FEATURE
LESS HEGEL, MORE HISTORY! CHRISTIAN ETHICS & POLITICAL REALITIES BY NIGEL BIGGAR
he good news is that the moral thinking of an educated Protestant T Christian in 2015 is likely to be far more theologically and biblically literate than it was a quarter of a century ago. In the 1960s and ‘70s, at least here in the United Kingdom, Christian ethics was often represented by philosophers who championed metaphysics against fashionable logical positivism—for example, Peter Baelz and Basil Mitchell. Or else it found expression in the thought of Anglican churchmen like Gordon Dunstan, who used to begin his undergraduate courses in moral theology with Aristotle and Aquinas, and who is famously reported to have commented on one student’s essay, “Best not to begin with the Bible”! 1
10 Through the Night With the Light from Above: Transcendent wisdom symbolized by the light of Providence
While this more philosophical approach today what has recently been asserted to the discipline did have its merits—as I of her current conception of her politi- shall make clear shortly—its lack of immer- cal role: that she has yet to take serious- sion in biblical and theological traditions ly the intellectual task of developing a weakened its capacity to achieve critical dis- fundamentally theological understand- ing of it.3 tance from prevailing intellectual currents. I have in mind Faith in the City, the 1985 Likewise, on Changing Britain I com- report of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s mented that it permitted the church only Commission on Urban Priority Areas, “to proclaim more loudly the good that the and Changing Britain, the 1987 publica- world already knows; but not the good that tion of the Church of England’s Board for comes to the world as news”.4 Social Responsibility.2 Each of these dealt 7ZHQW\¿YH\HDUVODWHU&KULVWLDQHWKLFV with pressing social problems in Britain— in Britain (and in the United States) is much Faith in the City with urban deprivation, better educated in Christian ethical tradi- Changing Britain with cultural and moral tions, and its moral intelligence much more pluralism. Neither of them did so, however, fully informed by the full range of theo- with moral concepts that had drunk at all logical premises. In part this is due to the deeply from the historic wells of Christian remarkable surge of interest in the thought moral theology. The result was that their of Karl Barth during the 1980s, accentuat- moral analysis and criticism was too mes- ed, if not generated, by the centenary of his merised by current, liberal-left common ELUWKLQ %XWLWLVDOVRGXHWRWKHLQÀX- sense. As I wrote in the wake of Faith in the ence of Stanley Hauerwas, whose work now City’s publication: dominates Protestant circles and not a few If we may take Faith in the City as Roman Catholic ones. To these must be add- symptomatic (and it is certainly not ed Oliver O’Donovan’s thorough mining of wholly eccentric), then we can say of Christian biblical and historical traditions social ethics in the Church of England for the construction of a moral theology of
11 SROLWLFDOOLIHZKRVHH̆HFWVKDYHEHHQIHOWRQ Most wheels were invented long ago by our both sides of the Atlantic. Without doubt, predecessors in the faith, and it would be all of this has served to make Christian eth- foolish to waste time trying to build them ics more theologically coherent and more again from scratch. I myself spent most of self-consciously Christian, and that surely WKH¿UVWWHQ\HDUVRIP\FDUHHUVLWWLQJPHW- has to be welcomed. aphorically at the feet of Karl Barth, and I have never regretted it. It’s vitally import- evertheless, this upside has a major DQWWR¿WRXWWKHYHKLFOHRIRQH¶V&KULVWLDQ Ndownside. The academic discipline intelligence with worthy wheels that will of Christian ethics—and therefore the in- stay the course. But there nevertheless telligence of those pastors and lay-people comes a time when one has to stop admir- who have been trained in it—often seems ing the wheels, get in the car, and drive it to be locked into the tradition, engrossed somewhere. in deferential conversation with the likes of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and Karl sing the tradition as a refuge rather Barth, largely inattentive to the world and Uthan a resource is one problem with WKH GL̇FXOW SUDFWLFDO TXHVWLRQV LW UDLVHV contemporary Christian ethics. Another is a and assuming that an appeal to an author- tendency to want theology to do too much, itative voice in the tradition will settle the too quickly—a tendency unrestrained by case. Thus in Oxford last year during an the demands of philosophical rigour. For interdisciplinary conference on my book, In example, in its 2009 report, The Ethics of Defence of War, an expert in international Defence, the Church of Scotland judged security was provoked to erupt, “What on that the U.K. should abandon its nuclear deterrent on the ground that we should earth is all this about Augustine?!!”, after trust in God instead of placing other peo- two Christian ethicists had devoted much ple “in a position of fear or threat” (2.10). By of their time comparing what I had written threatening others rather than seeking to unfavourably to the Master. And when, this be reconciled with them, it implied, a pol- April, I presented a paper on human rights icy of nuclear deterrence is immoral. But, at Princeton, a theologian present con- as I argued this May in the online Scottish tradicted me by expounding Aquinas. To Review, “this is facile”: which my (unspoken) response was, “Well, yes, I know that, but, with all due respect, I For sure, fear and mistrust are not think Aquinas’s thinking on this matter is symptoms of a happy, healthy relation- confused and so I prefer something else”. ship. Ideally, they wouldn’t exist. In the world as we have it, however, persons Don’t mistake me: I think it’s enormous- and states sometimes do unjust things ly important for Christians to learn from that give others very good reasons to the tradition before they presume to speak. fear and mistrust them. In that case,
12 the road to reconciliation doesn’t lie in WKRVH ¿JKWLQJ LQ DQ XQMXVW RQH" $QG QR pretending that nothing has happened although all actual empires involve the and just holding out the hand of friend- use and threat of coercion (just like na- ship anyway. It begins, rather, with tion-states and, indeed, republics), they signalling to the wrongdoer that he has haven’t always been simply arbitrary or done wrong by opposing it and press- enslaving in their rule. The British empire, ing him to think again and change his ways in such a fashion that trust could for example, granted Roman Catholics in be restored. It may be true—as I be- Quebec freedom of religion in 1763 (much lieve it is—that we should always trust to the irritation of American colonists), sup- God. But it really doesn’t follow that we pressed the slave trade across the Atlantic should always trust Vladimir Putin or and in Africa throughout the 19th century, Islamic State.5 granted black Africans in Cape Colony the The report had tried to move far too vote (subject to a remarkably low property directly and quickly from the theological requirement) as early as 1853, and appoint- virtue of faith in God to the moral stance ed native Indians as judges under the Raj of indiscriminate trust in our enemies. It decades before the American republic ap- had no patience for the kind of careful eth- pointed African-American ones. ical analysis that formation in the intellec- Without bracing contact with empirical tual virtues of analytic moral philosophy and historical reality, abstract concepts too would have imparted. That is now a major easily become the vehicles of fashionable weakness. prejudice. further vice that infects Christian variation on this problem can be ethics today is the habit of trying A found in the writing of Hauerwas to grasp the world through abstractions, A himself. In one of his most mature works, which, preserved from interrogation by the for example, he sets the ‘church’ over and world’s angular realities, function as sub- against the ‘world’, and proceeds to de- VWLWXWHV IRU ORRNLQJ DQG FULWLFDO UHÀHFWLRQ scribe the latter in terms of broad-brush For example, I’ve noticed that some young abstractions, all of them pejorative: Christian ethicists now emerging from U.S. ‘Constantinianism’, ‘liberalism’, ‘moderni- universities are much impressed by the re- ty’, ‘democracy’, and ‘technocracy’.6 Let’s publican philosophy of Philip Pettit, and are take just one of these: ‘liberalism’. As I have therefore wont to assume that domination complained elsewhere, Hauerwas’s engage- is an intrinsically bad thing. In one sense, ment with political liberalism is ad hoc, un- since Pettit stipulates that ‘domination’ derdeveloped, and indiscriminate.7 Liberal means arbitrary rule and enslavement, they political thought is not all of a single kind. can’t be faulted, for it is indeed wicked by Indeed, some of it is not merely compatible GH¿QLWLRQ²OLNHµWRUWXUH¶RUµUDSH¶ with Christian belief but actually required The problem arises, however, when by it. Hauerwas doesn’t actually deny this, Pettit’s disciples proceed to assume that but he ignores it nonetheless.8 He contin- anything in the real world that involves ues to essentialise liberalism (negatively) hierarchy or coercion—that is, one person as he continues to essentialise the world dominating another—is necessarily an in- (negatively). stance of ‘domination’ as stipulated and At one point Hauerwas objects that therefore immoral. If one comes to this line ‘Constantinianism’ holds that the validity of thinking, as I do, from intensive study of the church or Jesus Christ or the New of the ethics and history of both war and Testament “is to be judged by standards the British empire, then it seems obviously derived from the world”.9 To which I say, wrongheaded. Surely we want the police to “Never mind the provenance, pay attention dominateWKHPD¿DGRQ¶WZH"$QGZHwant to the data”. Or, to echo Wittgenstein, “Don’t WKRVH ¿JKWLQJ LQ D MXVW FDXVH WR dominate assume, look! And then discriminate”.10 The
13 The country enjoys the prosperity, signaled by the horn of plenty, at the feet of America
Spirit of the One God is Lord of the whole Montgomery’s orders to Brigadier Currie, world and not just of the church. So we can- commander of the 9th Armoured Brigade: not assume that everything in the world is alien to the kingdom of God. We have to The task for 9th Armoured Brigade—to discern the spirits, not rubbish them by la- advance past the infantry objective, belling them with dismissive abstractions. break through the enemy defences and immediately beyond the Rahman Track ne remedy for this ailment is for and then hold open the gap against ene- OChristian ethicists to read less mor- my counter-attacks until the heavy bri- al theology and political philosophy and gades of the 1st Armoured Division had more history. Suppose a Christian ethicist gone through—was so obviously one of is thinking about the ethics of the use of vi- GL̇FXOW\DQGGDQJHUWKDWZKHQ&XUULH¶V olent force in terms of the doctrine of just time came to make comment, he rath- HUGL̇GHQWO\VXJJHVWHGWKDWE\WKHHQG war. From his general theological educa- of the day his brigade might well have tion, he will know that love is a Christian VX̆HUHGSHUFHQWFDVXDOWLHV7RWKLV virtue, and in the light of the example of Freyberg had replied with studied non- Jesus, he might assume that love should chalance, “Perhaps more than that. The always take the form of compassion. From Army Commander [Montgomery] says his reading of Augustine and Paul Ramsey, that he is prepared to accept a hundred he will know that love must always moti- per cent”.11 vate and discipline war, if it is to be just. This account of a particular moment And from his wider reading of the ‘just war’ in North Africa in October 1942 reminds literature, he will know that one of the stan- our ethicist of other reading he has done in GDUGIHDWXUHVRIDMXVWL¿HGGHFLVLRQWRJRWR military history, and it gives birth to the un- war is that there is a reasonable prospect of settling thought that one of the conditions success. of military success is a commander’s pos- Suppose, then, that one evening our session of a certain kind of ‘callousness’. A ethicist lays down his copy of Augustine or successful commander has to be willing to Vitoria and takes up Barrie Pitt’s history of order soldiers, who may be close personal the battle of El Alamein, when the British IULHQGVWR¿JKWWRWKHGHDWK$QGLQRUGHU &RPPRQZHDOWKVFRUHGLWV¿UVWPDMRUYLFWR- to do this, he has to be able to distance him- ry on land over the Germans in the Second self from the human consequences of his World War. He comes to page 396, where decision, to callous himself against them. KH UHDGV RI D EULH¿QJ FRQIHUHQFH KHOG LQ This is what Winston Churchill observed the middle of the battle, in which Major of General Douglas Haig, who command- General Freyberg communicates General ed the British Army on the Western Front
14 during the First World War. “He presents of the world”13 is so often lacking. to me in those red years”, wrote Churchill, At one point in his critique of In Defence “the same mental picture as a great surgeon of War, the scholar of international rela- before the days of anaesthetics: … intent tions, Cian O’Driscoll, writes that just war upon the operation, entirely removed in his theorists like me are inevitably part of professional capacity from the agony of the “the war-machine” that we are trying to patient…. He would operate without excite- constrain, and that we therefore stand in ment … and if the patient died, he would GDQJHU RI FRPLQJ VR FORVH WR WKH ÀDPH RI not reproach himself”. But then Churchill power that we get burnt by it.14 I understand adds: “It must be understood that I speak what he means: institutions do acquire a only of his professional actions. Once out momentum of their own—sometimes per- of the theatre, his heart was a warm as any verse—that is hard to stop, and well-mean- man’s”.12 History, then, teaches that a kind ing individuals need to take care lest they of certain professional callousness is a con- get carried away. Nevertheless, it struck me dition of military success. Just war doctrine that where Cian sees a machine, I see fac- requires that military success be possible. HV²WKHIDFHVRIIULHQGVLQSXEOLFṘFHZKR The logic of just war doctrine, therefore, DUH , WKLQN PRUH PRUDOO\ UHÀHFWLYH DQG appears to make callousness a necessary sensitive than the average citizen, humbler, military virtue. less sanctimonious, and who have shoul- But can callousness really be a Christian dered responsibilities and taken risks that YLUWXH"2XUHWKLFLVWUHÀHFWVRQKLVFRQYHU- academics like me have chosen careers to sation the previous evening with an ac- avoid. tual surgeon, and on his own experience It is well known that remoteness from of heading a university department in the the exercise of political power yields the wake of severe cuts in funding, and he real- important advantage of critical distance. ises that all sorts of social roles require well What is less well known is that it also oc- -intentioned human beings to make deci- casions a grave temptation—a temptation sions and perform acts that will foreseeably WR UHOLVK WRR PXFK WKH VHOIÀDWWHULQJ UROH hurt others; and that in order to make and of righteous prophet, to indulge in wishful do them, they have to grow thick skin—they thinking, to day-dream among the ‘what- have to callous themselves. Thus, observing ifs’, and never to grasp the necessary nettle. that callousness need not involve a culpable lack of care or a failure to love, our ethicist Christian ethicists need to get to know ¿QGV KLPVHOI EURXJKW WR WKH QRYHO FRQFOX- WKRVH LQ SXEOLF ṘFH JHW DFTXDLQWHG ZLWK sion that it can be a Christian virtue. the burdens they bear, appreciate the con- straints under which they must operate, Had he not picked up a history book, and enter with them imaginatively into the however, this would never have occurred tragic dilemmas they must face. Then, hav- to him. So: less Hegel and more history, ing taken the trouble to exercise their love please—if Christian ethics is going to do in playing pastor, they will have earned the justice to political and military reality and so deserve a hearing from policy-makers right to play prophet. and decision-takers. ugustine would approve. In AD 408 he wrote to Paulinus of Nola: second remedy is for Christian eth- A Aicists to get out more. One reason On the subject of punishing or refrain- that Christian ethics so often manages to ing from punishment, what am I to say? evade the challenges posed by empirical re- It is our desire that when we decide ality is that social contact between academ- whether or not to punish people, in ei- ics (not least those in departments of religion ther case it should contribute wholly to and theology) and those whom Reinhold their security. These are indeed deep Niebuhr nicely called “the burden-bearers and obscure matters: what limit ought
15 to be set to punishment with regard to lamented the tragic dilemmas of political both the nature and extent of guilt, and OLIHEXWKHGLGQ¶WÀLQFKIURPIDFLQJWKHP also the strength of spirit the wrong- doers possess? What ought each one to And note: none of this prevented VX̆HU"«:KDWGRZHGRZKHQDVRIWHQ Augustine from developing the prophetic happens, punishing someone will lead critique of the Roman Empire that became to his destruction, but leaving him un- The City of God. He stands, therefore, as punished will lead to someone else be- shining example of one who took the risk ing destroyed?... What trembling, what darkness!… ‘Trembling and fear have RIFRPLQJFORVHWRWKHÀDPHRISRZHUDQG come upon me and darkness has cov- yet was not consumed by it—of one who ered me, and I said, Who will give me risked playing pastor and yet could still play ZLQJVOLNHDGRYH¶V"7KHQ,ZLOOÀ\DZD\ prophet. Christian ethicists should follow and be at rest’…. [Psalm 55 (54).5-8]”.15 Augustine, and not merely read him. Q %XW$XJXVWLQHGLGQ¶WÀHH+HGLGQ¶WUXQ away. He stayed. He continued to shoulder the responsibilities of bishop, which, as the Nigel Biggar is Regius Professor of Moral and Roman Empire crumbled around him, were Pastoral Theology, and Director of the McDonald Centre for Theology, Ethics, and Public Life, increasingly those of government. He kept at the University of Oxford. He is the author of up pastoral correspondence with military In Defence of War (Oxford: Oxford University tribunes like Boniface and Marcellinus, Press, 2013) and, most recently, Between Kin and whose Christian consciences were trou- Cosmopolis: An Ethic of the Nation (Eugene, OR: bled by what they had to do. With them he Cascade, 2014).
ENDNOTES 1 Nicholas Holtam, “Dunstan, Gordon Reginald (1917-2004)”, Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) at
16