oregon to determine the medical procedures that would be covered under Medicaid. Evans cites the burgeoning "participatory democracy " literature to bolste r hi s case. 30.8 In my view, Evans is on the righ t trac k in suggesting that greater publi c participation i n bioethical debates would more fully engag e the members of religious traditions and other groups whos e perspective s d o no t fin d a comfortabl e hom e i n th e discours e o f "professional" bioethics . A t the sam e time, i t is striking that h e and othe r critic s of th e secularization o f bioethics keep their gaze so firmly fixed on governmental bodie s such as public commissions, regulator y agencies, and legislatures. Not only are the decisions and policies of such bodies th e ultimat e targe t of influence, the y are also expecte d to pla y a major rol e i n th e reinvigoratio n o f th e discourse s tha t the y ar e claime d t o hav e suppressed. No wonder Evans's expectation of change is modest. And Evans is not alone ; 411

A TEXTBOOK OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

in fac t h e represent s th e genera l assumption s o f mos t o f th e literatur e o n theology , bioethics, an d policy .

30.9 To a remarkable degree, the critic s of "the Enlightenmen t Project " o f secular discours e have bough t int o th e term s o f tha t projec t whe n the y agre e tha t influentia l publi c discourse not onl y is secular but i s controlled by intellectual an d scientifi c elite s who are privileged arbiter s of the directio n governmen t wil l take. Michel Foucault used the ter m "the repressiv e hypothesis " t o refe r t o th e wa y modern "discourse " abou t se x co-opts everyone wh o discusse s se x int o th e belie f tha t thei r sexualit y i s unde r illegitimat e constraints tha t mus t b e throw n off . As a consequence , everyon e behave s a s i f suc h constraints reall y existed , and , perversel y obedien t t o th e moder n discours e tha t re creates se x a s "sexuality, " obsesse s abou t se x a s somethin g tha t mus t a t al l cost s b e "rediscovered," "owned, " an d "liberated. " I n thi s way , th e discours e o f repressio n stimulates and proliferates the very reality supposedly constrained, even while convincing those engaged in i t that its existence is precarious. Moreover, the realit y produced (sex ) follows norm s o f th e controllin g discours e ( a scientifi c an d therapeuti c discourse) , delegitimating countervailing experiences, value s and norms . 30.10 One migh t conclud e th e sam e abou t th e suppose d "marginalization " o f theolog y i n bioethics, takin g not e o f th e numbe r o f paper s an d article s tha t hav e deal t wit h th e phenomenon i n th e pas t fiftee n o r mor e years . The paralle l wit h Foucault' s analysi s of sexual "repression" is especially striking, in light of the never-endin g advocacy of many churches, religiou s groups , an d theologian s fo r "pro-life " causes . Th e prevailin g discourse ha s manage d virtuall y to equat e "religiou s bioethics " wit h suc h advocacy , constructing i t as a public danger, even while insisting on it s marginality. A n importan t corollary i s that th e "official " discourse also establishe s th e bioethic s issue s that wil l be central to public policy. For public debate in law, policy, medicine and research, the foca l issue i s undoubtedly th e protectio n o f autonomy by procedural guarantee s of informed consent. Meanwhile, religion is framed a s entirely preoccupied with "status of life" issues, especially th e fat e o f embryos an d th e processe s of reproduction, and a s in the gri p of a vaguely articulate d an d ultimatel y baseles s fea r tha t interferenc e wit h "natural " reproduction wil l denigrate "human dignity. " Leavin g asid e the possibl e meri t o f such concerns, a n equall y o r mor e importan t concer n o f religio n an d theolog y - th e economics of biotech development and genomics and their effects o n social solidarity and distributive justic e - i s quit e effectivel y kep t of f th e polic y tabl e b y th e dominan t discourse, an d it s constructio n o f "mainstream " an d "marginal " voices . Religiou s thinkers, policymakers, and the public have, for the most part, conceded that religion and theology hav e ver y littl e ultimat e effec t o n wha t reall y goe s o n i n biomedicin e an d research, and that even laws and policy that appear to set limits will eventually give way in the fac e o f scientific "advances" and corporat e demands. 30.11 The disenfranchisemen t o f theologica l bioethics i s sealed b y theologians ' concessio n o f their own irrelevance; theologians' complaint that secular thinking has squeezed them out of the public realm in fact abets the very worldview that displaces theology . The narrativ e 412

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIPS

of th e exclusio n o f "religion " help s concea l th e fac t tha t "secular " bioethic s i s i n fac t deeply an d extensivel y tradition-base d an d "thick " wit h th e imager y an d languag e of transcendent meaning . Lik e other form s of transcendent experienc e and worship, science and genetic s ar e grounde d i n communa l practices , imaginativel y nourishe d b y mythologies an d saints , justified b y ideologies o f purpose, warned against outer demon s and inne r sinfulness , an d urge d t o kee p the fait h wit h promise s o f salvation .. .

30.12 While publi c theologica l bioethic s ha s typicall y focuse d it s energie s o n governmen t regulation an d legislatio n a s mean s t o contro l geneti c developments , tradition s o f Christian socia l activis m an d ne w studies o f participatory democrac y and participatory , democratic global governance may in combination sugges t new directions for theological analysis of bioethics and socia l change . A few theologians note, specificall y i n regar d t o the practic e an d socia l institutionalizatio n o f genomics , tha t th e man y mediatin g institutions o f public lif e provid e opportunitie s fo r theological impac t beyond th e mor e visible debate o n legislation, policies and funding . Everyon e in civil society lives in many overlapping association s wher e values are forme d tha t affec t th e commo n life . Andrew Lustig draw s o n communitaria n construal s o f publi c engagement , i n whic h "variou s forms o f suasion an d moral authority" ar e at work in the conversation, in which "extra legal sanctions" for decisions and practice s coul d be developed. Theological bioethicist s themselves work i n a variety of more an d les s forma l professiona l capacities, including ethics committees, institutional revie w boards, advisory commissions , and professiona l advisors. 30.13 It i s possibl e t o exten d an d deepe n th e connectio n o f theologica l bioethic s t o socia l activism by linking religion an d theology t o coalitions workin g for distributive justic e on multiple levels , fro m communit y organizin g t o nationa l legislatio n t o transnationa l advocacy networks. Resources includ e studies of participatory democrac y i n the U.S., as well a s participator y globa l governance ; man y participator y socia l movement s ar e sponsored i n whole or par t by faith tradition s o r ecumenica l organizations. Catholicis m stands out a s having a more long-standing institutiona l presence in health care, as well as a substantia l teachin g traditio n o n socia l justic e issues , includin g healt h resourc e allocation, an d a trac k recor d o f activis m t o empowe r disenfranchise d groups . Thes e achievements fin d parallel s i n Protestan t Christianit y an d othe r religions , including th e Social Gospel , temperance , women' s suffrage , an d civi l right s movements , an d mor e contemporary project s that includ e healt h car e and genetics.. . 30.14 A striking exampl e fro m th e healt h car e realm i s a series of events tha t i n abou t a two year perio d loosene d th e gri p o f majo r pharmaceutica l companie s o n patente d AID S drugs, makin g the m availabl e cheaply o r fo r fre e i n countrie s wit h hig h rate s both o f poverty an d o f AID S deaths , beginning wit h Sout h Africa . I n thi s particula r example , religious voices, local activism, NGO's, th e U.N., market competition fro m generi c drug manufacturers, an d marke t pressur e fro m consumer s an d stockholder s al l played som e part, resultin g i n a modificatio n o f Worl d Trad e Organizatio n polic y o n intellectua l property, ove r whic h th e powe r o f bi g busines s ha d seeme d unassailabl e a t th e start . 413

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

Again, the lesso n for theological bioethics is that socia l change is possible even when th e entrenched system s o f contro l ove r good s ar e infecte d wit h structura l sin . Forcefu l intervention ca n b e accomplishe d cooperatively , alon g a spectru m o f pressure points , even i n th e absenc e o f commitment fro m top-leve l arbiter s of law and policy .

EXTRACT 3 1

wcc

Churches against racism 31.1 We now turn to a few reflections on th e role of the Churc h itself. I n the second chapte r we tried to describ e wha t th e Churc h ough t t o be , i.e. a community o f disciples which constantly regroups an d reconstitute s itself around situation s of suffering. Wha t ar e th e consequences of discipleship i n term s o f 'disciplined life' ? The legacy of the suffering Church in past and present 31.2 The evil of racism discloses in a new way how often th e churches fail to centre around th e suffering, dispossesse d and degraded members o f humanity. Th e churches ar e constantl y yielding to the temptation to forget those who are forgotten and not heed the voice of the voiceless. The y see k t o organiz e an d establis h themselve s alon g th e line s o f th e mai n values and dominant force s in their respective societies. In varying degrees the histories of our churches bear witness to their constant drifting away from th e poor and powerless t o the ric h an d mighty . The persecution s o f defenceles s minorities, th e ghetto s o f Jew s i n Europe and th e recurren t pogroms , th e endles s strea m o f refugees, wh o fo r th e sak e of their fait h hav e ha d t o leav e thei r home s an d land s - al l these hav e throug h man y centuries left a stain on the history of Christianity. This means that mos t o f our 'official ' established churches , becaus e o f thei r histor y an d th e wa y thei r structure s hav e developed, ar e no t equippe d t o dea l wit h thi s suffering . Ther e have , o f course , bee n movements within the churches which have had certain insights so radical and oneside d that th e established , officia l churc h a t th e tim e ha s foun d the m threatening . Bu t thes e movements hav e ofte n bee n brande d 'heretical ' o r 'sectarian' . Consequentl y the y have suffered appallingl y at the hands of the officia l Churc h and o f the political authoritie s i n the particular country with which the officia l Churc h had aligne d itself. Yet it is in many of thes e expelle d group s tha t th e witnes s o f endurin g hop e i n th e mids t o f s o muc h suffering ha s been kep t alive . Thi s present s u s with th e dut y o f rescuin g thi s legac y o f suffering an d resistance , o f revol t an d silen t endurance , hidde n i n th e histor y o f th e oppressed. This would giv e us a truer understandin g o f what is today being expressed in the theologie s o f black people, notabl y i n Nort h Americ a and Souther n Africa . A t th e same time, it will help us to a deeper understandin g o f what it means to die to the migh t and power of this world and to ris e again on the sid e of suffering. A s the churches reflec t the ministr y of Jesus Christ wh o 'reigns fro m th e Tree' , they will regai n their authenti c ministry. Calle d constantl y t o meditat e o n th e cros s an d resurrection , the y wil l b e reminded tha t their Lord died o n the cross because of the combined effort s o f an alliance of establishe d religio n an d powe r politics . The y wil l nee d t o b e constantl y o n guar d 414

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

against the recurring danger of concluding similar alliances, and become again and agai n the Churc h o f the sufferin g servant . Racism - a 'moral heresy'? 31.3 We have tried t o reflec t o n th e Church' s rol e with th e self-searchin g tha t thi s requires . The sin of racism is so all-pervasive that we are not a t liberty to judge or condemn others . Nevertheless, we have to fac e u p t o th e issu e of 'moral heresy' to which much attentio n has been given in recent years, particularly in connection with the Programme to Combat Racism. In ou r view , the concep t o f 'heresy' i s not i n practic e a very helpfu l standpoin t from whic h t o conside r racism . Certainl y w e recogniz e tha t som e o f th e theorie s an d beliefs advanced to justify racis m may be heretical, but th e discussion of racism must no t be side-tracke d int o a n academi c discussio n o f what i s or i s not forma l heresy . On th e other hand , w e recognize that orthodox y an d orthoprax y ar e intimatel y related . A s we have already noted, Christia n doctrine cannot be divorced from it s practical implications. All heretical teaching is likely to produc e mora l distortion s o f one sor t o r another .

31.4 Equally, behind every discriminative action , if accepted an d justified a s a Christian mod e of behaviour , ther e lie s som e hidde n heresy . Bu t ou r mai n concer n shoul d no t b e t o denounce group s o r churche s a s morall y heretical . Rather , we shoul d b e consistentl y attentive t o possibl y negativ e effect s o f certai n belief s an d practices , an d t o hel p eac h other t o discove r an d overcom e them . 31.5 The concept of moral heresy, it seems to us, was originally intended t o make a preacher's point. Th e legitimac y o f this i s hardly open t o dispute . Bu t endless complication s an d difficulties aris e when it is transplanted int o forma l theologica l discourse, particularly in the contex t o f th e ecumenica l movement , whic h ha s n o constitutiona l claim s o n it s member churches . Church discipline 31.6 From ou r understandin g o f discipleshi p w e woul d b e incline d rathe r t o focu s ou r attention o n th e disciplin e o f th e church . I f 'bein g th e Church ' mean s 're-establishin g community i n situations of suffering', i t means leading a disciplined lif e according to this criterion. 'Discipline d life' mean s that al l decisions and action s a t al l levels of church lif e are relate d t o thi s central notio n o f discipleship. As such i t doe s no t impl y rigidity and isolation but rathe r consistent flexibility and openness: not an openness towards all kinds of things, but toward s peopl e and communitie s o f people (includin g other churches ) in whose lif e sufferin g fo r th e sak e o f freedo m an d reconciliatio n ha s someho w becom e constitutive. Onl y in the context o f this disciplined lif e does the concept o f unity take on meaning and substance . Onl y in th e contex t o f this discipline d lif e ca n the unit y of th e Church be calle d a sign of the unit y of mankind .

415

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

31.7

We are very much aware of the fac t tha t in the course of church history church discipline has been organized according to certain patterns and that in some churches it has become an importan t par t of their lif e an d structure . We would invit e all churches, however , to consider whether some of these patterns of church discipline have not i n fact moved away from th e notio n o f discipleshi p that w e are tryin g to spel l ou t here . A t thi s point , w e would lik e to sugges t two points :

31.8 a) I n th e firs t plac e w e submi t tha t th e notio n o f churc h disciplin e ha s becom e to o individualistic in many churches. It is the individual church member who is 'disciplined'. The proces s o f repentanc e tha t w e hav e bee n tryin g t o describe , however , make s i t difficult t o maintai n thi s emphasis . I n sin s lik e racis m me n an d wome n ar e involve d collectively an d i t i s the sam e i n th e Church . W e canno t assum e a clea n Churc h ove r against a possibl y unclea n individual . Disciplin e i n thi s sens e mus t mean helpin g on e another relentlessly to become aware of the dimensions o f evil and of our involvemen t i n it. Discipline in this sense can only be judging if it is simultaneously self-judging and i f it leads t o commo n effort s a t repentance-action . O f course these thing s have always been important i n the understanding of church discipline. But it seems to u s that they take on new meaning in th e ligh t o f the discoverie s we have made . 31.9 Yet thi s i s no t th e mos t radica l reaso n wh y a n individualisti c conceptio n o f churc h discipline seem s t o b e inadequate . I n th e ligh t o f ou r understandin g o f discipleshi p a s constant regroupin g aroun d rea l suffering , disciplin e mean s a consisten t effor t t o hel p each other to shar e constructively an d hopefull y in the sufferin g tha t i s the resul t o f sin. 31.10 b) I n the secon d plac e we submit tha t i n mos t churche s the notion o f church discipline has becom e to o exclusiv e i n th e sens e tha t i t i s automaticall y associate d wit h excommunication. W e ar e no t prepare d t o eliminat e thi s notio n o f excommunicatio n entirely: we feel tha t it has its legitimate place in a Church that seeks to lead a disciplined life. Bu t neithe r ar e w e prepare d t o us e th e notio n o f excommunicatio n directly , fo r instance by saying that the Church should excommunicate all racists. Our understandin g of the sin of racism, as we have sought to describe it, and o f the nature of discipleship i n view of racism, clearly prohibits this . 31.11 Most important, however, is that our churche s still lack the fruit o f credibility that woul d grow ou t o f a discipline d lif e aroun d situation s o f rea l suffering ; an d w e fee l tha t responsible discussion of excommunication can only take place on the basis of such fruit . Until we have made som e rea l progress o n thi s road , w e are no t fre e o n th e groun d o f racism eithe r to excommunicat e certai n churche s from th e fellowshi p of churches . 31.12 On the whole, it is much more important t o work for authenticity at the centre than for a rigid definitio n o f boundaries. Authenticit y at th e centr e implies solidarit y i n bein g th e 416

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

body of Christ i n the world. That i s not a n uncritical solidarity that knows no limits: it is a solidarity that keep s defining an d redefinin g itsel f from th e centre . I n that proces s th e so-called boundarie s o f the Churc h migh t become visibl e to peopl e simpl y by what th e Church i s and does , rather tha n b y what i t say s and defines . Forms of disciplined life 31.13 Only i n th e contex t o f thi s positiv e understandin g o f disciplin e ca n w e sa y tha t th e Church shoul d examin e it s ow n lif e relentlessl y i n orde r t o ascertai n an d eliminat e institutional racis m i n itself . Onl y i n th e contex t o f thi s positiv e understandin g o f discipline can we try to avoid both the arrogant aloofness o f those who fee l that they are too importan t t o get their hands soiled in the mundane struggle against racism as well as the self-righteou s sectarian attitud e o f those wh o believ e tha t the y alone ar e the Lord' s true disciples because they march agains t racism in advance of the Church . And onl y in the context o f this positive understanding of discipline will submerged people and groups within th e Churc h b e enable d t o ris e an d tak e i n han d thei r ow n responsibilitie s a s members of the bod y o f Christ .

31.14 What doe s thi s mea n fo r th e lif e o f th e Church ? We hav e give n ou r attentio n t o th e following concerns : Discipline in worship and sacraments 31.15 Firstly i t appear s tha t th e Churc h need s t o b e base d mor e decisivel y o n 'discipline d worship'. This would impl y that w e seek a new discipline in th e sacrament s o f Baptism and th e Eucharist . Throug h Baptis m ever y perso n i s mad e par t o f th e Christia n Community, an d thi s inclusivenes s o f ou r corporat e identit y i n Chris t mus t b e take n literally. I n th e sam e wa y the Eucharis t is the celebratio n o f oneness i n Chris t an d i t is rendered incredibl e wher e it i s not live d ou t i n a consistent an d committe d practic e of solidarity betwee n blac k and white , between race s and sexes .

31.16 The discipline d lif e i n th e sacrament s an d th e worshi p o f Go d provoke s rigorou s prophetic preaching . Unrepentant racist s need t o be exhorted tha t fo r the health of their souls the y are not welcom e a t the Lord' s tabl e unti l the y truly repent. Th e leadership o f the Churc h need s t o b e vigorou s enoug h t o eradicat e preachin g an d teachin g whic h conforms t o persona l an d institutiona l racism , an d t o suppor t preacher s an d teacher s who work against racism . Fo r indifference t o racis m in the Churc h i s indifference t o th e worship an d servic e of God. 31.17 At the same time our disciplin e of worship will have to be much more pastoral insofa r as it seeks to dra w into communio n wit h Christ thos e who truly repent an d ar e burdene d with unacquitted guilt , hidden fears and loneliness. A disciplined worshi p will be worship which is unqualifiedly hospitable to all who seek Christ. Of course, each congregation ha s a definite character. But truly united worship will always include those who do not fit in. 417

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

They are an indispensable sign of how radical the communication of God is. We ought t o work har d t o preven t totall y homogeneou s congregations , t o secur e worship whic h i s truly hospitabl e t o th e wid e diversit y o f Christia n identity . So , a s a consequenc e o f disciplined worship, the Church discovers ho w deeply its prophetic and pastoral tasks are intertwined an d ho w they flow togethe r i n the building u p of the healing community in this world . Th e inclusivenes s o f th e Churc h wil l revea l itsel f i n th e integrit y an d comprehensiveness wit h whic h i t denounce s sin , give s ne w hear t t o th e broke n an d disheartened, heal s the depressed, an d set s free the oppressed . Disciplined life in education 31.18 The discipline d lif e i n th e Churc h no t onl y expresse s itsel f i n th e centra l activit y o f worship, i n preachin g an d administratio n o f th e sacraments . Th e discover y o f th e pervasive an d contaminatin g characte r o f racis m mus t lea d u s als o t o reflec t o n othe r dimensions o f the churches' life. We would in particular like to mention som e aspects in the area s of education an d renewal .

31.19 The brief reference to church history forces us to conclude that the task of teaching in the Church wil l hav e t o includ e th e critica l reassessmen t o f th e exten t t o whic h ou r perception o f ou r histor y stil l reflect s an d perpetuate s discriminatio n agains t minorit y groups. Ther e i s need t o reevaluat e the importan t contribution s an d insight s fo r which many marginalized and rejecte d groups have struggled and suffered . I n addition t o thi s there is need t o correct the ofte n fals e ways in which history books an d other theological textbooks presen t th e storie s o f thes e group s an d movements . T o reliv e th e pas t b y rediscovering the role of the Church of Christ from the viewpoint of the suffering Churc h will help us greatly to se e ourselves today in that self-scrutinizing an d repentan t manne r of which w e have tried t o speak . Thi s will hel p u s bot h a s teachers an d a s students o f theology toda y t o becom e awar e o f th e on-goin g cultural , ethnocentri c an d linguisti c presumptions which, in different ways , still reinforce racist features in our theology . Such a self-scrutinizing style of doing theology will lead us to seek ways of inter-cultural, interracial an d thereb y trul y ecumenical confrontatio n an d correction . I t wil l als o mak e i t mandatory t o see k a deeper understandin g o f the sociological , psychological , economi c and other elements which need to be taken int o accoun t i n order not onl y to assess full y the churches ' involvemen t i n racis m an d th e mechanism s whic h enforc e it bu t als o t o provoke change s with sufficien t car e and vigour . 31.20 Again, onl y on th e basi s of such a self-critical approach woul d w e be entitle d t o attac k prophetically th e unjus t features , economic , politica l an d otherwise , o f entrenche d racism. 31.21 An obviou s consequenc e o f al l this i s the nee d t o revis e the curricul a o f educatio n i n schools and other institution s o f learning. This not onl y relates to history books, but als o to th e literatur e w e use in ou r worshi p services . Hymnbook s an d liturgie s nee d t o b e checked and new formulae suggested which take into account the experiences of churches 418

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIPS

and movements tha t ar e constantly bein g overlooked, distruste d o r rejected . Disciplined life shoul d b e marke d b y th e imaginatio n an d jo y o f discoverin g th e experience s wit h Christ whic h suc h group s represent .

31.22 Another vita l aspec t o f renewin g educationa l effort s need s t o b e a ne w emphasi s o n enabling the marginalized to make full us e of their potential. Provisions must be made to help thes e group s t o defen d an d expres s themselve s no t i n th e spiri t o f benevolen t remedial activity but i n an attempt to share resources, insights and gifts which exist in the one body o f Christ an d whic h mus t no t b e lef t t o suffe r les t th e whol e body suffer . Disciplined life in renewal 31.23 The collective and pervasiv e sin of racism has led u s to understan d mor e full y tha t th e discipline o f renewa l mus t constantl y see k t o mee t th e requirement s o f inclusiveness , mutual accountabilit y an d comprehensiveness. Honest attempt s at active repentance will lead t o a close combination o f work an d reflection , o f witness an d commitment . I t will also penetrat e th e on-goin g evangelisti c tas k of the churches . This i s a formidabl e task because i n man y churches the emphasi s o n evangelis m tend s t o b e separate d fro m th e insistence o n socia l action an d th e radica l transformation o f society. Bu t we affirm tha t conversion to God calls for a second conversio n to the world, especially to those who are in sufferin g an d pain .

31.24 The enormit y o f th e proble m o f racis m ha s perplexe d an d frustrate d man y an d th e struggle agains t i t i n it s many differen t form s has exhausted man y groups . Other s hav e sunk back into resignatio n an d apathy . 31.25 The qualit y o f th e disciplin e o f th e healin g sacramenta l communit y o f Christian s will therefore b e determined , particularl y a t th e loca l level , b y th e sharin g love , pastora l concern an d prophetic solidarity in suffering which refuse to leave brothers and sisters to stand alone. The Church must enfold them in its protective arms, encourage, correct and sustain the m t o retur n t o an d persis t i n the battle agains t racism .

EXTRACT 3 2 RUETHER Western Christianity and Zionism

32.1 One of the most shocking an d puzzlin g phenomena for Middle Easter n Christian s i s the behavior o f Wester n Christian s towar d them . Fa r fro m showin g concer n abou t th e sufferings o f Palestinian Christians , a s part o f the Palestinia n people, Western Christian s ignore them, a s if they don't exist. They rush to Israe l to se e ancient site s of the Hebre w and Christia n Bible , but see m obliviou s t o th e 'livin g stones ' o f thos e descendant s o f 419

A TEXTBOOK O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

ancient Christian s i n th e Hol y Land . Eve n worse , the y ad d thei r ow n biblica l an d theological arguments to support th e Zionist takeove r of the land of the Palestinians and the oppressio n o r expulsio n o f the Palestinia n people .

32.2 What i s the basis o f this behavio r o f Western Christians ? I n this essay I try to sho w th e roots o f this type of Christian Zionism , which reads the Israeli—Palestinia n conflict fro m the contex t o f a Western se t of agendas that hav e little root s o r meanin g fo r Palestinia n Christians o r Ara b peopl e generally . Although , a s Nair n Atee k ha s said , a Palestinia n liberation theolog y ha s arisen , an d ha s bee n force d t o arise , t o answe r thes e type s o f religious claim s fro m Jew s an d Wester n Christians , I believ e tha t i t i s particularl y th e responsibility o f Wester n Christian s an d Jew s t o spea k criticall y t o thei r ow n communities abou t thi s misus e o f theology t o justif y injustice . I n thi s essa y I examin e and deconstruct thes e patterns of Christian Zionis m which have been use d to ignore and disregard Palestinia n huma n an d politica l right s and t o justif y occupation . 32.3 Support fo r Zionism an d fo r the state of Israel have deep root s i n Western Christianity . Patristic an d Medieva l Christianit y had adhere d t o a myth o f divine punishmen t o f th e Jews tha t include d thei r exil e an d wanderin g outsid e th e ancien t homeland . Bu t Reformation Christianity , particularl y Reforme d o r Calvinis t Christianity , develope d theological belief s i n a restoration o f the Jew s to thei r homeland. Thes e ties of Reforme d Christianity t o th e ide a o f the restoratio n o f the Jew s t o Palestin e wer e based o n thre e major premises . 32.4 First, evangelical Christian s nationalize d th e Christian ide a of itself as the New Israel. Thi s developed a new affinity fo r the Jews as representatives of the Old Israel. The English and the Americans , particularly, though t o f their peopl e an d lan d a s the ne w Israel an d th e new Zion . The y came t o thin k o f the Jew s les s a s a superseded o r negate d people , an d more a s a parallel people , a sibling people , wit h who m the y ha d a specia l relationship . Reformed Christian s discarde d th e Catholi c saint s a s thei r religiou s ancestor s an d identified instea d wit h th e ancien t Hebrew s a s thei r religiou s forebears . Th e Jew s were thought o f as the contemporar y descendant s of those ancient Hebrews . 32.5 Secondly, th e mandat e fo r restoratio n o f th e Jew s t o Palestin e wa s par t o f a revise d Protestant eschatology. Protestant Christian s believed that the promises to the Jews in the Hebrew Scripture must be fulfilled a s a precondition fo r the return of Christ and the final redemption o f the world. So, restoration o f the Jews to Palestin e became an integral part of a ne w Christia n eschatology , particularl y amon g pre-millennialis t evangelica l Christians. 32.6 Finally, restoration o f the Jews rests on a literalistic belief in Palestine as a land promise d exclusively t o th e Jew s by God , whethe r o r no t the y ar e presen t i n it . Thi s ide a o f th e promised lan d ha d bee n spiritualize d an d universalize d i n Patristi c an d Catholi c 420

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

Christianity. I t becam e a symbo l o f th e whol e cosmo s o r o f heaven . Bu t Protestan t Christianity abandoned classica l allegorical hermeneutics for literal, historica l interpret ation o f the Bible. This reinforced a new particularism of peoplehood an d land, both fo r Christian identity an d als o i n relatio n t o th e Jew s and th e biblica l ide a o f the promise d land.

32.7 These ideas of the Jews ' restoration wer e revived in the evangelica l and pre-millennialis t revivals i n Englan d an d Americ a i n th e secon d hal f o f th e nineteent h century . Bot h British an d America n evangelical s promote d idea s o f Jewis h restoratio n t o Palestine . Ironically enough, these ideas were very much resiste d by the Jewish community in both countries i n thi s period . The y wer e particularl y resiste d b y Refor m Jews , wh o ha d pu t aside th e Jewis h laws that ha d tie d Jew s t o a separat e communa l way of lif e an d wer e seeking integration and equal citizenship in a secular pluralistic definition of nationalism. Reform Jew s suspected tha t Christian enthusiasm for Jewish restoration i n the 1890 s was tied to a desire to divert the flow of Jews from Russi a to Western Europe and America. In this period hundreds of thousands o f poor Jews were fleeing fro m th e pogroms in Eastern Europe t o th e West . Refor m Jew s suspected , no t withou t reason , tha t Christia n restorationism was a cover fo r deportation of the Jews. 32.8 This histor y o f Christia n restorationis m i s a n essentia l par t o f th e backgroun d fo r understanding th e affinit y wit h Zionis m amon g bot h Britis h and America n Christian s that has tied first the British and then the Americans to support fo r Israel. By pointing t o these religious ties of Christians to Zionism, I do not deny that the chief reason for British and America n support fo r Israe l is that o f colonialist self-interest . Israe l ha s been seen , first, a s a British-identifie d an d the n a n American-identifie d stat e tha t support s th e interests o f these nation s i n th e Middl e Eas t an d th e world . Bu t the religiou s ties have been use d t o cove r u p thi s colonialis t self-interes t an d t o buil d stron g emotiona l an d symbolic identificatio n between th e tw o Western nation s an d Israel . 32.9 In this paper I will address fou r key religious arguments that ar e still operative in linking Christians in America to Israel . Three of these arguments are versions of the arguments I have alread y mentioned . Th e fourt h argumen t ha s arise n fro m mor e recen t Europea n history, namely, the Naz i Holocaust . 32.10 The first and most importan t o f the arguments that appeal for Christian support o f Israel is the literalistic belief that God promised thi s land to the Jews in an eternal and exclusive sense. Thi s belie f i n divin e donatio n wa s no t a s importan t fo r earlie r Wester n secula r Zionists who were themselves either atheists or non-observant Jews . They appealed to the special relationship o f the Jews to this area primarily as a part of Jewish ethnic, historica l identity. Bu t the religiou s for m o f the clai m gre w much mor e importan t afte r th e 196 7 war, with the growt h of fundamentalist Jewish religious Zionism. For example, in a 1988 publication o f the Friends of Zion, Hashivah or Return, it is stated tha t criticism of Israel in th e recen t uprisin g o f th e Palestinian s stem s fro m a los s o f fait h i n th e biblica l 421

A TEXTBOOK OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

promises, specificall y amon g Christians: 'I t i s hardl y surprisin g i n a worl d wher e th e majority of people reject the biblical promise s of Israel's restoration and return to all the land give n by God to Abraham and hi s seed through Isaa c and Jacob . It is a pity that socalled Christia n nations , influence d b y centurie s o f Replacemen t Theology , frequentl y deny Israel's right t o th e ancien t lands. '

32.11 A second appea l of religious Zionists to Christian s i s the belief that Jewis h restoratio n t o Palestine is part o f a messianic or redemptiv e scenario . Th e Christian millennialis t for m of thi s redemptiv e scenari o i s differen t fro m tha t o f Jewis h fundamentalism . Fo r Christian millennialists , th e Jews ' restoratio n i s a preconditio n fo r th e predestine d conversion o f 144,00 0 Jews to Christianit y and th e outbrea k o f Armageddon, whic h will kill al l unconverte d Jews , a s wel l a s othe r enemie s o f God , suc h a s Arab s an d Communists. Obviousl y these idea s of Jewish conversio n an d destructio n ar e unaccept able to al l Jews. 32.12 Nevertheless, Zionism , both o f the officia l governmenta l variet y and i n som e sector s o f religious Zionism , ha s mad e a marriag e o f convenienc e i n recen t year s wit h Christia n millennialist evangelicals . The y se e suc h evangelical s a s staunc h supporter s o f Israel , including it s claims t o an expanded territor y i n 'Judea an d Samaria.' They seek either t o detach, or else to ignore, these ties of immediate support t o the long-range eschatologica l scenario o f Jewish conversion , destructio n o f the unconverte d Jews , and th e worl d reig n of Christ . 32.13 However, belief that th e foundin g o f the state of Israel is a fulfilment o f biblical prophec y is not simpl y a tenet of a relatively small group of pre-millennialist evangelicals. In a more general way , an d no t particularl y tie d t o thi s pre-millennialis t scenario , thi s belie f i s widely hel d amon g America n Christians . A 198 7 stud y showe d tha t 5 7 percen t o f American Protestants and 37 percent of American Catholics agreed with this proposition . 32.14 A third religiou s argument used to tie Christians t o Zionism i s the claim that Zionism i s an essential part of Judaism. It is said that Judaism, unlik e Christianity, ha s always been a communal religion , a religion in which Jewish nationalism i s integral to it s religious self understanding. Therefore , t o den y th e righ t o f th e Jew s t o b e a natio n i s t o rejec t a n essential par t o f Judaism. Anti-Zionism is , by its very nature, anti-Judaism . 32.15 A fourth an d particularl y potent argumen t fo r Christian support o f Israel has to d o with evocation o f Christia n guil t fo r th e Holocaust . Christia n anti-Semitis m i s see n a s providing th e foundatio n an d milie u i n which th e Nazi Holocaust was possible. Israel is claimed to be essential to protection o f Jews today from 'anothe r Holocaust.' It is implied that without no t onl y Israel as a state but als o a state that i s absolutely secure against all enemies, Jew s are vulnerable t o a new Holocaust, which might break out at any time. It is implied that i f Christians are truly repentant o f their guilt for the Holocaust, th e only way 422

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

to show this is by total and unflagging support for the state of Israel, including everything which the presen t government of that stat e claims as necessary for its 'national security.'

32.16 Appeal to the Holocaust threads through all the other arguments for Christian support of Israel a s well. I n eac h case , any doub t o r questionin g o f Israel's righ t t o th e promise d land, that the founding of that state is a fulfilment o f biblical prophecy and a redemptive event and tha t Jewis h nationalism i s an integra l part o f Judaism is immediately ascribed to Christia n anti-Judaism or anti-Semitism . Thus it is suggested that i f Christians doubt any of these propositions, the y are still in the grip of an unreconstructed anti-Judaism. It is this very anti-Judaism which was the root of the Holocaust. To be critical of Israel is to be still unrepentantly guilty of the Holocaust . I n th e secon d par t o f this essay, I wish to briefly examin e each of these religious arguments. Each demands a much fulle r critique, but th e limits of this paper will allow only a brief outline o f what questions nee d to b e raised abou t eac h of these arguments . God's promises to Abraham give the Jews an eternal and exclusive right to all of Palestine 32.17 A Christian exclusivist nationalism, either toward their own nation o r toward the Jews as a nation, is a fundamental denial of the foundational Christian belief that God is a God of all nations, tha t n o on e natio n i s especially favored b y God. A Christian reversio n to a tribalistic, exclusivis t concep t o f Go d i s theologicall y an d ethicall y unacceptable . Christians hav e ofte n misconstrue d thei r ow n notion s o f universalis m to den y Jewis h particularity an d als o t o tur n Christia n universalis m int o a cultura l imperialis m o f Christian peoples . Authenti c universalis m mus t avoi d bot h a reversio n o f triba l ethnocentrism an d als o universalis t imperialism . Thi s mean s i t mus t affir m a multi particularist visio n o f th e co-humanit y o f man y peoples an d cultures . On e canno t us e Jewish particularit y to den y the right s of Palestinians, or th e reverse . One mus t affir m a co-humanity of Jews and Palestinian s that seeks , as far as possible, a just co-existence of both nationa l communities .

32.18 Christians ar e ofte n le d to a one-sided assumptio n tha t Jew s hav e an exclusiv e right t o Palestine by a n ignoranc e of the actua l history o f this area . This land ha s neve r been a land of one people, but a land o f many peoples. Many peoples lived there before th e rise of the brief moments of Hebrew political hegemony in antiquity. Many people continued to liv e side by side with those Hebrews, even during those brief moments o f hegemony. Many people s hav e com e together , i n continua l migration s an d amalgamation s o f peoples and cultures in this region, for the last two thousand years. These peoples became predominantly Muslim in the seventh century, with a significant Christia n minority and a small Jewis h minority. All three religious communities became Arabize d i n cultur e an d language. 32.19 The descendant s o f those peopl e are the Palestinians . Properl y speaking, these were the people wit h primar y right s t o th e lan d o f Palestin e i n moder n times . Thes e wer e th e people who were still the majority , representin g 70 per cent of the population , when the 423

A TEXTBOOK OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

land was partitioned i n 1947 . Thus whatever rights are given to the present Israel i Jewish population, i t can only be on the basis of a recent construction o f a national communit y in thi s region , no t o n th e basi s o f ancien t religiou s land claims . Thes e recen t 'facts ' o f history mus t b e adjusted t o mak e plac e for , at least, an equal clai m t o th e land o f those who wer e present a s the majorit y population i n th e lan d unti l their forcibl e an d unjus t displacement by the Israel i military in 1948 . The founding of Israel is the fulfilment of prophecy and the beginning of redemption 32.20 For bot h Jew s an d Christian s th e ide a o f a messiani c retur n t o th e lan d a s par t o f redemption i s premised on an ethical vision of what redemption means . I n the Bible, and in the Jewish and Christia n traditions o f future historica l fulfilmen t o f redemptive hope , this means a healing of the enmit y between nations . Sword s are beaten int o plowshares . The instruments of violence an d death are transformed int o the instrument s of creatio n and cultivatio n o f ne w life . Redemptio n i s characterize d b y a flowerin g o f justic e an d peace among nations . Bot h Christian and Jewis h militant fundamentalism s ignore these ethical criteri a for what i s redemptive. Thi s allow s them t o ignor e the obviou s fac t tha t the foundatio n o f Israe l ha s no t bee n a mean s o f healin g betwee n nations , bu t o f a n enormous outbrea k o f new enmity between nations . Plowshare s hav e been turne d int o swords o n ever y side . Th e mean s o f huma n livelihoo d hav e been starve d t o creat e th e instruments o f death .

32.21 The foundatio n o f Israe l ha s bee n fo r Palestinian s wha t the y cal l 'th e catastrophe, ' a n unparalleled disaste r which evicted 780,00 0 peopl e fro m thei r home s an d lan d i n 1948 . From thi s disaste r hav e flowe d continua l disaster s o f mor e lan d confiscation , mor e evictions, repressio n o f thos e stil l o n th e land , continua l denial s o f justice, continua l violence, injury , an d death . Tens of thousands o f Palestinians hav e died i n this violence ; also ten s o f thousand s o f Lebanese , Jordanians , Egyptians , Syrians , an d othe r Arabs ; fourteen thousand Israel i Jews have also died. The numbers of the wounded, th e numbers of those whose lives have been shattered, are uncountable. In short, the founding of Israel is no t a redemptiv e event . I t i s a n even t tha t ha s take n plac e ver y muc h withi n unredeemed histor y an d a s a n expressio n o f unredeeme d mode s o f behavio r betwee n human peoples . T o cal l a n even t wit h suc h result s 'redemptive ' an d th e 'beginnin g of messianic times' i s a travesty of what is meant by those terms. This is false messianism, an attempt t o cloth e evil-producin g event s with th e aur a o f divine sanctity. Thi s i s a fals e messianism t o which Christians themselves hav e been all too prone in the past, clothin g their ow n evil-producin g political projects with the gar b of messianic fulfilment . 32.22 This does not mean that the state of Israel is any worse than any number of other political projects o f human group s today , o r i n the past, whic h hav e produced disastrous results for othe r people , an d ofte n fo r one' s ow n people . I t simpl y mean s tha t i t canno t b e clothed with a garb of special sanctity that obscures its actual ethical deficiencies. I t is the nature o f al l fals e messianism s tha t th e gar b o f redemptiv e hop e i s use d t o preven t truthful recognitio n o f evil. Zionism, lik e many othe r disaster-producin g revolutionar y projects, i s still operatin g wit h th e ethics of competition and negatio n o f others. It, an d

424

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIPS

every othe r projec t o f huma n hope , wil l begi n t o becom e redemptiv e onl y whe n i t overcomes the ethics o f competition and domination and begins t o shape itsel f with th e ethics o f mutuality or lov e o f neighbor a s oneself. Zionism or Jewish nationalism is integral to Judaism 32.23 The claim that Zionism, or Jewish nationalism, i s integral to Judaism rests on a confusion between th e communal natur e of Judaism, in its classical form, an d the modern concep t of a nation-state. I t i s not accidenta l that whe n Zionis m first arose, th e vast majorit y of the leader s o f al l form s o f Judais m rejecte d i t a s contrar y t o thei r understandin g o f Judaism. Fo r Orthodo x Jews , Zionis m wa s a n unhol y projec t carrie d ou t b y non observant Jew s an d thu s fundamentall y contradictor y t o thei r religiou s belie f i n a messianic restoratio n o f politica l sovereignt y ove r th e ancien t homeland . Fo r th e Orthodox, thi s restoration could only take place as an expression of a redemptive process. This mean t bot h th e redemptio n o f th e Jew s an d a complementar y redemptio n o f all nations. It meant a restoration that would heal the enmity between the nations and bring world peace. These Orthodox leader s recognized that the Zionist secular political project, in the context of modern nationalism and imperialism , di d not qualif y a s a fulfilment o f this redemptiv e process . 32.24 Reform Jew s als o rejecte d Zionis m becaus e i t denie d thei r politica l universalism . They sought to detach Judaism as a religion from secula r political identity and mak e the Jews a people wh o coul d becom e ful l an d equa l citizen s of all nations . 32.25 It is incorrect t o sa y that Judais m is unique in having a communal dimensio n tha t seeks to shape the entire familial, social, and politica l life of Jews as a whole. In fact, all classical religions have sought this same comprehensive scope . Christianity, in its classical form as Christendom, als o Isla m an d Buddhism , amon g others , hav e i n thei r classica l for m sought to shape a total syste m that informs all public and private life as religious states. It is precisely this political side of classical religion that has made it problematic for modern states, whic h ar e ethnicall y an d religiousl y pluralistic . Bot h libera l Christianit y an d Reform Judais m sough t t o overcom e thi s conflict by separating religio n and state . 32.26 Today Jewish , Muslim , Christian , an d eve n Buddhis t an d Hind u fundamentalism s threaten th e establishmen t o f just relations amon g differen t ethni c an d religiou s groups living i n th e sam e stat e b y revertin g t o thes e classica l claim s t o religio-politica l exclusivism. Th e unjus t treatmen t o f th e Palestinian s b y th e stat e o f Israe l i s roote d precisely i n th e effor t t o creat e a n ethnicall y an d religiousl y exclusive state, namely , a 'Jewish state.' It is this concept of Israel as a Jewish state that construes the existence o f a nearly 40 per cen t populatio n o f Palestinians in Israe l and th e Occupie d Territorie s as a 'demographic problem. ' Thi s i s a 'demographic problem ' onl y i f one define s Israe l as a Jewish state, rather tha n accepting th e fac t tha t there ar e two national communities and three religious communities i n this region. For justice and peac e to be possible in Israel/

425

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

Palestine, an y stat e o r state s tha t encompas s thi s regio n mus t accommodat e an d giv e equal civi l rights to al l members within thi s ethnic an d religiou s pluralism . Repentance of guilt for the Holocaust demands uncritical support of Israel 32.27 There i s no doub t tha t Christian s of the Wes t bear a burden o f guilt for th e Holocaus t because of their historical traditions of anti-Semitism and th e wa y these tradition s were used by Nazism to gain both active and passiv e acquiescence of Christians. However, one must as k wha t i s appropriat e repentanc e fo r th e Holocaust . I t woul d see m tha t th e primary expressions of this must be to purge anti-Semitism from Christia n teaching s and their effect s o n Christia n societies. I t i s not appropriat e t o constru e such repentanc e a s collaboration wit h injustice to anothe r people , wh o are the victims of the stat e o f Israel. To us e guilt for th e Holocaus t t o silenc e criticism o f injustice to th e Palestinian s i s no t repentance but toadyism , o n the Christia n side , an d blackmail, o n th e Jewish side. 32.28 On bot h th e Christia n an d th e Jewis h side , I believe there mus t b e a separatio n o f th e question of the Holocaust, and its theological and ethical consequence s for each religion, and th e question s raise d b y th e stat e o f Israel , wit h it s ethica l deficiencies . One ha s t o examine how these two phenomena ar e interrelated symbolicall y and psychologically . I n my talk s on thi s issu e of Israe l an d th e Palestinians , I frequentl y get the questio n fro m Christians, 'Ho w ca n Jews , with thei r experienc e o f th e Holocaust , tur n aroun d an d become oppressor s o f Palestinians?' Thi s implie s that th e Holocaus t shoul d hav e mad e Jews very concerned t o avoi d th e oppressio n o f other people . 32.29 However, som e Jew s hav e suggeste d a psychologica l lin k betwee n th e oppressio n o f Palestinians an d th e Holocaust . On e Jewis h friend , wh o work s wit h battere d women , suggested tha t Israeli s are like battered batterers . Like people who have been battered and abused a s children , Israeli s hav e a psychologica l nee d t o batte r others . Abus e o f Palestinians become s th e wa y of 'gettin g even ' fo r pas t abuse , o f turnin g th e table s o f power an d powerlessness . 32.30 I thin k ther e i s some trut h i n thi s psychologica l connection betwee n pas t abus e an d a special Israeli psychological need t o batter Palestinians. There is a clear tendency to tur n Palestinians int o symboli c Nazis, but powerles s ones upo n who m reveng e can be meted out. There is also no doubt tha t the Holocaust ha s been enormousl y exploited b y Zionist leaders to creat e in all Jews, in Israe l and throughou t the world, a psychology of fear an d insecurity. Thi s has been use d t o ti e Jews to Israe l a s the symbo l o f security .

32.31 Yet th e promotio n o f Israe l a s th e plac e o f 'security ' fo r Jew s become s increasingl y contradictory. I n fact , nowher e i n the las t fort y years hav e so many Jew s been kille d o r injured a s in Israel. This is not because of an incomprehensible 'cosmi c hate' against Jews in general, but becaus e the state of Israel has been built in an antagonistic relationship t o the Arab and Palestinia n communities which generates a cycle of violence. Israel , in thi s 426

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

sense, i s no t th e plac e o f Jewis h security , bu t th e sourc e o f a ne w stag e o f Jewis h insecurity. 32.32 However, thes e psychologica l an d symboli c connection s wit h th e Holocaus t serv e t o confuse th e rea l issues, for the politica l roo t o f the antagonisti c relatio n o f Israel to th e Palestinians does not lie in the Holocaust. I t lies in the patterns of ethnic nationalism that shaped th e ideolog y o f Zionis m i n th e 1890s-1920s , an d i n th e patter n o f Britis h colonialism tha t shape d th e Israel i militar y i n the 1930s . Already in the firs t decade s of Zionist settlement , sensitiv e humanis t Zionists , suc h a s Aha d Ha-Am , wer e makin g horrified criticism s of the pattern s of ethnic antagonism, displacement of the Palestinian peasantry, an d violenc e towar d thi s displace d peasantr y tha t characterize d th e Zionis t settlers. 32.33 In 1930 , Rabbi Judah Magnes was spelling out th e consequence of an ethnically exclusive idea of a Jewish state that reads like a prediction o f all that has happened since. It was the British in 193 7 who first proposed th e idea of a 'transfer o f population;' that is, expulsion of Palestinians, as part of a scheme of partition o f the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state which was to b e annexed t o Jordan . Already in 1937 , British officer Ord e Wingate was training wha t wer e to becom e th e chie f Arab-fighters of the Israel i Defenc e Force , such as Moshe Dayan, in the techniques of total warfare against Palestinian villagers. The Iron Fist , whic h Israe l ha s use d agains t th e Palestinians , employ s no t onl y th e sam e techniques, but rests on the same laws, constructed by the British in 1936-39 to put down the Palestinia n revol t o f that period . 32.34 Thus Israel' s violen t an d discriminator y behavio r towar d Palestinian s i s roote d i n a history o f th e Jewis h Yishuv betwee n 191 0 an d 1948 . Holocaus t survivor s ma y hav e flocked there fro m 194 8 t o 1950 , bu t the y entere d a state whos e historica l root s i n th e area were largely unknown t o them . The y did no t shap e nor di d the y control th e actual policies o f that state . They , and al l other Jews , have received a mythical construction o f the stat e o f Israe l a s th e solutio n t o th e Holocaust . Thi s ha s serve d wel l t o cemen t powerful emotiona l bond s t o Israel . Bu t thes e Holocaus t survivor s ofte n foun d themselves treate d wit h contemp t b y Israelis , wh o calle d the m suc h name s a s 'soaps. ' For Israelis, thes e survivors were the unpleasant reminde r o f vulnerability an d histor y of suffering tha t the y sought t o negate . 32.35 These survivor s shoul d no t b e victimize d onc e mor e b y suggestin g that i t i s they who originated th e oppression o f the Palestinians . Thi s oppression an d it s racist culture have their root s in a Jewish version o f a European racia l nationalism an d colonialism. It was Israelis shaped by this system of colonialist dominatio n unde r th e Britis h Mandat e who then lai d hol d o f th e symbo l o f th e Holocaus t a s a too l o f power . The y exploite d th e emotions linke d t o symbol s o f pas t Jewis h victimization t o cove r u p an d disguis e th e reality o f colonialist pattern s o f racism , land confiscation , and expulsio n o f indigenous people. 427

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

32.36 Both Christians and Jews must recognize that power construed as domination ove r others creates violence , injustice , an d hatred . Christian s hav e been ampl y guilt y o f this i n th e past towar d Jews , and als o toward othe r people s they have colonized, a s well as toward each other. Such possibilities of power a s domination ar e new to Jews . It is perhaps hard for the m to switch rhetorical gears and recogniz e that they too ca n not onl y gain power, but us e power unjustly. But the refusa l t o recogniz e this fact i s creating increasing ethical self-delusion amon g Jews . Jewis h religiou s and mora l healt h demand s a shif t t o a ne w rhetoric of self-understanding tha t accept s the problem s o f this new reality. 32.37 The dialogue an d collaboratio n o f Jews and Christian s toda y canno t b e based primaril y on th e innocen t victim/guilt y victimizer relation. I t mus t becom e a collaboratio n an d solidarity o f two people who know bot h tha t the y ca n abus e powe r an d ar e seeking t o help each other regai n their prophetic voice toward injustic e within their own and othe r societies. Thi s mean s tha t bot h Jew s an d Wester n Christian s mus t overcom e thei r religious an d ethni c hostilit y t o Arab s an d Muslim peoples . The y mus t exten d thei r embrace o f solidarit y t o th e Ara b worl d a s well , withou t i n an y wa y becomin g sentimentally blind to parallel tendencies to violence and competitive domination i n this culture a s well. 32.38 In al l thes e relations , on e seek s a conversio n tha t shift s fro m a n ethi c o f competitiv e domination t o a n ethi c of co-humanity tha t foster s a quest fo r mutua l justice between neighbors who must live together in one land an d on one earth. This quest will call forth the bes t o f al l three religiou s traditions, th e tradition s o f compassion , forgiveness , an d neighbor love , rathe r tha n thos e religious ideologie s that ten d to foste r violence, hatred , and mutua l negation . CRITIQUE Once again , radica l difference s ove r mora l issue s ar e apparen t amon g Christians . Fo r some, abortion , contraception , euthanasi a an d suicid e are inherentl y sinful . Fo r others , they ar e sinfu l i n som e contexts , bu t no t i n others . Fo r some , i t i s onl y heterosexua l activity, within the context o f monogamy, that is permissible for the Christian. For others it i s wron g t o prejudg e individuals ' sexua l relationship s - marita l o r extra-marital ; heterosexual o r homosexua l - withou t knowin g the particularities of a specifi c lovin g relationship. Fo r some , th e maxim s o f the women' s movemen t an d presumption s o f a multi-racial society are still anathema . For others, they are prerequisites of a satisfactory, present-day Christian moral code . B y now, th e reade r will no t nee d remindin g that th e moral response s o f Christian s t o issue s concerne d wit h persona l relationship s divid e them a s muc h a s the y migh t unit e them . Th e Extract s intentionall y illustrat e som e o f these divisions . Befor e seekin g an y point s o f unit y betwee n them , i t i s importan t t o identify som e o f their individua l weaknesses. One of the central difficultie s i n the Kiin g Extract i s that it shifts fro m on e concep t o f euthanasia to another t o suit the argument. In terms of the sixfold typolog y offered i n the introduction (see above, p. 343), he sometimes seems to envisage type a (26.3), sometimes type b (th e Vegetable existence' in 26.7), sometimes c or d (26.17) , and sometime s e or f 428

HUMAN LIF E AN D INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

(the 'endless dependence on apparatus or drugs in 26.7). Although there is a relationship between these various types, the ethical issues that the y raise are often quit e distinct an d to fai l to identif y them only confuses the argumen t (a s 26.19). Another crucia l difficult y that many Christians have had with Kiing's arguments on euthanasia concerns legislation. For some, legislation allowing 'intentional killing' is wrong in principle (deontologically), whereas fo r other s i t i s wron g becaus e o f it s possibl e effect s upo n doctor-patien t relationships an d upo n th e car e of the elderl y and vulnerabl e (consequentially). The Quake r Group's report ha s been subjec t t o a good dea l of criticism. It i s not th e work o f professiona l theologians , s o perhap s i t i s no t surprisin g tha t it s theologica l conclusions hav e ofte n bee n contested . I t ha s alread y bee n see n tha t th e lin k betwee n sexuality and sin that they suppose to be typical of Christian tradition (27.1-7 ) is actually more typical of Augustine than Aquinas. And many have suggested that difficultie s resul t from their attempt to present a thoroughgoing personalism . As with Fletcher's account of situation ethics (see above, p. 104 ) it may be doubted whether , in fact, the y have based all of thei r contention s upo n th e singl e standar d o f 'love' . Othe r concepts , suc h a s 'exploitation' and 'destructiveness', ar e introduced withou t explanation. And it might be doubted whethe r this really is an account of ethics for al l people, an d no t simpl y for th e strong, intelligen t an d middle-class . Ramse y was emphati c i n hi s oppositio n t o thi s report: How can Christians nourish the seeds of a wider social responsibility while seeming to praise only acts and neve r rules that embod y persona l responsibilit y between th e two parties t o sexual relations? Plainly , th e waywardness of the human hear t works agains t any ethos, customs , o r law s that ar e generally good fo r all, and no t onl y against "th e traditional code " ... onl y som e for m o f rule-agapism , an d no t act-agapism , ca n be consistent wit h th e elaboratio n o f a Christian' s socia l responsibilities . N o socia l morality ever was founded, or ever will be founded, upon a situation ethic. (Deeds an d Rules in Christian Ethics, 196 5 [1967] , p. 20 ) The Orthodox attitude towards divorce and remarriage as Ware sets it out face s a number of difficulties . H e i s awar e o f th e apparen t conflict withi n th e traditio n o f viewin g marriage bot h a s a n eterna l sacramen t an d ye t a s dissolvable . Hi s resolutio n o f thi s conflict depend s largel y upo n a notio n o f th e authorit y entruste d b y Chris t t o th e Orthodox Churc h - a notion tha t othe r Christian s may find debatable an d perhaps in conflict wit h som e o f th e mor e rigoris t position s o n divorc e i n th e Gospels . Th e traditional Orthodo x ground s fo r divorc e tha t h e set s ou t i n 28.2 5 ma y als o appea r somewhat arbitrar y to othe r Christians . Inevitably , some o f these grounds will now also appear somewha t anachronisti c - fo r example, the presumption tha t i t is only the man who ma y fai l t o consummat e th e marriage , o r tha t 'apostasy ' shoul d b e a legitimat e ground. I n addition , th e ground s give n ar e largely faul t base d - th e notio n o f 'tota l breakdown i n persona l relations ' i s allowed onl y by some Orthodo x authorities . Because of its social significance, Paul VI's Extract has been subjected to more criticism than an y o f th e othe r Extracts . Eve n withi n Roma n Catholicism , i t ha s bee n widel y disputed - although , o f course, i t remains a part o f official teaching . Quit e apar t from overall judgement s abou t it s validit y an d th e exten t t o whic h i t i s though t t o b e appropriate o r no t fo r present-da y society , severa l internal weaknesse s ca n b e noticed . Firstly, i t share s th e sam e weaknes s a s Aquinas ' Tex t IV . A stres s upo n responsibl e 429

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS

parenthood i s certainly vita l to Christia n ethic s (an d to o easil y ignored i n situations of liberalized divorc e and abortion) . An d a clear understanding tha t sexualit y is concerned with procreatio n an d no t simpl y wit h individua l pleasur e i s als o vita l (an d agai n to o easily ignored) . But , even i f i t i s conceded tha t procreatio n i s the obviou s functio n of sexuality (Aquinas ' position) , o r tha t sexualit y ha s bot h a procreativ e an d a unitiv e function (Pau l VI' s position) , i t doe s no t follo w tha t procreation , o r eve n potentia l procreation, shoul d b e the onl y indispensabl e functio n o f human sexuality . This poin t illustrate s on e o f th e centra l difficultie s facin g natura l la w theorie s (see above, pp . 55—6 ) - th e validit y o f attempting t o deriv e a human' s mora l en d fro m a human's 'natural ' tendencies . Th e secon d weaknes s withi n th e Extrac t i s linked t o thi s point. I t appear s tha t bot h abortio n (spontaneou s abortion ) an d sterilit y (primar y infertility) ar e 'natural ' phenomen a whic h separat e sexua l activit y fro m procreation . Further, sexua l activit y i s 'naturally ' no t exclusivel y heterosexual , sinc e form s o f individualized sexua l activit y occu r spontaneousl y i n slee p an d fo r som e homosexua l predispositions ar e increasingly seen as 'natural'. Nature, then, would appea r to be more ambiguous tha n eithe r Aquinas o r Pau l V I suppose. The latter show s himsel f awar e o f some of these ambiguities (29.24), but h e regards them onl y as natural form s o f spacing births, institute d b y God , whic h ar e no t t o b e interfere d wit h b y humans . I t i s thi s contention whic h makes him vulnerable to a third criticism . Give n the range of medical interventions that ar e considered allowable , why should barrie r an d hormona l method s of contraception b e singled ou t a s being particularly intrusive? Perhaps End a McDonag h mor e accuratel y reflects muc h recen t Catholi c opinio n i n this area when he writes, at the end of the same decade, that, 'no longer free t o reach for his manua l t o fin d th e answe r t o a particula r problem , th e Catholi c studen t o f mora l theology finds himself confronted with a bewildering rang e of information, analysis and opinion on a n increasing range of problems' (Doing th e Truth, 1979, p. 14) . Certainly, i n this Textbook, pluralis m i s a s apparen t amon g Roma n Catholic s a s i t i s amon g non Roman Catholics . A compariso n o f Pau l V I wit h Cahil l an d Kiin g illustrate s thi s pluralism well . The fraugh t are a o f racis m i s represented i n Extract s 31 and 32 . If the firs t tend s t o suffer fro m bein g too general , the second ma y appear too one-side d fo r many. However , in the context of a generalized critique that Christians have been too prone to racism and anti-Semitism, bot h Extract s suppl y alternativ e evidenc e i n th e opposit e direction . Prophetic voices on racism have come from within Christianity over the years despite th e damning evidence of racism within some of its history. The WCC document an d Ruether both argu e fo r a n inclusiv e understandin g o f Go d an d fo r Christian s t o sid e wit h th e powerless in a world too ofte n characterize d by political domination. Nevertheless , given evidence o f th e histori c associatio n o f Christianit y (especiall y i n Tex t XV ) whic h sh e herself ha s done s o much t o expose , i t ha s surprise d man y that Ruethe r has written so forcefully i n this area. Doubtless sh e would counte r this criticism b y arguing that racis m can sadl y becom e a featur e o f th e victim s o f racis m an d that , whil e thi s ma y b e understandable, i t i s still unacceptable . Despite these very real weaknesses within each of the Extracts, and despite the obviou s differences o f mora l belie f betwee n the m an d betwee n th e Texts , tw o point s o f unit y might b e suggested . The y depen d upo n tw o axiom s - thes e migh t b e terme d th e adeodatic axiom and the agapistic axiom. The first is a general theistic axiom based upo n the presupposition that all life is God-given, whereas the second i s a specifically Christian 430

HUMAN LIF E AND INTERPERSONA L RELATIONSHIP S

presupposition tha t agape shoul d be intrinsic to all personal relationships. Unambiguous and incontrovertibl e set s o f mora l prescription s fo r specifi c issue s ca n b e supplie d b y neither of these axioms. It seems likely that Christian s will continue to disagree with each other o n man y issue s withi n socia l an d persona l ethics . Bu t bot h ca n se t parameter s within whic h most Christia n though t o n ethica l issues might be happy to operate . The adeodatic axiom would suggest that the theist can accept that life is entirely neither sacred no r profane . For th e theis t generally , a notio n o f God-givennes s implies a clear distinction betwee n Creato r an d creature . If humans, as creatures, are to b e regarded in any sense as holy, it is only a holiness derived wholly from God . From the philosophica l perspectives th e adjectiv e 'holy ' i s unique i n religiou s language: all other adjective s ar e primarily huma n characteristics , applie d onl y analogicall y t o God , wherea s 'holy ' i s primarily a divin e characteristic , applie d onl y analogicall y t o humans . Thus , fo r th e theist, any 'rights' that might go with this life are God-given, not inheren t possessions. As a result , man y theists wil l continue t o b e cautiou s abou t agreein g that peopl e hav e 'an inherent righ t to take their ow n lives' or that women have an inherent right to abortion . Because life is viewed in the transcendent context o f God-givenness it cannot b e regarded either a s entirely profane. It i s a divine gif t and , therefore , canno t b e regarde d casually. Any actio n o r behaviou r whic h treat s huma n lif e casuall y undermine s th e adeodati c axiom. Casua l sexua l relationships , abortio n o n demand , irresponsibl e parenthood , legalized direct form s o f euthanasia, sexism and racialism , all have a tendency to d o just this. So , it i s hardly surprising that theist s ten d t o b e cautiou s about agreein g to them . Even though among theists there are obvious differences o n all of these issues, a degree of caution would seem to be suggested by the notio n of adeodasis. I f all human lif e i s a gif t from God , our appropriat e response might best be depicted as gratitude (cf. Gregorios in 22.28). The agapeistic axiom would suggest that, for the Christian, an appropriate response to human life is also agape. Becaus e of the debates generated by situation ethics, it is possible to miss this unifyin g featur e o f Christian personal ethics. Sinc e the debate s o f the 1960s , most exponent s o f Christia n ethic s might agre e that pur e agapis m i s inadequate. The y might also agree that agape i s not th e only principle that ca n be derived from th e gospel. But neithe r o f thes e agreement s invalidate s th e contentio n tha t agape i s crucia l t o a Christian understandin g of personal relationships . Many might agree with Niebuhr that individualized understanding s o f agape canno t resolv e politica l complexities . Nevertheless, Niebuh r wa s th e firs t t o admi t that , a t leas t o n persona l ethica l issues , agape i s crucial. I n Christia n understanding , agape denote s bot h God' s relationshi p t o humans and the relationship tha t Go d requires people to have with their fellows . Within the context o f Christian ethics, all sexual relationships should be, not just non-casual, but agapeistic. Agape shoul d b e th e characteristi c o f al l o f ou r interpersona l behaviour , whether thi s behaviour i s between sexe s or betwee n 'races' . Christian s wil l still disagree with each other on dilemma s such as abortion. But if their eventual decisions are judged to b e un-agapeistic, they will thereby also be judged to be un-Christian. O n suc h issues, pure pragmatism, for example, is not a defensible Christian approach . While agape migh t not b e the whol e of Christian ethics , i t is nonetheless fundamenta l t o it . Neither axio m i s sufficien t i n itself . Fo r mos t o f th e exponent s o f Christia n ethic s surveyed i n thi s Textbook , agape i s hel d i n tensio n wit h justic e and , i n th e Synopti c picture of Jesus, with mora l indignatio n an d ange r at huma n si n and wrongdoing . Th e adeodatic axiom i s also held in tension with the sinfulness o f much of the human 'given', 431

A TEXTBOOK OF CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

and ma y even at times be in tension with agape. An adequat e understanding of Christian ethics mus t neve r see k t o ignor e or eliminat e this tension . Rather i t should regar d i t as one of the most creative features of Christian ethics. For the Christian this world is always a mixture of the 'now' and the 'not yet', of'signs of the Kingdom' but no t 'the Kingdom all in all'. Creativ e tension ma y indeed b e the hallmar k o f Christian ethic s a t it s best.

432

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY IN CHRISTIA N ETHICS

Allen, Joseph, Love and Conflict: A Covenantal Model o f Christian Ethics, Abingdon Press , Nashville, 1984. Ashley, Benedic t M . an d D . O'Rourke , Kevi n Health Care an d Ethics: A Theological Analysis, Georgetown Universit y Press , Washington DC , 4th edn , 1996 . Baelz, Peter, Ethics and Belief, Sheldon , London , 1977 . Bailey, D. S. , Homosexuality an d th e Western Christian Tradition, Longmans, London, 1955 . Bailey, D. S. , Th e Man/Woman Relation in Christian Thought, SC M Press, London , 1959 . Bainton, Rolan d H. , Sex, Love and Marriage: A Christian Survey, Fontana , London , 1958 . Bainton, Roland H., Christian Attitudes Toward Wa r and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Reevaluation, Abingdon, Ne w York, 1960 , an d Hodde r & Stoughton, London , 1961 . Banner, Michael, Christian Ethics an d Contemporary Moral Problems, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge, 1999 . Barrera, Albino , Economic Compulsion an d Christian Ethics, Cambridg e Universit y Press , Cambridge, 2005 . Earth, Karl , Church Dogmatics, III.4, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1961 . Barth, Karl , Ethics, T&T Clark, Edinburgh , 1981 . Barton, John, Ethics an d th e Ol d Testament, SCM Press, London , 1998 . Barton, Stephe n C . (ed.) , Th e Family i n Theological Perspective, T& T Clark, Edinburgh , 1996 . Barton, Stephe n C. , Life Together: Family, Sexuality an d Community i n th e Ne w Testament an d Today, T& T Clark/Continuum, London , 2001 . Beach, Waldo an d Niebuhr , H. Richard , Christian Ethics: Sources o f th e Living Tradition, 2nd edn , Ronald Press , Ne w York, 1973 . Bennett, Joh n C., Christian Ethics and Social Policy, Scribners, New York, 1946. Bennett, John C . (ed.) , Storm Over Ethics, Bethany Press, Philadelphia, 1967 . Bennett, Joh n C. , Th e Radical Imperative, Westminster, Philadelphia , 1975 . Bock, Paul , I n Search o f a Responsible World Society: Th e Social Teachings o f th e World Council o f Churches, Westminster Press , Philadelphia , 1974 . Bonhoeffer, Dietrich , Sanctorum Communio, Collins, London , 1963 . Bonhoeffer, Dietrich , N o Rusty Swords, Harpe r an d Row , New York, and Collins , London , 1965 . Bonhoeffer, Dietrich , Th e Cost o f Discipleship, SC M Press , London , 1978 . Bonhoeffer, Dietrich , Ethics, Macmillan, New York, 1955 , an d SC M Press, London, rev . edn 1978 . Bonino, Jos e Miguez, Towards a Christian Political Ethics, Fortress Press, Philadelphia , 1983 . Borg, Marcus J., Conflict, Holiness an d Politics i n th e Teaching o f Jesus, Trinity Pres s International, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania , 2n d edn , 1998 . Brown, David, Choices: Ethics and th e Christian, Blackwell, Oxford , 1983 . Browning, Don , Miller-McLemore , Bonnie , Couture, Pamela , Lyon , Bernie and Franklin , Robert, From Culture Wars t o Common Ground, Westminster/John Knox , Louisville , KY , 1997 . Brunner, Emil , Justice an d th e Social Order, Harper, Ne w York and Lutterworth , London , 1945 .

433

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

Byrne, Peter , Th e Philosophical an d Theological Foundations o f Ethics, 2n d edn , Palgrave , Basingstoke an d S t Martins Press, New York, 1998 . Cahill, Lis a S. , Sex, Gender an d Christian Ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995 . Cahill, Lis a S., Family: A Christian Social Perspective, Fortres s Press , Minneapolis, 2000 . Chapman, Audre y R. , Unprecedented Choices: Religious Ethics a t th e Frontiers o f Genetic Science, Fortress Press , Minneapolis , 1999 . Childress, James F., and Macquarrie , John (eds), A Ne w Dictionary o f Christian Ethics, Westminster Press, Philadelphia , 198 6 and SC M Press, London , 198 7 (3rd edn , 2007) . Childress, James F. (ed.), Christian Ethics: Problems and Perspectives, Pilgrim Press, Cleveland, 1996 . Chilton, Bruce , and McDonald , J . I.H., Jesus an d th e Ethics o f th e Kingdom, SPCK, London , 1987 . Chopp, Rebecca , Th e Praxis o f Suffering: A n Interpretation o f Liberation an d Political Theologies, Orbis, Maryknoll , Ne w York, 1986 . Chopp, Rebecca , Th e Power t o Speak: Feminism, Language, God, Crossroad, Ne w York , 1989. Chopp, Rebecca, Liberation Theology an d Pastoral Theology, Journa l o f Pastoral Care Publications , Decatur, DA , 1990 . Clark, Stephe n R . L., Th e Nature o f th e Beast: Are Animals Moral?, Clarendon , Oxford , 1982 . Clark, Stephen R . L., Civil Peace and Sacred Order, Clarendon, Oxford , 1989 . Clark, Stephe n R . L., A Parliament of Souls, Clarendon, Oxford , 1990 . Clark, Stephe n R .L., How t o Think About th e Earth, Mowbray, London , 1993 . Clark, Stephe n R . L, Biology an d Christian Ethics, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge , 2000 . Coleman, Peter , Ga y Christians: A Moral Dilemma, SCM Press, London, 1989 . Cook, Christophe r C . H. , Alcohol, Addiction an d Christian Ethics, Cambridg e Universit y Press , Cambridge , 2006. Cook, David , Th e Moral Maze, SPCK, London, 1983 . Countryman, L . William , Dirt, Greed an d Sex: Sexual Ethics i n th e Ne w Testament an d Their Implications for Today, Fortress , Philadelphia, 198 8 and SC M Press, London , 1989 . Cronin, Kieran, Rights and Christian Ethics, Cambridge University Press , Cambridge, 1992 . Cupitt, Don, Crisi s of Moral Authority: The Dethronement of Christianity, Westminster, Philadelphi a and Lutterworth , London , 1972 . Cupitt, Don , Th e New Christian Ethics, SCM Press, London, 1988 . Cupitt, Don , Solar Ethics, SCM Press, London , 1995 . Curran, Charles E. , Catholic Moral Theology i n Dialogue, Fides, Notr e Dame, Indiana, 1972 . Curran, Charles E., Ongoing Revision: Studies in Moral Theology, Fides , Notre Dame , Indiana, 1975 . Curran, Charle s E. (ed.), Absolutes in Moral Theology?, Greenwoo d Press , Westport, 1975 . Curran, Charle s E. , Issues i n Sexual and Medical Ethics, University o f Notre Dame , Notr e Dame , 1978. Curran, Charles E. and McCormick , R. (eds), Readings i n Moral Theology, Paulis t Press, New York, 1980. Curry, Dean C . (ed.) , Evangelicals and th e Bishops' Pastoral Letter, Eerdmans, Gran d Rapids, 1984 . Davies, Oliver , A Theology o f Compassion, SCM Press, London, 2001 . Deane-Drumond, Celia , Genetics an d Christian Ethics, Cambridg e Universit y Press , Cambridge , 2005. Dominion, Jack , Passionate an d Compassionate Love: A Vision fo r Christian Marriage, Darton , Longman & Todd, London , 1991 . Dube, Mus a W . (ed.) , HIV/AIDS an d th e Curriculum: Methods o f Integrating HIV/AIDS i n Theological Programmes, Worl d Counci l o f Churches Publications, Geneva , 2003. Dunstan, G . R. , Th e Artifice o f Ethics, SCM Press , London , 1974 . Dunstan, G . R. (ed.) » Duty an d Discernment, SCM Press, London , 1975 . Dussel, E. , Ethics an d th e Theology o f Liberation, Maryknoll, Ne w York , 1978 . Dwyer, Judit h A . (ed.) , Th e Catholic Bishops an d Nuclear War: A Critique and Analysis o f th e Pastoral Th e Challenge o f Peace, Georgetown Universit y Press, Washington DC , 1984 . Ecusa, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: The Washington Report, Morehouse Publishing, Harrisburg, PA, 199 7 Engelhardt, H . Tristram , J r and Mar k J. Cherry (eds), Allocating Scarce Medical Resources: Roman Catholic Perspectives, Georgetow n Universit y Press, Washington DC , 2002

434

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY IN CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

Fairweather, Ia n C . M. , an d McDonald , J . I . H. , Th e Quest for Christian Ethics, Handse l Press , Edinburgh, 1984 . Farley, Margare t A. , Compassionate Respect: A Feminist Approach t o Medical Ethics an d Other Questions, Paulist Press , New York/Mahwah NJ , 2002. Fergusson, David , Community, Liberalism an d Christian Ethics, Cambridg e Universit y Press , Cambridge, 1999 . Finnis, John , Natural Law and Natural Rights, Clarendon, Oxford , 1980 . Finnis, John, Moral Absolutes, The Catholic University o f America Press , Washingto n DC , 1983 . Fletcher, Joseph, Situation Ethics, Westminster, Philadelphi a an d SC M Press, London, 1966 . Fletcher, Joseph, Moral Responsibility: Situation Ethics at Work, Westminster, Philadelphi a and SCM Press, London , 1967 . Fletcher, Joseph, Humanhood: Essays i n Biomedical Ethics, Prometheus Books , Buffalo , 1979 . Forell, George Wolfgang (ed.), Christian Social Teachings: A Reader i n Christian Social Ethics from the Bible t o the Present, Augsburg, Minneapolis , 1971 . Forell, George Wolfgang, History o f Christian Ethics, Augsburg, Minneapolis, 1979 . Forrester, Duncan B. , Christianity an d th e Future of Welfare, Epworth , London , 1985 . Forrester, Duncan B. , Beliefs, Values an d Policies: Conviction Politics in a Secular Age, Clarendon, Oxford , 1989 . Forrester, Dunca n B. , Christian Justice an d Public Policy, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge, 1997. Gardner, E . Clinton, Justice an d Christian Ethics, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge, 1995 . Gascoigne, Robert, Th e Public Forum and Christian Ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000. George, Rober t P . (ed.) , Natural Law Theory, Clarendo n Press , Oxford, 1992 . Gilkey, Langdon , O n Niebuhr: A Theological Study, Universit y of Chicago Press , Chicago , 2001 . Gill, Robin , Theology an d Social Structure, Mowbrays, Oxford , 1978 . Gill, Robin, Christian Ethics i n Secular Worlds, T& T Clark, Edinburgh, 1991 . Gill, Robin , Moral Leadership i n a Postmodern Age, T&T Clark, Edinburgh , 1997 . Gill, Robi n (ed.) , Euthanasia and th e Churches, London: Cassell, 1998 . Gill, Robin , Churchgoing and Christian Ethics, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge , 1999 . Gill, Robi n (ed.) , Th e Cambridge Companion t o Christian Ethics, Cambridg e Universit y Press , Cambridge, 2001 . Gill, Robin, Health Care and Christian Ethics, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge, 2006 . Gonzalez, Justo, Faith and Wealth: A History o f Early Christian Ideas o n the Origin, Significance, an d Use o f Money, Harpe r an d Row , San Francisco , 1990 . Gorringe, Tim, Karl Barth: Against Hegemony, Clarendon, Oxford , 1999 . Gorringe, Tim , God's Just Vengeance: Crime, Violence an d th e Rhetoric of Salvation, Cambridge University Press , Cambridge , 1996 . Gorringe, Tim, A Theology o f the Built Environment, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge, 2001 . Graham, Gordon, Evil an d Christian Ethics, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridg e 2001 . Grant, Colin, Altruism and Christian Ethics, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge and New York, 2000. Green, Ronal d M. , Religious Reason: Th e Rational an d Moral Basis o f Religious Belief, Oxfor d University Press , New York, 1978 . Green, Ronald M. , Religion an d Moral Reason, Oxford Universit y Press, New York, 1988 . Grisez, Germain, Th e Wa y o f th e Lord Jesus, Vols 1-3 , Francisca n Herald Press , Chicago, 1983-97 . Gustafson, Jame s M., Christ an d th e Moral Life, Harpe r an d Row , New York, 1968 . Gustafson, Jame s M., Th e Church a s Moral Decision-Maker, Pilgrim , Philadelphia , 1970 . Gustafson, Jame s M., Ca n Ethics Be Christian?, University of Chicago Press , Chicago, 1975 . Gustafson, Jame s M., Protestant and Roman Catholic Ethics, University of Chicag o Press , Chicag o and SC M Press, London, 1978 . Gustafson, Jame s M., Theology an d Ethics, Oxford Universit y Press, Ne w York and Oxford , 1981 . Hallett, Garth, Christian Moral Reasoning, Notre Dam e University Press, Indiana , 1983 . Hallett, Garth, Priorities and Christian Ethics, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge , 1998 . Harakas, Stanley , Health and Medicine i n th e Eastern Orthodox Tradition, Crossroad, Ne w York, 1990.

435

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

Hare, John, Th e Moral Gap, Clarendon Paperbacks , Clarendon , Oxford, 1997 . Haring, Bernard , Th e Law o f Christ, 3 vols, Newman Press , Westminster , MD , 1961-6 . Haring, Bernard , Medical Ethics, Fides, Notr e Dame , Indian a an d S t Paul, Slough , 1972 . Haring, Bernard , Free and Faithful i n Christ, 3 vols, Seabury, New York and S t Paul, Slough , 1978 . Harned, Davi d Baily , Grace and Common Life, Universit y of Virginia, VA , 1971 . Harned, Davi d Baily , Faith and Virtue, Pilgrim, Philadelphia , 1973 . Harris, P . (ed.) , O n Human Life: A n Examination o f Humanae Vitae, Burns and Gates , London , 1968. Hauerwas, Stanley , Vision an d Virtue: Essays i n Christian Ethical Reflection, Fides , Notr e Dame , Indiana, 1974 . Hauerwas, Stanley, Character and th e Christian Life: A Study in Theological Ethics, Trinity University Press, Sa n Antonio, 1975 . Hauerwas, Stanley, A Community o f Character, Universit y of Notre Dam e Press , Indiana, 1981 . Hauerwas, Stanley , Th e Peaceable Kingdom, University o f Notr e Dam e Press , Indiana , 198 3 an d SCM Press , London, 1984 . Hauerwas, Stanley , Against th e Nations, Winston Press , Minneapolis, 1985 . Hauerwas, Stanley, Suffering Presence, University o f Notre Dam e Press , Indiana , 1986 , an d Tand T Clark, Edinburgh , 1988 . Hauerwas, Stanley , Christian Existence Today, Labyrint h Press, Durham, NC , 1988 . Hauerwas, Stanley , Naming th e Silences, Eerdmans, Gran d Rapids , Michigan , 1990 . Hauerwas, Stanley, After Christendom, Abingdon Press , Nashville, 1991 . Hauerwas, Stanley , Against the Nations, University o f Notre Dame Press , Indiana, 1992 . Hauerwas, Stanley , Dispatches From th e Front, Duke University Press, Durham, NC , 1995 . Hauerwas, Stanley , With th e Grain o f th e Universe: Th e Church's Witness an d Natural Theology, Brazos Press, Gran d Rapids , 2001. Hayes, R. B., The Moral Vision o f th e New Testament, HarperCollins, Sa n Francisco and T& T Clark, Edinburgh, 1996 . Hebblethwaite, Brian , The Adequacy o f Christian Ethics, Marshall, Morgan and Scott , London, 1981 . Helm, Pau l (ed.) , Divine Commands and Morality, Oxfor d Universit y Press, Oxford , 1981 . Hengel, Martin , Property an d Riches i n th e Early Church, SCM Press, London , 1974 . Hengel, Martin , Victory Over Violence, SPCK , London, 1975 . Hicks, Douglas, Inequality and Christian Ethics, Cambridge University Press , Cambridge, 2000 . Higginson, Richard , Dilemmas: A Christian Approach t o Moral Decision-Making, Hodder an d Stoughton, London , 1988 . Hollenbach, David , Claims i n Conflict: Retrieving an d Renewing th e Catholic Human Rights Tradition, Paulis t Press , Ne w York, 1979 . Hollenbach, David , Th e Common Good an d Christian Ethics, Cambridg e Universit y Press , Cambridge 2002. Holmes, Arthur , F., Wa r an d Christian Ethics, Baker, New York , 1975 . Holmes, Arthur, F. , Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions, Downers Grove , IL , 1984 . Hoose, Bernard , Proportionalism, Georgetown Universit y Press, Washington DC , 1987 . Houlden, J . L., Ethics and th e New Testament, Mowbrays, Oxford, 1973 . Hughes, Gerar d J. , Authority i n Morals, Shee d an d Ward , London , 1983 . Jackson, Timoth y P. , Love Disconsoled: Meditations o n Christian Charity, Cambridg e Universit y Press, Cambridge , 1999 . Jones, David Albert, Th e Soul o f the Embryo: An Enquiry into the Status of the Human Embryo i n the Christian Tradition, Continuum, London , 2004 . Jones, Richard , Groundwork of Christian Ethics, Epworth Press , London , 1985 . Kaiser, Walter C. , Jr, Toward Ol d Testament Ethics, Academic Books, Gran d Rapids , 1983 . Keane, Philip , Christian Ethics and Imagination, Paulist Press , Ne w York, 1984 . Keeling, Michael, Th e Foundations of Christian Ethics, T&T Clark , Edinburgh , 1990 . Kirk, Kennet h E. , Some Principles o f Moral Theology, Longman s Green , London , 1920 . Kirk, Kenneth E. , Conscience and Its Problems: An Introduction to Casuistry, Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville , KY , 199 9 (originall y 1927) . Kirk, Kennet h E. , Th e Vision o f God: The Doctrine of th e Summum Bonum, Longmans , Green , London, 1931 . 436

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPH Y IN CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

Kiing, Hans, Global Responsibility: I n Search o f a New World Ethic, Continuum, Ne w York , 1993 . Kiing, Hans and Walte r Jens , A Dignified Dying?, SCM Press, London an d Continuum , Ne w York, 1995. Kiing, Hans, A Global Ethic for Global Politics and Economics, SCM Press , London , 1997 . Knox, John , Th e Ethic o f Jesus i n th e Teaching o f th e Church: It s Authority an d It s Relevance, Abingdon, Ne w York, 196 1 an d Epworth , London, 1962 . Lammers, Stephe n E . an d Verhey , Alle n (eds), O n Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives i n Medical Ethics, William B . Eerdmans, Gran d Rapids , Michigan , 1987 . Langford, Michael, Th e Good and the True: An Introduction to Christian Ethics, SCM Press, London , 1985. Lehmann, Paul, Ethics in a Christian Context, Harper and Row , New York and SC M Press, London, 1963. Lehmann, Paul , Th e Transfiguration o f Politics, Harper an d Row , New York , 1975 . Linzey, Andrew, Christianity and th e Rights o f Animals, SPCK, London, 1987 . Linzey, Andrew, Compassion for Animals, SPCK , London, 1988 . Little, David and Twiss , Sumner B., Comparative Religious Ethics: A New Method, Harper an d Row, New York, 1978 . Long, Edwar d LeRoy , Jr , Conscience an d Compromise: A n Approach t o Protestant Casuistry, Westminster, Philadelphia, 1954 . Long, Edwar d LeRoy , Jr, A Survey o f Christian Ethics, Oxfor d Universit y Press , Ne w Yor k an d Oxford, 1967 . Long, Edwar d LeRoy , Jr , A Survey of Recent Christian Ethics, Oxford Universit y Press , Ne w York and Oxford , 1982 . Lovin, Robin W., Reinhold Niebuhr and Christian Realism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , 1995. McCabe, Herbert , Law, Love an d Language, Continuum, London , 200 3 (origina l 1968) . Mccoy, Alban, An Intelligent Person's Guide t o Christian Ethics, London, Continuum , 2004 . McDonagh, Enda , Invitation and Response: Essays i n Christian Moral Theology, Gil l and Macmillan , Dublin, 1972 . McDonagh, Enda , Gift an d Call, Gill and Macmillan , Dublin , 1975 . McDonagh, Enda , Doing the Truth, Gill an d Macmillan , Dublin , 1979 . McDonald, J . I . H. , Biblical Interpretation an d Christian Ethics, Cambridg e Universit y Press , Cambridge, 1993 . McDonald, J . I . H. , Christian Values: Theory an d Practice i n Christian Ethics Today, T& T Clark , Edinburgh, 1995 . McFague, Sallie, Models o f God: Theology for a n Ecological, Nuclear Age, Fortress Press, Philadelphia , and SC M Press, London , 1987 . McFague, Sallie , Th e Body o f God: A n Ecological Theology, Fortres s Press , Minneapolis, 1993 . McFague, Sallie , Life Abundant: Rethinking Theology an d Economy for a Planet i n Peril, Fortres s Press, Minneapolis , 2001 . McFadyen, Alistair I., Bound to Sin: Abuse, Holocaust an d th e Christian Doctrine of Sin, Cambridge University Press , Cambridge, 2000 . Macgregor, G.H.C., Th e New Testament Basis o f Pacifism, Jame s Clarke, London , 1936 . Mackey, James P., Power and Christian Ethics, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge , 1994 . McLaren, Robert Bruce , Christian Ethics: Foundations and Practice, Prentice Hall , Englewoo d Cliffs , NJ, 1994 . McClendon, Jame s W., Jr , Ethics: Systematic Theology, Abingdo n Press , Nashville, 1986 . Macnamara, Vincent , Faith and Ethics: Recent Roman Catholicism, Gill an d Macmillan , Dublin , 1985. Macquarrie, Joh n (ed.) , A Dictionary of Christian Ethics, SCM Press , London , 196 7 (se e Childres s for revise d edn) . Macquarrie, John , Three Issues i n Ethics, Harper an d Row , Ne w Yor k an d SC M Press , London , 1970. Mahoney, John , Seeking th e Spirit, Shee d an d Ward , Londo n an d Ne w York, 1981 . Mahoney, John , Bioethics and Belief, Shee d an d Ward , London, 1984 .

437

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

Mahoney, John , Th e Making o f Moral Theology: A Study o f th e Roman Catholic Tradition, Clarendon, Oxford , 1987 . Manson, T.W., Ethics and th e Gospel, (ed . R . H. Preston) , SC M Press , London , 1960 . Markham, Ian S. , Plurality and Christian Ethics, Cambridge Universit y Press , Cambridge, 1994 . Marrin, Albert (ed.) , Wa r an d th e Christian Conscience: From Augustine t o Martin Luther King, Jr, Henry Regnery , Chicago , 1971 . Mealand, David L , Poverty an d Expectation i n th e Gospels, SPCK , London, 1980 . Meeks, Wayne A., Th e Moral World o f th e First Christians, Westminster Press , Philadelphia , 1986 . Meeks, Wayne A. , Th e Origins o f Christian Morality, Yale University Press , New Haven , 1993 . Meilaender, Gilbert , Bioethics: A Primer for Christians, William B . Eerdmans , Gran d Rapids , Michigan, 1996 . Messer, Neil (ed.) , Theological Issues i n Bioethics, DLT, London, 2002. Mitchell, Basil , Law, Morality an d Religion, Clarendon, Oxford , 1967 . Mitchell, Basil, Morality: Religious and Secular, Clarendon, Oxford, 1980 . Murnion, Phili p J . (ed.) , Catholics an d Nuclear War: A Commentary o n Th e Challenge o f Peace, Crossroad, Ne w York, 1983 . Nation, Mark Thiessen and Wells, Samuel (eds), Faithfulness an d Fortitude: In Conversation with the Theological Ethics o f Stanley Hauerwas, T&T Clark , Edinburgh , 2000 . Nelson, Jame s B. , Embodiment: A n Approach t o Sexuality an d Christian Theology, Augsburg , Minneapolis, 1978 . Neuhaus, Richar d J., Christian Faith a Public Policy, Augsburg, Minneapolis, 1977 . Neuhaus, Richar d J. , Doing Well an d Doing Good: Th e Challenge o f Christian Capitalism, Doubleday, Ne w York, 1992 . Newlands, George, Making Christian Decisions, Mowbrays, Oxford, 1985 . Niebuhr, H . Richard, Christ and Culture, Harper, Ne w York, 1951 . Niebuhr, H . Richard , Th e Responsible Self, Harpe r an d Row , New York, 1963 . Niebuhr, Reinhold, Moral Man and Immoral Society, Scribners, New York, 193 2 and 196 0 and SCM Press, London , 1963 . Niebuhr, Reinhold , A n Interpretation of Christian Ethics, Harper, New York, 1935 and SC M Press, London, 1936 . Niebuhr, Reinhold, Th e Children o f Light and th e Children o f Darkness, Scribners, Ne w York , 1944. Niebuhr, Reinhold , Th e Nature an d Destiny of Man, 2 vols, Nisbet, London , 194 3 an d Scribners , New York , 1949 . Niebuhr, Reinhold , Faith an d History, Scribners , Ne w York, 1949. Niebuhr, Reinhold , Christian Realism and Political Problems, Scribners, Ne w York, 195 3 an d Fabe r & Faber, London , 1964 . Noonan, Joh n T., Jr , Th e Scholastic Analysis of Usury, Harvar d Universit y Press, Cambridge , MA , 1957. Noonan, Joh n T. , Jr, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Harvard Universit y Press , Cambridge , MA, 1965 . Noonan, Joh n T. , J r (ed.) , Th e Morality o f Abortion: Legal an d Historical Perspectives, Harvar d University Press , Cambridge , MA , 1970 . Northcott, Michae l S. , Th e Environment an d Christian Ethics, Cambridg e Universit y Press , Cambridge, 1995 . Northcott, Michae l S. , Life After Debt: Christianity and Global Justice, SPCK, London, 1999 . Nygren, Anders, Agape an d Eros, SPCK, London, 1953 . O'Donovan, Oliver , Resurrection an d Moral Order, Intervarsit y Press , Leiceste r an d Eerdmans , Grand Rapids , Michigan , 1986 . O'Donovan, Oliver , Peace and Certainty, Clarendon, Oxford , 1989 . O'Donovan, Oliver, Th e Desire o f Nations, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge , 1996 . O'Donovan, Oliver , Common Objects o f Love: Moral Reflection an d th e Shaping o f Community., Eerdmans, Gran d Rapids , Michigan, 2002 . O'Donovan, Oliver, The Just Wa r Revisited, Cambridge University Press , Cambridge , 2003 . Ogletree, Thomas , Hospitality t o th e Stranger: Dimensions of Moral Understanding, Fortres s Press , Philadelphia, 1985 . Ogletree, Thomas , Th e Us e of th e Bible i n Christian Ethics, Blackwell, Oxford, 1985 . 438

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPH Y I N CHRISTIA N ETHICS

Oppenheimer, Helen , Th e Character o f Christian Morality, Fait h Press , London, 1965 . Oppenheimer, Helen , Th e Hope o f Happiness, SC M Press , London, 1983 . Oppenheimer, Helen , Marriage, SPCK , London, 1990 . Osborn, Eric , Ethical Patterns in Early Christian Thought, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge, 1976. Outka, Gen e H . an d Ramsey , Paul , Nor m an d Context in Christian Ethics, Scribners, Ne w York, 1968 an d SC M Press, London, 1969 . Outka, Gen e H., Agape: A n Ethical Analysis, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1973 . Outka, Gen e H. an d Reeder , John D., Jr , Religion an d Morality, Anchor , New York, 1973. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Ethics, Search Press , Londo n an d Westminster , Philadelphia, 1981 . Parsons, Susa n Frank , Feminism an d Christian Ethics, Cambridg e Universit y Press, Cambridge , 1996. Patrick, Ann e E. , Liberating Conscience: Feminist Explorations i n Catholic Moral Theology, Continuum, Ne w York, 1997 . Pellegrino, Edmun d D . an d Faden , Ala n I. , (eds) , Jewish an d Catholic Bioethics: A n Ecumenical Dialogue, Georgetown Universit y Press, Washington DC , 1999 . Pemberton, Prentis s L . and Finn , Danie l R. , Toward a Christian Economic Ethic, Winston Press , Minneapolis, 1985 . Pierce, C. A., Conscience i n th e New Testament, SCM Press, London, 1955 . Porter, Jean , Th e Recovery o f Virtue: Th e Relevance o f Aquinas for Christian Ethics, SPCK, London, 1994. Porter, Jean, Moral Action and Christian Ethics, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge, 1995 . Porter, Jean , Natural an d Divine Law, Novalis Press , Ottaw a an d Eerdmans , Grand Rapids , 1999 . Preston, Ronald H . (ed.) , Technology an d Social Justice, SC M Press, London, 1971 . Preston, Ronald H. (ed.) , Industrial Conflicts an d their Place in Modern Society, SCM Press, London, 1974. Preston, Ronal d H . (ed.) , Perspectives o n Strikes, SCM Press, London, 1975 . Preston, Ronal d H. , Religion an d th e Persistence o f Capitalism, SC M Press , London, 1979 . Preston, Ronal d H., Explorations i n Theology, Vol . 9 , SCM Press, London, 1981 . Preston, Ronal d H. , Church an d Society i n th e Late Twentieth Century: Th e Economic and Political Task, SC M Press, London, 1983 . Preston, Ronald H. , Th e Future of Christian Ethics, SCM Press, London , 1987 . Rae, Scot t B . and Pau l M.Cox (eds) , Bioethics: A Christian Approach i n a Pluralistic Age, William B.Eerdmans, Gran d Rapids , Michigan, 1999 . Ramsey, I. T. (ed.) , Christian Ethics and Contemporary Philosophy, SC M Press, London, 1966 . Ramsey, Paul , Basic Christian Ethics, Scribners, New York, 195 1 an d Universit y of Chicago Press , Chicago, 1980 . Ramsey, Paul, Wa r and th e Christian Conscience: How Shall Modern Wa r b e Conducted Justly?, Duk e University Press , Durham, NC , 1961 . Ramsey, Paul , Nine Modem Moralists, Prentice-Hall , NJ , 1962 . Ramsey, Paul, Th e Limits of Nuclear War: Thinking About th e Do-able and th e Undo-able, Counci l on Religio n an d Internationa l Affairs , Ne w York, 1963 . Ramsey, Paul, Deeds an d Rules in Christian Ethics, Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, 1965 : rev. Scribners, New York, 1967 . Ramsey, Paul , Wh o Speaks fo r th e Church?, Abingdon, Ne w York , 1967. Ramsey, Paul, Th e Just War: Force and Political Responsibility, Scribners , New York , 1968 . Ramsey, Paul , Fabricated Man: Th e Ethics o f Genetic Control, Yale Universit y Press, Ne w Haven , 1970. Ramsey, Paul , Th e Patient as Person, Yale University Press , Ne w Haven , 1970 . Ramsey, Paul , Th e Ethics o f Fetal Research, Yale University Press, New Haven , 1975 . Ramsey, Paul , Ethics at th e Edges o f Life, Yal e University Press, New Haven , 1978 . Rauschenbusch, Walter, Christianity an d th e Social Crisis, Macmillan, Ne w York, 1907 . Rauschenbusch, Walter, Christianizing the Social Order, Macmillan, New York, 1916 . Rauschenbusch, Walter, A Theology fo r th e Social Gospel, Macmillan , New York, 1918 . Robinson, N . H . G. , Th e Groundwork o f Christian Ethics, Collins, London , 1971 . Rogerson, Joh n (ed.) , Th e Bible i n Ethics, Sheffield Academi c Press , Sheffield , 1995 . 439

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

Rowland, Christopher, and Corner , Mark, Liberating Exegesis: Th e Challenge of Liberation Theology to Biblical Studies, SPCK, London, 1990 . Rudman, Stanley, Concepts o f Persons and Christian Ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997. Sanders, Jack T. , Ethics i n th e New Testament, SCM Press, London, 1975 . Schillebeeckx, Edward , Marriage: Human Reality an d Saving Mystery, 2 vols , Shee d an d Ward , London, 1965 . Schrage, Wolfgang, Th e Ethics o f th e New Testament, T&T Clark, Edinburgh , 1988 . Schiiller, Bruno, Wholly Human: Essays i n the Theory an d Language of Morality, Gil l and Macmillan , Dublin, 1986 . Schweiker, William , Responsibility an d Christian Ethics, Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge , 1995. Schweiker, William, Theological Ethics and Global Dynamics: In th e Time of Many Worlds, Blackwell, Oxford, 2004 . Schweiker, William (ed.) , Th e Blackwell Companion to Religious Ethics, Blackwell, Oxford, 2005 . Sedgwick, Pete r H. , Th e Market Economy an d Christian Ethics, Cambridg e Universit y Press , Cambridge, 1999 . Smith, Davi d H . (ed.) , Caring Well: Religion, Narrative, and Health Care Ethics, Westminster/John Knox, Louisville , KY, 2000 . Song, Robert, Christianity and Liberal Society, Clarendon Press , Oxford , 1997 . Spong, Joh n Shelby , Living i n Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality, Harpe r & Row , Sa n Francisco, 1990 . Stackhouse, Max L. , Christian Social Ethics in a Global Era, Abingdon Press , Nashville , 1997 . Stackhouse, Ma x L. , Covenant and Commitment: Faith, Family an d Economic Life, Westminster / John Knox , Louisville, KY , 1997 . Stassen, Gle n (ed.) , Just Peacemaking: Te n Practices for Abolishing War, Pilgrim Press , Cleveland , Ohio, 1999 . Tanner, Kathryn , Th e Politics o f God: Christian Theologies an d Social Justice, Fortres s Press , Minneapolis, 1992 . Temple, William, Nature, Go d and Man, Macmillan , London , 1934 . Temple, William , Citizen and Churchman, Eyre an d Spottiswoode , London , 1941 . Temple, William , Christianity an d Social Order, Penguin , London , 1942 , and Shepheard-Walwy n and SPCK , London, 197 6 (wit h Introduction b y Ronald Preston) . Thatcher, Adria n an d Stuart , Elizabet h (eds) , Christian Perspectives o n Sexuality an d Gender, Cracewing Fowler Wright, Leominster , 1996 . Thatcher, Adrian (ed.) , Celebrating Christian Marriage, T& T Clark/Continuum, London , 2001 . Thatcher, Adrian , Living Together an d Christian Ethics, Cambridge Universit y Pres , Cambridge , 2002. Thomas, G . F. , Christian Ethics and Moral Philosophy, Scribners , Ne w York, 1955 . Thielicke, Helmut , Th e Ethics o f Sex, Jame s Clarke , London , 1964 , an d Baker , Gran d Rapids , Michigan, 1975 . Thielicke, Helmut, Theological Ethics, 3 vols, Eerdmans , Michigan , 1979 . Tillich, Paul , Love, Power and Justice, Oxford Universit y Press, Ne w York, 1954 . Tillich, Paul, Morality an d Beyond, Harpe r an d Row , New York, 1963, and Fontana , London, 1969 . Trowell, Hugh, Th e Unfinished Debate on Euthanasia, SCM Press, London , 1973 . UNAIDS, A Report of a Theological Workshop Focusing on HIV- an d AIDS-related Stigma, UNAIDS, Geneva, 2005 : http://www.unaids.org . US Bishops , Th e Challenge o f Peace: God's Promise and Ou r Response, Pastoral Letter on Wa r an d Peace in th e Nuclear Age, US Catholic Conference, Washington D C and CTS/SPCK , London , 1983. US Bishops, Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and th e U S Economy, US Catholic Conference , Washington DC , 1986 . US Bishops , Building Peace: A Pastoral Reflection o n th e Response t o Th e Challenge o f Peace, U S Catholic Conference, Washingto n DC , 1988 . Verhey, Allen, Remembering Jesus: Christian Community, Scripture an d th e Moral Life, Willia m B . Eerdmans, Gran d Rapids , Michigan, 2002. 440

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPH Y I N CHRISTIA N ETHIC S

Walsh, Michael an d Davies , Bria n (ed.) , Proclaiming Justice and Peace: Documents from John XXIII to John Paul II, Twenty-third Publications , Mystic, CT, 1984 . Ward, Keith , Ethics and Christianity, Alle n an d Unwin , London , 1970 . Ward, Keith , Th e Divine Image: The Foundations o f Christian Morality, SPCK , London , 1976 . Watts, Erase r (ed.) , Christians and Bioethics, SPCK, London , 2000. Weaver, Darlen e Fozard , Self Love and Christian Ethics, Cambridge Universit y Press , Cambridge , 2002. Wells, Samuel, Improvisation: Th e Drama o f Christian Ethics, SPCK, London , 2004. Wells, Samuel an d Hauerwas , Stanley (eds) , Th e Blackwell Companion t o Christian Ethics, Blackwell, Oxford, 2005 . Welty, E., A Handbook o f Christian Social Ethics, 2 vols, Nelson, Edinburgh, 1960-3 . White, R. E. O., Th e Changing Continuity o f Christian Ethics, 2 vols, Paternoste r Press, Exeter, 1981 . Williams, Rowan , Lost Icons: Reflections o n Cultural Bereavement, T&T Clark , Edinburgh, 2000 . Winter, Gibson, Elements for a Social Ethic, Macmillan, New York, 1966 . Witte, John , From Sacrament t o Covenant: Marriage, Religion, an d La w i n th e Western Legal Tradition, Westminster/Joh n Knox , Louisville , KY , 1997 . Wogaman, J. Philip, Economics and Ethics, SCM Press, London, 1986 . Wogaman, J. Philip, Christian Perspectives o n Politics, SCM Press , London , 1988 . Wogaman, J. Philip, Christian Moral Judgment, Westminster/Joh n Knox , Louisville , KY , 1989 . Wogaman, J. Philip, Christian Ethics: A Historical Introduction, Westminster/Joh n Knox, Louisville, KY, 199 3 an d SPCK , London , 1994 . Woods, G. F. , A Defence o f Theological Ethics, Cambridge University Press , Cambridge, 1966 . World Council of Churches, Facing AIDS: Th e Challenge, the Churches' Response, World Council of Churches Publications, Geneva, 1997 . Yoder, Joh n Howard , Th e Politics of Jesus, Eerdmans, Michigan, 1972 . Yoder, John Howard, The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel, University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana, 1984 .

441

This page intentionally left blank

INDEX O F BIBLICA L REFERENCE S JEWISH BIBLE/OL D TESTAMENT Genesis 1.1 1.11 1.26

1.29 1.30 1.31 2.7 2.15 2.16-17 2.24 3.3 3.7 3.17-19 3.18 3.22 3.24 9.1 9.3 9.14 43.8-9 44.14-34

126 278, 33 0 118, 272, 279f, 293f 295, 39 3 281, 296, 322 , 323-4 297 282, 323-4 298 281 324 89 363 293 72 324 278 71-2, 388 72 325 290 329 137 137

Exodus 2.12 22.28

199 220

Leviticus 18.22-3 26.6 26.34

361 329 329

1.27 1.28

Deuteronomy 290 4.19 329 22.4 290 22.6 361 23.17 290, 33 1 25.4

Joshua 1.5 2.1-24 6.4

138 401 211

1 Samue l 1.17-18 2.6 10.6-7

60 54 60

2 Samue l 23.3

329

1 King s 12

329

Job 34.30

221

Psalms 1.3 8.8 14.1 18.6-8 24.1 32.9 37.16 61.11 78.47 81.4 112.3 112.9 125.2 143.2

60 290 45 322 324 294 133 44 352 209 178 178 330 62

Proverbs 6.1-5 10.2 24.16 27.13

136 178 62 137

443

Isaiah 1.11-15 2.12 11.6 13.20 14.7 14.17 24.4 40.6-8 40.21 42.5 65.3 66.17

330 330 329 330 330 331 322 323 328 322 62 62

Jeremiah 11.16 12.4 22.13 22.17 23.5

333 331 179, 18 2 182 128

Daniel 4.24

178

Hosea 1.9 2.18

371 328

Amos 3.9-10 5.11

183 183

Jonah 4.11

321

Micah 2.11-12 3.9-10

183 183

Habakkuk 2.6-8 3.9-11

183 183

A TEXTBOOK O F CHRISTIA N ETHICS APOCRYPHA 2 Esdra s 2.15 2.20f

330 330

Tobit 4.10 4.13 12.9 14.11

178 361 178 178

Wisdom 5.6 6.2-4 9.15 12.18 15.2

61 171 120 290 62

Ecclesiasticus 354 3.26

3.30 5.8 7.10 12.3 17.9 26.29 27.1-2

178, 180 , 182 180 178, 180 , 18 2 178, 180 , 182 53 133, 13 6 180, 18 2

8.13-28 8.20 9.5 9.10 10.16 11.34 12.19

324 155 372 36 52 202 152, 155 , 208, 220 150 112, 153-4 , 204, 217-8 139, 209 , 218, 232 76 133 22 59

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 3.7 3.9 5.31 5.32 5.39 5.40 5.42 6.1-2 6.11 6.12 6.27 7.1 7.3-5 7.12 7.26-27 8.9-10 10.23 11.5-6 11.18 12.11 15.3-6 16.19 18.18 19.8 19.9 19.24 19.29 22.21 24.23 25.31-46 26.52-3

Mark 2.17 10.25 10.26

373 373 364 9 8, 196 , 204, 208, 218, 25 1 138 138, 21 8 178 138 136 387 220 221 222 61 204 219 181 373 75 90 400 400 364 400 181 222 204 61 181-2 196, 202 , 208, 209 399 181 181

Luke 1.53 2.14 2.34 3.11 3.14 6.20 6.24 6.30 6.35 7.22-3 10.7 10.25 16.9 18.10-14 18.25 21.20-22

204, 208 , 217 180f 180f 138 138 181 135, 13 6 75 179f 401 181 371

John 4.21-23 8.32 8.34 8.39 8.44 14.27 18.36 20.23

61, 372 87, 8 9 118 373 373 178 217 400

Acts 5.29 15.20

222 342

Romans 1.24 1.32 2.14 6.23 7.15 7.19 8.2

55 209 55 128 152 152 60

180-1

61 409 140

444

12.19-21 13.1 13.4 13.8 13.12 13.13-14 14.23

1 Corinthians 6.7 139 6.10 361 6.18 361 7.8-9 398 7.9 402 7.10 364 7.12-15 400 7.28 365 7.39-40 398 9.7 136, 22 3 9.9 290 11.7 281 11.26 211 13.7 223 15.36 352 2 Corinthians 3.6 7 8 5.6 12 7 10.4 21 1

INDEX O F BIBLICA L REFERENCES

Galatians 3.2 5.14

60 78

Ephesians 1.1-10 2.14-17 3.15 4.23-4 5.24-32 5.32 6.5

321 178 403 279 363 394 118

Colossians 1.15-20

321

1 Thessalonians 354 4.5

1 Timoth y 2.1-2 22 2.15 39 5.8 11 6.9-10 13

0 6 7 3

2 Timoth y 2.4 211 Titus 3.1

218

Hebrews 11.31

401

James 2.25 4.15

401 139

445

1 Pete r 2.13-14 2.17 3.7

218 112 295

2 Pete r 2.19

118

1 John 2.1-2

62

Revelation 5.13 32 21.1-4 32 22.2 32

7 4 9

This page intentionally left blank

GENERAL INDE X

abortion, 56, 81f, 326, 342f, 380 , 430-1 Abraham, K.C. , 272f, 299f , 318f , 33 7 adeodatic axiom, 430- 2 adultery, 54 , 85, 342 , 400 agape, 12 , 65, 76f , 141, 430- 2 aggression, war s of, 230 f AIDS, 413-14 Allen, E.L. , 150 almsgiving, 178f , 188- 9 Ambrose, 27 , 179 , 199 animals, 116 , 273f , 278f , 290 , 293f , 325f , 35 2 animated fetus , 34 2 Anselm, 92 anthropocentrism, 271f , 290, 300-1, 307f , 335 , 337 anti-Semitism, 128-9 , 271, 292, 341, 367f, 373 4, 423, 430 Aquinas, life of , 19 f on churc h an d state , 28, 122f on environment , 272f , 285 f on government , 122 f on Jews , 128-9, 346, 364 on marriage , 356f on th e mea n o f virtues, 357 on method , 36f on natural law, 49f, 81f, 111, 213, 286, 356-7, 363 on Providence , 287f on soteriology , 26-7 on theologica l anthropology, 25-6 on virtue , lOO f on wa r an d peace , 193f , 206f on women , 346 , 360 f use of the Bible , 23- 5 Aristotle, 4, 22-3, 35 , 38, 49f, 78, 122 , 130, 207, 288, 296 , 356 astrology, 3 7 Ateek, N., 420 Augustine, life of , 18 f on abortion , 34 2 on churc h an d state , 28 , 114 f on environment , 272f

on free-will , 36, 41f on Genesi s I , 276f on Jews , 346 on justice , 172 on love, 12 , 63, 117-1 8 on method , 36 f on sexuality , 344f on sin , 118 f on soteriology , 26- 7 on suicide , 348 f on theologica l anthropology , 25- 6 on wa r an d peace , 193f , 199f on women, 281- 2 use of the Bible , 23- 5 Baelz, P. , 7 Bailey, S. , 39 1 Baillie Commission , 39 Bainton, R.H. , 29, 194 , 197 , 358 Barnsley, J.H., 1 6 Barr, J., 1 1 Barrow, R.W. , 11 6 Earth, K., 29, 112 , 143f , 187 , 229 , 258, 33 2 bases o f Christia n ethics , 7f Basil, 179 , 399 Baum, G., 15 , 370 Beach, W., 1 Benedict, 5 , 27 Bennett, J.C. , 70, 79 , 240 Bentham, J., 4-5 Berdyaev, N. , 11-12 , 29 , 110 , 113 , 143f , 156f , 188 Berger, P.L. , 15-1 6 Bethge, E. , 70 Bible, bases of , 8 f bioethics 409 f biotechnology, 303 , 310f , 41 If Bonaventure, 206 , 309 Bonhoeffer, D. , 6-7 , 11-12 , 14 , 29, 36-8 , 63 , 65f, 71f , 77, 79-81, 104 , 224 Bonino, J.M., 7, 17 , 29, 188 , 225f , 256f , 26 6 Brock, P. , 19 7 Brown, P. , 29 , 116 , 278 Brunner, E. , 76 447

A TEXTBOO K O F CHRISTIA N ETHICSHICS

Bultmann, R. , 78 , 18 1 Cadoux, C.J., 197 Cahill, L.S. , 29, 34If , 358 , 375f, 409f, 43 0 Callahan, D. , 410 Calvin, J., 27-8, 56 , 110-11 , 132 call o f Christ , 12 , 38 Campbell, A.V., 3 capital punishment , 341 Chargaff, E. , 311 Childress, J. , 7 Chrysostom, John, 395, 398-9 Cicero, 41 , 43f, 49 Clark, S.R.L. , 11 , 14 , 29, 272f , 299f, 325f , 33 7 Clarke, O.F., 150 clergy and war , 196, 206f Colliander, T., 399 common good , 146f , 171f, 184f, 231, 234, 357 compatibilism, 37 Congar, Y. , 375 conscience, 12-13 , 56 , 69, 73f , 86, 89-90 , 215 , 349 conscientious objection, 223 , 242f, 30 2 consequentialist ethica l arguments , 4— 5 Constantine, 194f , 34 4 contraception, 56 , 366, 380, 402f, 43 0 Copleston, F.C., 12, 20 , 50-1, 65f, 81f, 104-5 Cox, H., 322 creation, 14 , 38, 125f , 278f, 307f, 314, 322f, 357, 391, 406f , 410 , 43 1 Cronin, K. , 7 , 18 8 crowning in marriage , 397f Cupitt, D. , 11 , 29, 39, 65f, 96f, 104-5, 205 Curry, D.C., 230 Curtis, J.E., 16 Cyprian, 248 Darwin, C, 309 Dayan, M., 427 Deane-Drumond, C. , 303 decalogue, 5 , 9, 26 , 57f , 349 Decretum [se e also Gratian] , 49, 51 , 209 Demant, V.A. , 358 democracy, HOf , 156f , 169 D'Entreves, A.P. , 51, 122 , 124, 128 deontological ethica l arguments, 3- 4 Descartes, R., 27 3 determinism, 14f , 36-7, 56, 91f deterrence, war s of, 237f Didache, 5 differentiating ownership , 18 9 discipline o f Church, 415f discrimination, 26I f divorce, 355, 393f, 42 9 divorce, ground s for , 400f Dodd, C.H., 11

Dostoevsky, N. , 15 1 double effect , 26I f Dunn, J.D.G., 8 Duns Scotus, 206 Dunstan, G.R. , 11, 70 Durkheim, E. , 15 , 349, 355 Dwyer, J.A., 230, 265 eco-justice, 320f ecology, 273-5, 286, 298, 303f , 31 If, 320f economics, 130f , 173f, 180 f ecosystem, 33I f emission o f semen, 360f environment, 96 , 27If equality, 168f ethical arguments , types of, 3f eudaimonia, 5 0 euthanasia, 56 , 343f , 375 , 38 If, 428f euthanasia, type s of , 343 Evans, J. , 410f Evdokimov, P. , 398, 400 Fairweather, I.C.M. , 3 fall, 25 , 56 , 272f , 292f , 298 , 388 Farrell, P.M., 51 fate, 41 f Faustus, 23 , 199f fellowship, 169f feminist ethics , 91f, 333f, 343 , 376 Ferguson, J. , 20 1 Fierro, A., 18 8 Fiorenza, E.S., 29, 39, 65f, 91f, 105, 342-3, 349 Fletcher, J., 6-7, 11 , 29, 38-9, 63, 65f, 76f, 104 , 141, 380, 429 Flew, A.G.N., 5 6 Foot, P. , 3 Forell, G.W., 7, 59 Foucalt, M., 97 , 381, 412 Fox, G., 1 2 Francis of Assisi, 248, 309-10, 336 freedom, 167f , 170 f free-will, 15 , 25, 36f , 47- 8 Freud, S. , 15 , 334 Frye, N. , 329 Gandhi, M . 161 , 248 Gilligan, C. , 345 globalization, 147 , 184f, 312, 384 Clock, C. , 369-7 1 Gnostics, 15 8 Godsey, J.D., 70 golden rule , 6 Gollwitzer, H. , 236f Gorsuch, R.L., 37 0 grace, 27 , 49, 6 3 Gratian [se e also Decretum], 207

448

GENERAL INDEX Gregorios, P., 14, 29, 273f, 299f, 310f, 336, 431 Gregory, 210 Grundmann, W., 18 1 Gustafson, J.M. , 7, 11 , 13 , 381, 40 9 Gutierrez, G., 257 Ha-am, A., 427 Habermas, J. , 1 6 Hamilton, P., 1 6 Harakas, S.S., 381 Hare, R.M. , 6 Haring, B. , 381 Harned, D.B. , 13 Harries, R. , 15 0 Hauerwas, S. , 13 , 29 , 39 , 70 , 194f , 225f, 250f , 265, 29 8 Heath, T.R. , 208 heavenly city, 114 f Hepburn, R. , 13 Heron, A., 377 Heschel, A., 77 Hill, M., 59 hippocratic oath, 383 Hollenbach, D. , 29 , 113 , 143f , 184f , 190 , 225, 357 Holmes, A.F., 1 , 197 holocaust, 272 , 42If homicide, 243f, 350f, 366 homosexuality, 366 , 39If , 428 , 430 Hooker, R. , 8 , 12 Houlden, J.L, 10 Hume, D., 35 , 56, 349 Ignatius, 394 Iremonger, F.A. , 15 0 Irenaeus, 307 Isidore, 49 , 52 Istavridis, V.T., 1 1 Jens, W., 377, 386 Jeremias, J. , 18 1 Jerome, 179 , 210 John XXIII , 21, 29 , 110 , 124 , 170f , 186f , 242 , 406 John Pau l II , 11 , 14 , 29, 39 , 65f, 87f, 105 , 124 , 245-6, 384f , 39 6 justice, 143f , 159f , 172f , 178f , 189 , 243f , 264 , 312f, 318f , 33 2 just peacemaking , 266-7 just war , 118 , 195f , 199f , 206f , 212 , 230f , 242f , 261f, 265-6 Justin, 247 Justinian, 276 Kant, I., 3-4 , 13 , 35, 77, 99, 160 , 273 Kaufman, G. , 332-3

Kee, A., 189 , 23 0 Keeling, M., 7 Kegley, C.W., 15 0 Khodre, G., 396 Kierkegaard, S. , 26 , 97 Kingdom o f God , 9 , 121 , 189 , 252 , 260 , 326 , 432 Kirk, K.E., 12 Klein, C, 370 Knowles, D., 41, 114 , 116 Kuhn, T., 92 Kiing, H., 11 , 29, 341f, 355, 366, 375f, 38 If, 428, 430

Lammers, S.E., 381 Lebacqz, K. , 409 Leeuwan, A.Van, 322 Lehmann, P. , 1 1 Lewis, H.D., 13 , 37 liberation ethics, 93f, 109, 150, 188-9, 197 , 227, 298, 318f , 331 f liberation, war s of, 233 f liberty, 168 f Life an d Wor k Movement , 14 , 149 Lombard, 49, 295 Linacre Centre, 35 0 Lindars, B. , 1 0 Long, E.L., 11 , 70, 38 1 Lovin, R. , 15 0 Lowrie, D.A., 150 Lucretia, 3 5 If Lustig, A., 41 3 Luther, M. , life of , 20 f on churc h and state , 28 , 130f on environment , 272f , 29I f on Genesi s I, 291f on Jews , 56, 292, 346-7, 367f on justificatio n by faith , 57 f on method , 36f on natura l law, 134, 215, 220, 291 on rebellion , 216 f on sexuality , 295f, 344 f on sola Scriptura, 8 , 23-5, 5 8 on soteriology, 26-7 on theologica l anthropology , 25-6 on th e tw o kingdoms, 112 , 131- 2 on trad e and usury , 130 f on wa r an d peace , 193f , 214f Luther King , M., 248 McCormick, R. , 410-11 McCoy, A., 3 McDonagh, E., 7, 430 McDonald, J.I.H. , 3 , 10 449

A TEXTBOO K OF CHRISTIA N ETHICS

McFague, S. , 11 , 29 , 272f , 299f, 319-20 , 331f , 337, 34 7 MacGregor, G.H.C., 19 7 Mackey, J.P., 11 , 124 Maclntyre, A., 3 , 1 6 McNeill, J.T., 132 Macquarrie, J. , 7 Mahoney, J. , 7 , 105 , 38 1 Manson, T.W. , 1 1 Markham, I. , 1 1 marriage, 345f, 356f , 389f , 393f, 403f, 429 Marrin, A., 19 7 Martin, D., 15 , 198 Martin o f Tours, 248 martyrdom, 121 , 199 , 205 , 355 Marx, K. , 7 , 15 , 169 , 256f Marxism, 92 , 113 , 146 , 256f , 266 , 306, 33 4 Mealand, D., 10 , 189 mercenaries, 194 , 223-4 Messer, N. , 381 Meyendorff, J . 39 6 Meyer, D., 150 middle axiom , 14 , 39, 14 9 Milbank, J. , 1 6 Milford, T.R. , 212 militarism, 19 3 Mill, J.S. , 5- 6 Miranda, J.P. , 7 , 11 , 29 , 110 , 141 , 143f , 178f, 188, 22 4 Moghila, P. , 397 Moltmann, J. , 318 f monogamy, 345 Moore, G.E. , 97 Miinzer, T., 214 murder, 3-6 , 53-4 , 219, 341f Murdoch, I. , 1 3 Murnion, P.J. , 230 natural law , 49f , 81f, 111 , 147 , 215 , 220 , 286 , 291, 356-7, 430 Newman, J.H. , 89 Niebuhr, H.R. , 1 , 14 , 76, 15 0 Niebuhr, R. , 11 , 29 , 36 , 51 , 65 , 69 , 109 , 143f , 159f, 188 , 230, 43 1 Nietzsche, F. , 97, 15 1 Nineham, D.E. , 1 1 Nomad, M., 161 non-violence, 16If , 25If , 265- 6 Noonan, J.T., 133 , 38 1 Northcott, M. , 287 , 303 Novak, M., 265 Nowell-Smith, P.H. , 3 nuclear deterrence , 23If , 236f , 266 , 273, 302 nuclear war , 197 , 243f , 310f , 333

O'Donoghue, N.D.O. , 5 1 O'Donovan, O. , 11 , 29, 195 , 225f , 261f, 265 Oduyoye, M.A. , 93 Oppenheimer, H. , 1 4 Origen, 158 , 194- 6 Ossowska, M. , 1 6 Osthathios, G., 302 Otto, R. , 12 ought/is problem , 14 , 56 pacifism, 16If , 206 , 214 , 249 , 250 f pacifism, type s of , 193 , 20 1 Palestinians, 419 f Pannikar, R. , 320 Parsons, S. , 70 patriarchy, 92f , 383 Patterson, O. , 186 Paul VI , 11 , 29 , 39 , 244 , 342f , 358 , 375f , 402f, 429-30 peace, 116f , 173f , 194f , 242f peasants' rebellion , 214f , 346 Pelikan, J. , 29 1 Perrin, N. , 181 personalist ethica l arguments , 5- 7 Pierce, C.A. , 1 3 Pius XII, 148 , 171 , 176 , 225, 230f, 40 9 Plato, 22, 166 , 295 , 353 , 35 6 pluralism, xi , 39, 105 , 429f political structures, 144 f polygamy, 24 , 205, 34 5 Porter, J. , 7 , 29, 51 , 65f , lOOf , 34 7 postmodernism, 3 9 poverty, 10 , 178f , 184f, 258, 320 , 35 7 predestination, 2 7 Preston, R. , 15 0 proportionality, 244, 262f promiscuity, 35 7 Providence, 287f punishment, 208f , 22 1

O'Connor, D.J.O., 51, 56 450

Quakers, 12 , 29, 34 , 61 , 375f , 388f , 42 9 racism, 171f , 341, 368 , 376 , 414f, 431 Rahner, K. , 92 , 37 7 Ramsey, I.T., 1 3 Ramsey, P. , 225f , 236f , 265 , 380, 409-10 , 429 rape, 80f , 348 f Rauschenbusch, W. , 18 9 redaction criticism , 8 revolution, 144 , 150f , 224 rights, 4 , 146f , 170f , 188 , 235 , 41 3 Robinson, J.A.T. , 38, 79 , 376 Rousseau, J. , 16 9 Ruether, R.R., 11 , 29, 319f, 330, 341 , 370, 375f , 419f, 43 0 Rupp, G. , 369-70, 374

GENERAL INDE X

Tolstoi, N. , 161- 2 Tooke, J.D. , 201, 208, 212 trade, 133f tradition, appeal s to , llf , 96f Trinity, 279 , 326, 395 Troeltsch, E. , 1 4 Trowell, H., 350 tyrants, 122 , 219f

Russell, B. , 97, 32 2 Russell, F.H., 201, 208, 224 Ruston, R. , 208 sacraments, 394 f Sandel, M. , 18 4 Sanders, J.T., 10 Sansbury, K. , 376 Schillebeeckx, E. , 375 Schmidt, H.P., 259 Schweiker, W., 7 Schweitzer, A., 9-1 0 sedakah, 178f Segundo, J. , 334 Sermon o n th e Mount , 14 1 sexuality, 29 , 295f , 344f , 356f , 388f , 405f , 412, 430 sin, 25f, 36, 55, 62, 118f , 208f , 283-4, 291f, 342, 354-5, 362, 364-6, 388f, 415f Singer, P. , 383 , 387 situation ethics , 6 , 76f slavery, 54 , 56 , 118f , 28 7 sobornost, 145 , 158 social determinants , 14 f social significance , 16f sociology o f knowledge, 14 f sola Scriptura, 8 solar ethics , 96f Solovyov, V., 15 9 Stapledon, O. , 326-7 Stark, R., 369-70 Stassen, G., 266 sterilization, 359f , 40 6 Suggate, A. , 15 0 suicide, 81 , 167 , 243f, 348f surety, 130 , 140 synderesis, 50 , 5 6 system o f analysis , 2f

unemployment, 165 f United Nations , 175f , 186-7, 244f , 26 5 US Catholic Bishops , 29 , 225f , 242f , 26 5 usury, 130f utilitarianism, 4-5 Vallon, M.A., 15 0 Vatican II , 90 , 186 , 248f, 375-6 , 396 vengeance, 220 Verghese, P. , se e Gregorios Verhey, A., 38 1 virtue ethics , lOOf , 253f , 35 6 vision, 1 3

Taylor, A.E., 13 Taylor, J. , 389 Taylor, J.H. , 278 Temple, W. , 11 , 14 , 29, 76 , 79 , 111 , 124 , 143f , 164f, 188 , 197 terrorism, 19 7 Tertullian, 8, 194-6 , 213, 307, 342, 346, 394 theft, 53^, 138 theodicy, 37 Thielicke, H. , 358 Tillich, P., 79 tolerance, 184f

war, 193f Ward K. , 7 , 1 3 Ware, K. , 11 , 29, 341f, 375f , 393f , 42 9 Warnock, G.J., 3 Warnock, M. , 3 wealth, 10 , 171f , 180f, 188f, 357, 360 Weaver, D.F., 350 Weber, M. , 15 , 17 , 59, 132 Weiser, A. , 178 Weiss, J. , 9 Welty, E., 11 , 29, 196f , 225f, 230f , 26 5 West, C, 150 White, L, 27If, 286 , 299f, 323 , 336 WiUiams, N.P., 29 , 43 Willis, R.E. , 150 Wilson, B. , 19 8 Wingate, O. , 427 Wingren, G. , 59 Wogaman, P. , xii, 7 World Counci l o f Churches , 149 , 225 , 273f , 302-3, 310f , 332f, 341f , 375f, 414f , 430 World government , 174f , 18 7 Yinger, J.M., 19 8 Zionism, 341 , 419 f Zwingli, 21 4

451