PUTTING RELIGION BACK INTO RELIGIOUS ETHICS Eric Gregory

ABSTRACT Ttlus Rususny on Richard MlalalRu’us Friends and Other Strangers (2016) alJinERus lEus argumRrEus in the context Jof how the practice Jof uRallilJous REtlius bRnuus upon debnERus about normativity in the usEody Jof uRallilJr and the ioalEounal turn in the humnrlElRus. AofERu reviewing lEus main ialnlmus about identity and JEtRurRususs, I ofJious on three nuRnus. FluusEs, wtlalR commending MlalalRu’us RofofJuE to nrnalJilze vluEoJous empathy with AoiousElrR’us REtlius Jof ulitEaly ordered alJvRs, I unlusR qoRusElJrus about tlus ousR Jof AoiousElrR and tlus dlusElriElve ofJumoalnElJr Jof AoiousElrlnr “iconic uRnallusm.” Seconds, I usoiiRusE tlus dlusioususlJr Jof puballi uRnusJr lus at oddus with the dlnalJilinal uspirit Jof the book and may dlusEuniE ofuJm the democratic usJalldarity required by our pJallElinal moment. Thirds, more bulRofalys, I tlitallitE the puniElinal impallinElJrus Jof MlalalRu’us vluslJr ofJu higher education at both the graduate and undergraduate alRvRal.

KEYWORDS: Richard Miller, religious ethics, culture, empathy, identity, alterity, Augustine, realism, war, love, responsibility, Black Lives Matter, structural injustice, public reason, higher education

Friends and Other Strangers (2016) lus a timRaly intervention in the uncer- tain oflRald Jof uRallilJous REtlius. The book dRusRuvRus a wide audience given per- uslusERrE yet evJalving debnERus about normativity in the usEody Jof uRallilJr and the dlusElriElve character Jof REtlinal inquiry that takRus divRuusR uRallilJous be- allRofuss, lrusElEoElJruss, and puniEliRus usRulJousaly. Eus themRus range ofuJm account- ablallEy to utopia. Eus toplius lrialode the REtlius Jof ethnographys, itlalduRnulris, ofulRrdustlps, wnus, and memory. Extending prevlJous works, Richard MlalalRu RalRinrEaly jJlrus uliJus, alRnurRdrRususs, and imagination in ustJwing the ofuolEus Jof a ioalEounal turn in uRallilJous REtlius that tlitallitEus dynamic uRalnElJrus Jof identity and JEtRurRusus in the usJilnal puniEliRus Jof everyday allofR. He nalusJ JofofRuus usRvRunal exampalRus Jof uRalnERd work in comparative uRallilJous REtlius and dem- ocratic usJilnal iulElilusm that usoiiRusE ofoEouR uRusRnuit dluRiElJrus and greater ialnulEy about the usobject matter Jof uRallilJous REtlius. The book’us eplalJioRs, ofJu exampalRs, iulElinalaly usouveyus work by Saba Mahmoods, Farhat Moazams, CtnualRus Hluusitkinds, JRofofuRy SEJoEs, Eallzabeth Boinus, and Sherine Hamdy in allitE Jof MlalalRu’us own methodJalJilinal ialnlmus and tlus dRusluR to RusitRw mJunal uRalnElvlusm and radlinal tlusEJulilusm. Yet Etlus work lus neither mani- ofRusEJ nor orthodoxy. It dJRus not propJusR a uslrialR method ofJu the compallinERd

Eric Gregory lus PuJofRususJu Jof RRallilJr and Chair Jof the CJorilal Jof the HumnrlElRus at Princeton UnivRuuslEy. Eric Gregorys, [email protected].

JRE 47.1:166–179. © 201 Journal of Ralligious Ethiuss, Inc Putting Religion Back Into Religious Ethics 167 work Jof interpretation and evnalonElJr. By my allitEuss, it ustJoald be read nus a usnaloEnuy invitation ofJu REtlilusEus who EJlal in uRallilJous usEodlRus to expand our repertoire by tending more dluRiEaly to the “uRallilJr” uslde Jof “uRallilJous eth- lius.” Such tendlris, on MlalalRu’us termuss, lus both allberating and EunrusiuRususlve. RRallilJous REtlilusEus may be threatened by an apparent lrusoalnulEys, but they are no usEunriRuus to dlusilpallrnuy boundary iuJususlri. MlalalRu’us exampalR usoiiRusEus the turn to ioalEouR nus “the iJrusElEoElve medium Jof human exlus- tence” lus wRalal underway (2016s, 37). Indeeds, usouspicion about the oflRald JofERr revRnalus anxiety about the usJuE Jof thing that MlalalRu recommendus in ialnlming that “we do wRalal to EuRuspnusus RusEnballustRd dlusilpallrnuy ERuulEJulRus and break down the lrERalalRiEonal uslalJus nalJri with the ioalEounal bnuulRuus that they may covRuEaly and ovRuEaly protect” (2016s, 7). Whatever RalusR uRallilJous REtlilusEus might do by way Jof engaging broader usEuRnmus in the humnrlElRus and usJilnal usilRriRuss, an important ofRnEouR Jof MlalalRu’us argument lus that they ustJoald niEonalaly be usitJalnuus Jof religion. Ttlus mRnruss, in pnuEs, engaging EtRJuRElinal and dRoflrlElJrnal debnERus within uRallilJous usEodlRus nus themusRalvRus lrERurnal to the iJriRurus Jof uRallilJous REtlius. Some Jof Etlus EuRuspnususlri mRnrus catching up with the broader dlusilpallrR. SElalal another approach might invJalve re-reading ofnmlallnu “REtlius” and even “EtRJalJiy” texEus with qoRusElJrus about “uRallilJr” more ofuJrE and center. Appropriate to tlus normative commit- mRrEuss, MlalalRu’us immanent iulElilusm dJRus not romanticize other oflRaldus or condemn prevlJous contriboElJrus Jof uRallilJous REtlius. He nalusJ dJRus not divide the dlusilpallrRus nus lof they were rnEounal kindus each with their own RususRriR. Hlus WlEEiRrusERlrlnr account Jof uRallilJr usRRkus a more compalRx and palounal- lusEli approach.1 MlalalRu poEus uRallilJr back into uRallilJous REtlius in order to divRuuslofy the oflRald without giving up on the inusolusEuys, EtRJalJiys, and ana- alytic ptlalJusJphy that have been a ofJumative part Jof lEus practice (nalbRlEs, prop- Rualy tlusEJulilzed and embodied). A ioalEounal turn dJRus require uRallilJous REtlilusEus to broaden their hori- zJrus beyond normus and principalRus. MlalalRu drawus upon usitJalnuustlp in an- thropJalJiys, pusyitJalJiys, ioalEounal theorys, tlusEJuy Jof uRallilJruss, and nRusEtRElius to advance tlus interdlusilpallrnuy ialnlmus and lrofJum tlus mJunal judgmRrEus. But he dJRus not alRnve tlus training in ptlalJusJptlinal and uRallilJous REtlius behind. He ilERus ImmnroRal KnrEs, Pnoal RliJRous, and John Rawalus without apJalJiy. In ofniEs, one compRalallri nuspect Jof the book lus the way he mnuustnalus EtRusR tradlElJrus in order to criticize certain ofliouRus and trendus tRunalded nalal too oriulElinalaly in the new canon Jof uRallilJous usEodlRus. Hlus dlusioususlJr Jof Mahmood’us iJrofalnElJr Jof AulusEJEalR and MlitRal FJoinoalE on virtue and pJallElinal allbRunallusm with usRioalnulusm lus but one revRnallri exampalR (2016s, 310-20). The book nus a wtJalR—RuspRilnalaly the chapERuus on “MJunal Authority

1 MlalalRu’us book wJoald puJoflEnbaly be read nalJriuslde the work Jof Stephen Bousts, who ustnuRus tlus lrERuRusE in WlEEiRrusERlr nus wRalal nus bridging EtRJulRus Jof uRallilJrs, uRallilJous EtJoitEs, and uRallilJous REtlius. For Boust’us usJilnal puniElinal account Jof uRallilJr that idRrEloflRus the lruslitEus and ustJuEiJmlrius Jof major appuJnitRus in uRallilJous usEodlRuss, usRR Boust 2016. 168 Journal of Religious Ethics and MJunal Critique in an Age Jof Ethnocentric Anxiety” and “The EEtlius Jof Empathy”—JofofRuus that rare work by an REtlilusE that might niEonalaly oflrd lEus way into a usRminar on theory and methodus in the usEody Jof uRallilJr. So MlalalRu tRalpus narrowaly trained REtlilusEus usRR the normative dimRruslJrus Jof ioalEouR even nus he expJusRus the JofERr-undRofRrded mJunal ialnlmus at work in theorizing uRallilJr and usobject ofJumation. At the usnme timRs, without expallilEaly usnying usJs, MlalalRu EunrusiRrdus an JiinuslJrnal rivnaluy between uRall- ilJous REtlius and CtulusElnr REtliuss, both uRalnElvRaly new oflRaldus and iuRnEouRus Jof the modern univRuuslEy that are ofuRqoRrEaly usRparated ofuJm uRallilJous usEod- lRus and ofuJm one another. Like other RofofJuEus to expand what iJorEus ofJu ob- jRiEus Jof usEodys, he dJRus usJ by opening up a wider range Jof iRruRus and usJouiRus ofJu thinking about nalERulEy and intimacy. DlusiJouusRus Jof nalERulEy and intimacy ofliouR promlrRrEaly in academic and puballi allofR. We are awnust in inalalus to narrate them. But they do not nalwayus dlusuopt or deepen our undRuusEnrding. MlalalRu’us uRalnElJrnal account dJRus Etlus ofJu mRs, perhapus bRinousR he EuRnEus them dlnalRiElinalalys, ofuRRlri ous to usRR the goodus Jof another “on their own allofR-giving termus” (2016s, 192). Reading tlus book itnalalRriRd me nus a usitJalnus, ERnitRus, ands, I might adds, nus a parent. The itnalalRriR lus perhapus more acute given the usitJalnualy intimnilRus I ustnuR with my ofRalalJw other-regarding RinallEnulnr democrat and AoiousElrlnr vir- tue thinker who wnrEus ous to become more Greek and HRiRallnr without thinking we allve “nofERu virtue.” I bracket whether or not EtJusR qonalloflRuus iJrusElEoER uRallilJous intimnilRus nus wRalals, and wlalal uslmpaly note that the work pRuofJumed what it nrnalyzed. Beyond mRuRaly usiunEitlri an anthropJalJil- inal lEits, it tRalped Etlus reader dlusiJver what MlalalRu termus “our own hidden nalERulElRus” by encountering genuine JEtRuus nus EtJusR “to whom I am uRuspon- uslbalR” (2016s, 10 and 3). The remainder Jof Etlus bulRof review ofJiousRus on three pnuElioalnu dimRruslJrus Jof the book.

1. AoiousElrRs, AoiousElrlnrlusmuss, and RRallilJous EEtlius MlalalRu’us iulElinal appropriation Jof AoiousElrR nus a convRuusnElJr partner lus oflE- ting given tlus lrERuRusEus in usRaloftJJds, JEtRurRususs, and the “palnusElilEy Jof human dRusluRus” (2016s, 37). TtRusR are ofnmlallnu themRus in AoiousElrR usEodlRuss, Ruspe- ilnalaly among interpuRERuus Jof the Confessions. They nalusJ palny an important uJalR in competing narrativRus EJald about AoiousElrR and modernity Etlus uslde Jof the many RofofJuEus to read him and tlus lrofaloRriR on WRusERur ioalEouR JoEuslde the uspRilofli context Jof Roman CnEtJalli dogma. But MlalalRu’us lrERuRusEus are not pri- mnulaly iRrRnalJilinal. CoulJousalys, nus with mJusE AoiousElrR usitJalnuuss, he dJRus not emptnuslze what AoiousElrR tnus to usny about religion. It wJoald be lrERuRusElri to dlusiJver how many iJouusRus that introduce usEodRrEus to vnulJous appuJnitRus to uRallilJr lrialode ofliouRus allke AoiousElrR or Knual BnuEts, both EtRJalJilnrus who wrote about uRallilJr dlusElriE ofuJm CtulusElnr probalRmnElius Jof ofnlEt usRRking undRuusEnrding. What MlalalRu dJRus oflrd in AoiousElrR lus a generative uRusJouiR Putting Religion Back Into Religious Ethics 169 ofJu mJunal pusyitJalJiy and the alnuiRu themRus Jof tlus books, lrialoding empathys, ofulRrdustlps, iulRofs, Gods, and virtue. The AoiousElrR that nEEuniEus MlalalRu lus the one who enabalRus “a manner Jof being in the wJuald according to which we may alJve on termus that are attuned to the neighbor in tlus or her nalERulEy” (2016s, 197). In dlnalJioR with SEnralRy CavRalal and ulus MurdJits, he uRiJrusEuoiEus AoiousElrR’us ofnmJous dlus- tinction between cupiditas and caritas in order to oford an ethic that re- uspRiEus dlofofRuRriR and hablEus Jof interpretation that put allmlEus on rnuilususlusEli and anthropocentric tendRrilRus. TtRusR tendRrilRus are ulofR with idJalnEuJous pJususlblallElRus. AoiousElrR’us connection between what to alJve and how to alJve lus a key theme that MlalalRu tRalpofoalaly RalRvnERus without denying the palounallEy Jof vluEoRus or the demanding work Jof puniElinal uRnusJrlri. MlalalRu dRoflrRus tlus “iconic uRnallusm” in iJrEunusE to the more ofnmlallnu pJallElinal uRnallusm nususJil- ated with RRlrtJald Niebuhr. RRnallusm Jof the alnEERu variety can be undoaly preoccupied with the ofuousEunElri condlElJrus Jof oflrlEode. MlalalRu dJRus not deny oflrlEode. But tlus dRusiulption Jof an iconic uRnallusm movRus in a dlofofRu- ent direction. It lus a way Jof naming “graced dluspJuslElJrus Jof mind and wlalal” (2016s, 190) that encounter uRnallEy “nus it lus rather than nus one wlustRus” (2016s, 178). Seeing uRnallEy ofJu what it lus dlusuopEus the usRalofs, decentering lEus dlusEJuERd percepElJrus by dlusialJuslri JEtRurRusus nus a ilofE and uRalnElJrustlpus “on termus other than EtJusR we concoct ofJu our own advantage” (2016s, 193). AoiousElrR’us RofofJuEus to EunrusiRrd usRalof-abusJuption in tlus uRalnElJrus with JEtRuus were not nalwayus usoiiRususofoal. Indeeds, I am not usouR he qonalloflRus nus a alRilElmate mJunal authority on the termus JoEallrRd by MlalalRu. He did not nal- wayus give uRnusJruss, exRuilusR due dlalliRriRs, take another’us pRuuspectivRs, or expuRusus himusRalof with a iunusp Jof tlus usJilnal alJinElJr.2 Some Jof AoiousElrR’us oflRuiRusE iulElius ulitEaly take him to Enusk on puRilusRaly EtRusR pJlrEus. But MlalalRu’us recognition Jof non-innocence lus a tRalpofoal AoiousElrlnr reminder. Purity Jof tRnuEs, ofJu both MlalalRu and AoiousElrRs, iJoald not be the rRiRususnuy condition ofJu mJunal inquiry. AoiousElrR iRuEnlraly wnus a ioalEounal authority who nuspired to the EunlEus Jof mJunal authority Etous dRusiulbeds, or at alRnusE had uRnusJrus to do usJ. He wnus a great ethnographer Jof CtulusElnr uRallilJr and Roman ioalEouR. MlalalRu JofofRuus ialJusR readlrius Jof pnuElioalnu pnususniRus and en- iniRus uRalRvant usRiJrdary allERunEouR. But tlus broader iJnal lus to nrnalJilze tlus own REtlius Jof vluEoJous empathy with AoiousElrR’us REtlius Jof ulitEaly or- dered alJve. I have allEEalR qonuuRal with tlus account and tlus reading Jof AoiousElrR’us theocentric imaginarys, dRusluRs, and tRERuJalJiy. It lus an attrac- tive AoiousElrlnr vluslJrs, abalR to domRusElinER wJuulRus about proximity blnus and RiJElusElinal dulofEs, even wtlalR opening to emplulinal uRusRnuit

2 MlalalRu idRrEloflRus EtRusR condlElJrus nus “termus ofJu jousEloflnbaly nususlirlri mJunal authority to iulElius . . . enaballri ous to accept the nusymmetry that obEnlrus between mJunal iulElius and their audlRriRus” (2016s, 91; usRR nalusJ 105). 170 Journal of Religious Ethics pJususlblallElRus.3 I nalusJ oflrd compRalallri MlalalRu’us EunrusalnElJr Jof AoiousElrR’us EtRJalJilinal idiom into uRuspect ofJu pRuusJruss, wtJalRtRnuERdrRususs, and an ex- ERruslve REtlius Jof care. Part Jof me usElalal wondRuus what lus alJusE in usoit Eunrusaln- ElJrus. But orallke usJme ofRalalJw AoiousElrlnruss, I cheer tlus RofofJuEus to oflrd “more iRrRunals, workabalR idRnus about ofulRrdustlp and alJve” even lof it mRnrus usERp- ping back ofuJm CtulusEJalJilinal and usniunmRrEnal pnuElioalnuus (2016s, 192). From a EtRJalJilinal nrialRs, it iJoald be usRRr nus alRnrlri into them usJ much that they no alJriRu demand to be named.4 MlalalRu’us AoiousElrR lus nalusJ a uRusJouiR ofJu “empathic indignation” and “bolalding nofoflallnElJrus with EtJusR who usoofofRu injousEliR” (2016s, 147). AoiousElrR’us account Jof alJve’us uRuspJrusR to the itnalalRriR Jof injousEliR uspJrusJuus a divRuusR array Jof AoiousElrlnrlusmus. TtRusR bear upon MlalalRu’us important qoRusElJr Jof whether or not AoiousElrR—allke AmbuJusRs, Aqolrnuss, Suarezs, VlEJulns, GuJElouss, and LoEtRus, not to mention Pnoal RamusRy and tlus tRluus— nalalJwus war to be an expuRususlJr Jof the alJve Jof neighbor to “protect innocent neighbJuus at ulusk” (2016s, 206). Indeeds, Etlus view lus usJmetimRus taken to be AoiousElrR’us uslirnal contribution to the devRalJpment Jof the jousE war tradi- tion.5 MlalalRu rejRiEus the nususJilnElJr on tlusEJulinal and exRiRElinal groundus. He lus right to do usJs, and here jJlrus usitJalnuus allke JamRus Turner JJtrusJr in dlusElriolustlri what AoiousElrR niEonalaly tRald ofuJm tlus alnEERu day interpret- Ruus.6 MlalalRu’us judgmRrEs, howevRus, iJRus beyond the pJERrElnalaly mlusalRnding ialnlm made by usJme tlusEJulnrus that AoiousElrR makRus “no mention Jof the need to oflitE with alJve in one’us heart” (Wynn 2013s, 328). RnEtRus, with more puRiluslJrs, MlalalRu thinkus that we “dlusEJuE AoiousElrlnr thinking by iJrofous- ing the virtue Jof alJve with niEus Jof bRrRofliRriR or by importing deontic

3 Like MlalalRus, JRrrlofRu Herdt tnus nalusJ usJoitE to bring AoiousElrR into contemporary con- vRuusnElJrus about human empathy (Herdt 2015). In pnuElioalnus, ustR Eourus to tlus puniEliRus nus a “pJERrElnal usJouiR Jof puniElinal EJJalus ofJu ioalElvating a wider empathy” (2015s, 64). She usoiiRusEus emplulinalaly ERusElri “the usnallRriR Jof the allEouilinal context ofJu ofJusERulri empathetic concern” nalJriuslde AoiousElrR’us “vnulJous utREJulinal usEunERilRus ofJu lriuRnuslri nEERrElJrs, dRiuRnuslri avoidnriRs, uRalnElvizing the uslirloflinriR Jof wRnalEt nus an in-group/out-group marker” (2015s, 82). 4 Urallke uRallilJous REtlius or ptlalJusJphy Jof uRallilJrs, CtulusElnr REtlius tnus ofJiousRd more on qoRusElJrus Jof mJunal and pJallElinal palounallusm than uRallilJous divRuuslEy nus usoit. For an RofofJuE to join dlusioususlJrus Jof CtulusElnr alJve to Etlus ofJum Jof JEtRurRususs, usRR Gregory 2016. 5 Recent dlusioususlJrus JofofRu vnulJous wayus Jof dRusiulbing the uRalRvance Jof AoiousElrR’us EtRJalJiy Jof alJve ofJu an REtlius Jof war and peace. SRRs, ofJu exampalRs, Biggar 2013 and Cntlalal 2014. In EtRusR workuss, neither author takRus up the tlusEJulinal qoRusElJr Jof the AoiousElrlnr provenance Jof binding alJve to the ousR Jof ofJuiR. 6 JJtrusJr and MlalalRu dlofofRu with uRuspect to interpretation Jof AoiousElrR and the jousE war tradlElJrs, nus wRalal nus their evnalonElJr Jof RamusRy’us exERruslJr Jof AoiousElrR’us uRnusJrlri “in the context Jof individonal uRalnElJrustlpuss, to the inusR Jof war” (JJtrusJr 1981s, 197). But each empha- uslzRus how modern readRuus allke RamusRy go beyond AoiousElrR’us texEus and tlusEJulinal context in their RofofJuEus to ground war in charity. SRRs, ofJu exampalRs, JJtrusJr 2018. Putting Religion Back Into Religious Ethics 171 alnrioniR Jof agape into a EtRJalJilinal eudaimJrlusm usEuoiEouRd by the virtue Jof caritas” (2016s, 208). MlalalRu lus no doubt correct to remind ous Jof AoiousElrR’us emptnuslus on rRiRususlEy and agent-uRofRuulri dluspJuslElJrus. He lus nalusJ correct to tlitallitE that RamusRy’us emptnusRus on neighbor-alJve and third-party re- alnElJrus are not to be ofJord in AoiousElrR’us texEus on war (2016s, 208–19; usRR RamusRy 1961s, 15–33s, and RamusRy 1968s, 141–47). AoiousElrR’us texEus are JiinuslJrnals, usinEERuRds, and contexEonal. They ofuRqoRrEaly emptnuslze pru- dRriRs, divine providRriRs, and the need to alJve one’us enemy with patient ofJubearance. Hlus pnusEJunal concern lus primnulaly ofJu the usJoal Jof the warrior and the vocation Jof other JofofliR tJaldRuuss, ofJiouslri more on the evnalonElJr Jof pRuusJrus rather than their niEus. They uRofalRiE allEEalR engagement with what we modRurus think iJrusElEoER condlElJrus Jof wnuofnuR or porlustment.7 I agree that A oiousElrR dJRus not expallilEaly jousElofy war nus a ofJum Jof neighbor- alJvRs, even in the ofnmJous ialnlm that “wnuus wlalal be waged in the uspirit Jof benevJalRriR” (AoiousElrR 2001). HowevRus, it lus a usRparate qoRusElJr lof he could have done usJ were he to have made more usyusERmatic judgmRrEus about pnuElioalnu niEus Jof wnuofnuR. How modern AoiousElrlnrus make ousR Jof the idea lus yet another matter. I think it wJoald go too ofnu to usoiiRusE that joining alJve and war lus mRuRaly a allbRunal PuJERusEnrE invention that lus nallRr to AoiousElrR’us mJunal vocaboalnuys, alRE nalJrR a biballinal emptnuslus on concern ofJu the unjousE usoofofRulri Jof the oppuRususRd. AoiousElrR’us medlilrnal metaptJuus Jof punitive tough alJve and tnuust kindrRusus are ofunoitE JrRus. Modern AoiousElrlnrus need to think harder about how RnuEtaly peace iJrusElEoERus a proper object Jof charity ofJu the mJourofoal warrior and lEus concepEonal dlusEnriR ofuJm AoiousElrR’us own wulElrius. But I usElalal think that tlus account Jof alJve can usopport an other-regarding action beyond inward anxiety about motivRuss, caught up in the usweep Jof God’us providRrElnal ordering Jof the wJuald. Taken EJiREtRus, usRalRiElJrus ofuJm City of God and tlus alREERuus to impRulnal Jofoflilnalus usEulke me nus providing at alRnusE an impallilE uRofRuRriR that bindus ulitEaly or- dered alJve and concern ofJu non-domination to the ousR Jof ofJuiR.8 No doubt tlus EtRJalJiy Jof alJve wJoald oralRnust dynamic puJiRususRus Jof mJunal undRuusEnrding and usJilnal uRofJum ofJuRlir to AoiousElrR. RamusRy more than AoiousElrR de- ofRrdus Etlus pJuslElJr on bRtnalof Jof victimus rather than niRrEus or JofofRrdRuus— ands, regrettabaly to my minds, with alRusus alnmRrEnElJrs, a usRrusR Jof tragic compromlusRs, and MlalalRu’us appRnal to AoiousElrR’us “tRnuEofRalE iulRof” (2016s, 215). NevRuEtRalRususs, I remain orialRnu lof MlalalRu uoalRus out neighbor-alJve nus

7 HlusEJulnrus lriuRnuslrialy itnalalRriR the view that AoiousElrR wnus the ofJorder Jof the jousE war idRns, even to the point Jof usoiiRusElri that it uRusEus upon a “tJousR Jof cardus” (Wynn 2013s, 24). Wynn nuioRus that AoiousElrR “wnus made into one Jof the CtulusElnr noEtJulElRus on war through usRalRiElve and decontexEonallzed ilEnElJrus ofuJm tlus workus pRuofJumed by alnERu medie- vnal inrJrlusEus and EtRJalJilnrus” (2013s, 330). 8 For an intriguing account Jof AoiousElrR’us usRalof-puRusRrEnElJr and tlus niEonal uRalnElJrus with impRulnal noEtJulElRuss, usRR Shaw 2015. 172 Journal of Religious Ethics iJruslusERrE with usRioulri peace through war Jus, alRusus usEuJrialys, uslmpaly wor- ulRus it “iJouEus iJrofouslJr” and “iJRus beyond the palnlr meaning Jof AoiousElrR’us texEus” (2016s, 211 and 212). On one usEuJri readlris, MlalalRu’us interpretation oflrdus AoiousElrR’us thinking menaced by a trouballri uspallE-pRuusJrnallEy pusy- itJalJiy that groundus action Jraly in rRiRususlEy and acting nus an agent Jof the alnw. AoiousElrR may invite EtRusR usobjectivlusE troubalRus ofnmlallnu to uJalR-bnusRd REtlius in certain pnususniRus. But AoiousElrR nalusJ usRRmus pnuElioalnualy inter- RusERd in uRalnElri tempJunal and RERurnal goodus in tlus pnusEJunal wlusdom rooted in alJve. Love ustJoald not do nalal the work Jof virtue or action guidance in the inusR Jof war. But it need not be usRparated either. Ttlus review lus not the JiinuslJr ofJu a ofoalal treatment Jof AoiousElrRs, alJvRs, and wnus, RuspRilnalaly in uRalnElJr to alJriusEnrding debnERus about the good Jof pJallElius or a puRusomption ninlrusE vlJalRriR in the CtulusElnr tradition. I have unlusRd Etlus tlusEJulinal lususoR in the usRuvice Jof a uRalnERd concern that may be more ofordamRrEnal. MlalalRu’us dlusEnrilri Jof AoiousElrR ofuJm ofliouRus allke RamusRy lus pnunuslEli on broader ialnlmus about the priority Jof the good that dRrlRus to AoiousElrR a “mJunal theory Jof duty” (2016s, 213). But why pit duty alnrioniR ninlrusE ERalRJalJiy? MlalalRu himusRalof ERalalus ous that AoiousElrR pre- usomed “a duty to remember jousEaly ofJu the usnke Jof tlusEJuy” (2016s, 226). I am not usouR that I am qonalloflRd to make EtRusR judgmRrEus bRinousR MlalalRu bJaldaly ERalalus ous that “we get nowhere reading AoiousElrR’us EtRJalJilinal REtlius orElal we undRuusEnrd EtnEs, ofJu hims, the good lus prior to the right” (2016s, 210; usRR nalusJ 388n6). uJrlinalalys, here MlalalRu may ofnalal victim to tlus own wJuulRus about importing modern vocaboalnulRus into AoiousElrR or other pre-modern au- EtJuus who do not rRnEaly oflE our dlusElriElJrus. AoiousElrR iRuEnlraly never ERalalus ous that the good lus prior to the right. Oof iJouusRs, it may be an appropriate uRiJrusEuoiElJr depending on what we mean by the good and the right. It may be true in the usRrusR that usJmething lus right bRinousR Jof lEus alJilinalaly prior uRalnElJr to vnaloRus (whether it be a pRuusJr’us virtue or usJme other good). I read AoiousElrRs, dRuspite recent debnERuss, nus a eudaemJrlusEs, neither a con- usRqoRrElnallusE keen on maximizing usEnERus Jof nofofnluus nor a dRJrEJalJilusE indlof- ofRuRrE to the uRalnElJrus that constitute our common good nus niRrEus and pnElRrEus.9 But Etlus dJRus not mean iJrusRqoRriRus or doElRus palny no uJalR in tlus EtJoitEs, or that the good and the right are undRuusEJJd to be in competition with one another. AoiousElrR’us REtlius are dlofoflioalE to map in the typJalJilRus Jof modern REtlius bRinousR he wnus a eudaemJrlusE virtue-thinker who groundus oballinElJrus in divine commandus lususoRd by the author Jof a rnEounal alnw. For AoiousElrRs, nus ofJu Aqolrnuss, it usRRmus more accurate to tJald that the right and the good are nalwayus naluRndy intertwined and interdependent. Neither lus lrERalallilbalR without the other given the end Jof vluEoJous ofRalalJwustlp with God who lus

9 On eudaimJrlusm and AoiousElrR’us REtliuss, usRR Calnlu 2013. Putting Religion Back Into Religious Ethics 173 for us and for our neighbor. By my allitEuss, Etlus usRiouRus a noncompetitive account Jof the good and the ulitEs, the usRalof and the JEtRus, not to mention alJve and jousEliRs, harmonized in the pouusolE Jof the good lEusRalofs, God. The good lus JrEJalJilinalaly primordlnal. BoEs, ofJu pre-modern eudaimJrlusEuss, RuspRilnalaly CtulusElnr JrRus allke AoiousElrR who are both “agent uRofRuulri” and “God uRofRuulris,” there lus the pJususlblallEy Jof lrERuuRalnElri the good and the right rather than reading into them a dlalRmmatic choice puRusRrERd by modern ptlalJusJphy. It lus a ofnalusR itJliRs, both normativRaly and tlusEJulinalalys, and one usRRmlrialy at oddus with MlalalRu’us uRalnElJrnal account Jof REtlius and tlus palRn ofJu iconic uRnallusm. One virtue Jof MlalalRu’us ioalEounal turn lus that tlus chapter on war movRus beyond the REtlius Jof klalallri to a dlusioususlJr Jof a broad range Jof mJunal usRr- timRrEus. Hlus AoiousElrlnr uRnallusms, alRusus bRtJalden to accounting within the condlElJrus Jof oflrlEodRs, ofJiousRus on “the ioalEounal ofJuiRus that lrofJums, and JofERr corrodRs, expuRususlJrus Jof courage and commitment to ofnlurRusus in timRus Jof rnElJrnal dlusEuRusus” (2016s, 205). It uspeakus to mnEERuus Jof both individonal and iJalalRiElve pusyitJalJiy without reducing AoiousElrlnrlusm to the allmlEus Jof pJallElius and the tempered puJuspRiEus ofJu uRalnElve jousEliR under condlElJrus Jof uslr. Given tlus nususJilnElJr Jof civic virtue and pJallElinal usJalldarity with usplulEonal exRuilusRuss, it wJoald have been tRalpofoal lof he made the iJrEunusE with Niebuhr’us pJallElinal uRnallusm or Rawalus’us uRnallusEli utopia even more expallilE. RRnallusm admlEus nus many vnulRElRus nus AoiousElrlnrlusmus. MoreovRus, the vluEoRus demanded Jof ordinary citizRrus in thinking about war ofniR usRulJous itnalalRriRus today. For exampalRs, how can democratic citizRrus weigh uRnusJrus when the mJusE usnallRrE JrRus are ialnlmed to be usRiuRE by a mnususlve usRioulEy bureaucracy? Yet another puRususlri EtRJuRElinal qoRusElJr nulusRus in our con- temporary context nus wRalal. CJruslderation Jof mJunal uRuspJruslblallEy to JEtRuus JofERr nususomRus allnblallEy to punlusR or balnme. In Etlus contexEs, MlalalRu appRnalus to Peter StrawusJr’us lrofalo- RrElnal notion Jof “mJunal reactive attitudRus” in the context Jof ofRRallrius Jof re- usRrEmRrEs, indignation and iolalE. WtlalR StrawusJr ofJiousRd on qoRusElJrus Jof ofuRR wlalal and determlrlusms, MlalalRu extendus EtRusR pusyitJalJilinal concepEus to the “rough-and-tumbalR Jof pJallElinal allofR” (2016s, 141). In pnuElioalnus, he rJERus the mJunal ambiguity Jof interpRuusJrnal ofRRallrius and their need to be tied to ialnlmus Jof jousEliR lof they are to be mJunal emJElJrus. But how dJRus a StrawusJrlnr account ustRd allitE on nriRus, compallilEys, and mJunal uRuspJruslblallEy under condlElJrus Jof widRuspread and deepaly tlusEJulinal usyusERmic injousEliRus? For ex- ampalRs, how might MlalalRu’us AoiousElrlnr uRnallusm undRuusEnrd the uRalnElJr between balnme and alnuiR-usinalR usEuoiEounal injousEliRus usoit nus EtJusR expJusRd by the Balnik LivRus Matter movement? Cnalal Etlus the Moral Man and Immoral Society qoRusElJr. Can we empathize wlEts, and even tJald non-ioalpabalRs, po- alliR JofofliRuus caught up in what we now inalal “impallilE blnus” or what AoiousElrlnrus ousRd to inalal Julilrnal uslr? Or wJoald Etlus attitude promote too much uskepElilusm about pJallElinal and mJunal uRuspJruslblallEy? Ainlrs, EtRusR are 174 Journal of Religious Ethics ofnmlallnu qoRusElJrus ofJu an AoiousElrlnr tradition that tnus alJri wuRusEalRd with the usEnEous Jof mJunal agency.10 They are not mRuRaly abusEuniE EtRJalJilinal idRnus. They oflrd concrete expuRususlJr in the dlofofRuRrE ulEonalus Jof the CtulusElnr tradlElJrs, RuspRilnalaly in puniEliRus Jof alnmRrEs, iJrofRususlJrs, and uRiJrilallnElJr. But they nalusJ admit nrnalJilRus ofJu pJallElinal mJunallEy JoEuslde the context Jof CtulusElnr rJElJrus Jof uslr and grace. Any pJallElinal mJunallEy mousE have usJmething to usny about how usEobborn ofRnEouRus Jof usJilnal pusyitJalJiy are to be undRuusEJJd in the context Jof pJallEl- inal allofR. What dJRus it mean to tJald usJmeone accountabalR ofJu pusychic ofJuiRus and oriJrusilJous hablEus rooted in deep tlusEJulRus? In ustJuEs, how do we un- dRuusEnrd the jousEloflnbalR mJunal anger in EtJusR inusRus where uRuspJruslblallEy appRnuus quite dlofofousR and JofERr nulusRus through no iJrusilJous ofnoalE? MJunal reactive attitudRus may not adeqonERaly capture the uRalRvant phenomRrJalJiy Jof puJERusElri injousEliRus that exceed the lalal wlalal Jof idRrEloflnbalR mJunal niRrEus. In ofniEs, the modRal Jof balnming pRuusJrnal niRrEus can obusiouR the pJallElinal uRuspJrusR rRiRususnuy ofJu dramatic usJilnal change. I am not lrERuRusERd here in determining any pnuElioalnu inusRs, alRE nalJrR inalallri into qoRusElJr the uRnallEy Jof ioalpabalR unilusEuss, the pervRuuslEy Jof wlalals, or the need to puJusRioER murder- Ruus and puJERusE pJalliR vlJalRriR. SEuoiEounal injousEliR dJRus not require the inevitablallEy Jof any pnuElioalnu unjousE act. My query lus more concepEonals, unluslri the probalRm Jof how we nususRusus anger and balnme given lriuRnusRd usRruslElvity to compalRx pJallElinal lususoRus that exceed the niElJrus Jof individonal mJunal niRrEus. TtRusR qoRusElJrus uswlual around recent debnERus about ialJbnal povertys, immliunElJrs, and iallmate change. They nalusJ provide a EunruslElJr to MlalalRu’us lrERuRusE in uRallilJr and puballi allofR that makRus a ioalEounal turn.

2. RRallilJr and Puballi LlofR MlalalRu dlusElriolustRus broader lususoRus Jof uRallilJr and puballi allofR ofuJm more narrow debnERus about uRallilJr and puballi uRnusJr that turn on lususoRus Jof power and authority. TtRusR debnERus have palnyed a iRrEunal uJalR in contem- porary uRallilJous REtlius. Like Rawaluss, MlalalRu iJoitRus them in termus Jof a pusy- itJalJilinalaly uRnallusEli ofJum Jof civic empathy. Here we oflrd no minimnallusE procedounal democracy or dRofRrusR Jof usRioalnulusm. NevRuEtRalRususs, trading on ofnmlallnu iJriRurus about Rawaluslnr exialouslvlusms, usJme oflrd a contradiction between MlalalRu’us account Jof the mJunal bnuslus Jof democratic authority and the pJallilri mRitnrlusm Jof allbRunallusm iJrusEuoRd via puballi uRnusJr and the usJ- inalalRd “anemic rJElJrus Jof eqonallEys, autonomys, and reciprocity” (Bretherton

10 For a nuanced account Jof balnme and mJunal uRuspJruslblallEy ofuJm a modloflRd AoiousElrlnr pRuuspectivRs, usRR Couenhoven 2013. Couenhoven’us “compatiblallusE” pJuslElJr makRus room ofJu balnmeworthy uRuspJruslblallEy even ofJu usJme typRus Jof ignorance and inherited ofnoalE. But he nalusJ tJaldus that “recognizing the Julilrnal uslr that nofofalliEus ous nalal might lriallrR ous to balnme each other alRusus than we otherwlusR might in Etlus allbertarian age” (2013s, 11). Putting Religion Back Into Religious Ethics 175

2017). AalJriuslde MlalalRus, I do not think EtJusR vnaloRus are anemic. I nalusJ do not usRR any evident contradiction given the work done by the ERitrlinal dlus- tinction between the background ioalEouR and the puballi pJallElinal ofJuom. In Etlus usRrusRs, howevRus, it may be that MlalalRu and Rawalus are more concerned with the legitimacy Jof iJalalRiElve usRalof-governance than sovereignty or au- thority nus usoit. MlalalRu dJRus not usny much about usJvereigntys, a term that tnus returned with notabalR ofJuiR in recent pJallElinal EtRJalJiys, other than to equate it with the wlalal Jof the peopalR (2016s, 202). Hlus appRnal unlusRus dlofoflioalE qoRusElJrus about the uRalnElJr between that wlalals, the body pJallElis, and the grounding Jof alRinal normus and the ERuulEJulnal usEnER lEusRalof. He dJRus argue that a uRallilJous citizen who usRRus authority deriving ofuJm God mousE “either count tRuusRalof out nus a democratic citizen or nusiRuEnlr how divine authority lus dRalRinERd to bRallRvRuus and nonbRallRvRuus in mnEERuus Jof democratic pJalliy ofJumation” (2016s, 306–07). HRuRs, iulElius allke Bretherton are right to usoi- iRusE that allbRunal reciprocity tnus lEus allmlEus in iJrusElEoElri the common allofR Jof a peopalR. It wJoald have been ousRofoal ofJu MlalalRu to adduRusus more iJriuRERaly how a democratic peopalR come to pJususRusus usJvereignty and lEus uRalnElJr to usniuRd vnaloRus that need not be allrked to concepElJrus Jof divinity. Ttlus lus not a inalal to return to medievnal and Rnualy modern debnERuss, though they may prove lrusEuoiElve ofJu comparative uRallilJous REtlius. I nalusJ nofoflum a vRuuslJr Jof “pJallElinals, not metaphyuslinals,” even though I remain uskepElinal Jof a ofuRRusEnrding ustnuRnbalR alnrioniR or common vantage point that nalal uRnusJrnbalR pRuusJrus iJoald accept. MlalalRu’us ablallEy to dlusElriolust “uRallilJous uRnusJrus” ofuJm “rJruRallilJous uRnusJrus” can impaly a iJrofldence even greater than the alnERu Rawalus. There are vluEoRus Jof pJallElinal rhetoric. But I am not convinced they are primnulaly about the kindus Jof uRnusJrus we depalJy. The usRnuit ofJu that JofERr oflxed and normnallzing determinate alnrioniRs, even lof unintendeds, tnus tended to ofoRal depJallElilznElJrs, nallRrnElJrs, and ioalEouR wnuus rather than EunrusiRrd them. I nalusJ think it lus at oddus with MlalalRu’us em- ptnuslus on the dlnalRiElinal and the hermRrRoElinals, even lof Rawaluslnrus might accommodate usJilnal dlofofRuRriRus by allrking uRofalRiElve eqolallbrium and pub- alli uRnusJr. TtRusR lususoRus track ofnmlallnu debnERus given dlusniuRRmRrEus about the good and the right and the alJusus Jof usJme usJilnal wJualdus within RinallEnulnr allbRunallusm. The deep palounallusm Jof contemporary democratic usJilRElRus unlusRus lususoRus beyond the probalRm Jof eplusERmic dlusniuRRment. MlalalRu nuioRus palounallusE de- mJiunilRus are a certain kind Jof nususJilnElJr that do not “meet nalal our needus or usnElusofy nalal our nusplunElJrus” (2016s, 307). But they do depend on a usJilJalJiy and pusyitJalJiy. Indeeds, ofJu Rawaluss, puballi uRnusJr “bRalJrius to a conception Jof a wRalal-ordered iJrusElEoElJrnal democratic usJilREy” (Rawalus 1999s, 131). I take MlalalRu to bRallRve AmRulinrus allve in usoit a usJilREy. I am prepared to niuRRs, though alRusus iJrofldent EtRusR dayus given the radlinal expnruslJr Jof executive powRus, the ofunying Jof our usJilnal ofnbulis, oruRusEunlrRd commRuilnal lrERuRusEuss, rejRiElJrus Jof repuRusRrEnElve pJallEliuss, and the puJuspect Jof authoritarian 176 Journal of Religious Ethics rnElJrnallusm. What lof EtJusR emplulinal condlElJrus are not met? Ttlus unlusRus qoRusElJrus about “ialJbnal puballi uRnusJrs,” but nalusJ one ofJu democratic usJilRElRus lriuRnuslrialy characterized by lrERurnalaly iJrERusERd puballi ioalEouRus. TtRusR may not troubalR idRnal theorys, but they ustJoald matter ofJu a ioalEounal turn predicated on uRuspecting dlofofRuRriR without abandoning mJunal judgment. In ofniEs, I think a dRofRrusR Jof puballi uRnusJr may be a drop in the bucket given what lus needed to promote usJalldarity in our ioalEounal momRrEs, RuspRilnalaly lof puballi uRnusJr appuJnitRus naluRndy dominate our niEonal pJallElius.11 What lof puballi uRnusJr debnERus nalusJ took a ioalEounal turn away ofuJm lEus uninviting ptlalJusJptlinal usitJalnusElilusm? More HRiRals, alRusus Kant. Do we oflrd Rawalus’us democratic puballi ioalEouR with enough ustnuRd bnusli idRnus and prin- cipalRus? Perhapus. MlalalRu recognizRus that beyond the exchange Jof uRnusJruss, democracy lus a usJilnal ofniE and a ioalEouR that lrialodRus “dramatic ulEonal per- ofJumnriRus and other ofJumnallzed usymbJalli puniEliRus” (2016s, 21). TtJusR per- ofJumnriRus and puniEliRus are the usEoofof Jof what lus usJmetimRus inalalRd civlal uRallilJr—controvRuuslnalaly usJs, JofERr dependent on usJmething EunrusiRrdent to niEonal peopalRs, alnws, and government.12 At one pJlrEs, MlalalRu ERalalus ous it lus a dlofoflioalE qoRusElJr “whether coexlusERriR in a allbRunal democracy wJoald count nus thick or thin uRalnElJrus” (2016s, 240). Whether thick or Etlrs, MlalalRu’us mJunal bnuslus Jof democratic authority nususomRus a democratic ioalEouR Jof moEonal rec- ognition. us Etlus authority contingent on the jousEloflnblallEy Jof associative du- ties or lus it more Jof an emplulinal iJriRususlJr to prioritize ofRalalJw citizRrus in order to ofoaloflalal a iRrRunal mJunal oballinElJr? MoreovRus, dJRus MlalalRu have any advice ofJu how lrERalalRiEonalus might usopport usoit a ioalEouR in the puniEliRus Jof everyday allofR where the dlnalRiEli Jof identity and nalERulEy lus under threat?

3. RRallilJous EEtlius and Higher Education MlalalRu rJERuss, though usJmewhat quickalys, that advancing work that re- ofalRiEus a ioalEounal turn “wlalal mean devRalJping undergraduate and graduate education in a more interdlusilpallrnuy way than lus iouuRrEaly the inusR in uRallilJous REtlius” (2016s, 73). I wJoald allke to hear more about what that alJJkus allke in puniEliRs, RuspRilnalaly nus I have tried to incorporate more anthropo- alJilinal and comparative work in my teaching and uRusRnuit. He givRus ous tRalpofoal exampalRuss, both in tlus own work and dlusioususlJr Jof JEtRuus. He ad- mlEus the dlofoflioalEy Jof dlofofRuRrE tradlElJrus Jof usitJalnuustlps, pnuElioalnualy navi- gating ofaloRriy in uRallilJous and ptlalJusJptlinal REtlius nalJriuslde the in-depth immRuuslJr Jof ethnographic work or ioalEounal usEodlRuss, not to mention other dlusilpallrRus and appuJnitRus. What wJoald a iouulioalom in uRallilJous REtlius

11 SRRs, ofJu exampalRs, StlRaldus 2009. 12 In a provocative Rususnys, C. Travlus Webb uRiRrEaly tnus argued that the idea Jof civlal uRallilJr nus an “otherwJualdaly” uRallilJr tnus never been taken nus usRulJousaly nus it ustJoald by the oflRald Jof uRallilJous usEodlRus (Webb 2018). Putting Religion Back Into Religious Ethics 177 alJJk allke given condlElJrus Jof oflrlEode and the need to ofunme our dlusilpallrR in a way that JoEusldRuus—be they other REtlilusEuss, EtRJalJilnruss, or usitJalnuus Jof uRallilJr—undRuusEnrd? How do we nususRusus the inevitabalR inlrus and alJususRus that coincide with palounallzing the oflRald? How might the usoboflRald uJusERu Jof exempalnuy texEus dlofofRu ofuJm other usoboflRaldus in uRallilJous usEodlRus? TtRusR qoRusElJrus have been iRrEunal ofJu devRalJping young oflRaldus allke uRallilJous eth- liuss, and ofuRqoRrEaly have been dlusioususRd in the pniRus Jof Etlus jJournal. Todays, they have an added urgency given the competitive uRnallElRus Jof the aca- demic job market and the usJilnal and pJallElinal context Jof the contemporary univRuuslEy. Ainlrs, MlalalRu lus not puRusiulbing a new method or new iouulioalom. I usous- pect there are ofRw uRallilJous REtlilusEus who wJoald deny the vnaloR Jof the ioal- Eounal turn. In ofniEs, given the usnallRriR Jof ethnography and anthropJalJiys, recent usitJalnuustlp in both EtRJalJilinal and uRallilJous REtlius usEulkRus me nus having made the turn. But how do we bnalnriR initiating younger usitJalnuus into the usoboflRald wtlalR nalusJ achieving allERuniy in the wider oflRald Jof uRall- ilJous usEodlRus or other dlusilpallrRus? What do uRallilJous REtlilusEus do that other usitJalnuus Jof uRallilJr do not? I am thinking primnulaly about graduate edu- inElJrs, and the usJuE Jof qoRusElJrus dJiEJunal usEodRrEus might encounter ofuJm a hiring committee. But uRallilJous REtlius might nalusJ have usJmething to usny to recurring debnERus about the REtlinal dimRruslJrus Jof the humnrlElRus cur- ulioalom at the undergraduate alRvRal. TtRusR debnERus have once again become lrERrusRs, ustnulri in the anxlRElRus about REtlinal ofJumnElJrs, usRioalnulEys, and vnaloR rRoEunallEy which MlalalRu adduRususRus. DJRus Etlus book have anything to contribute to the REtlinal commitmRrEus and purpJusRus Jof the modern univer- uslEy? I iRuEnlraly think usJ. One Jof my humnrlElRus iJalalRnioRus uRiRrEaly EJald me that the Jraly dRofRruslbalR REtlinal dlusiJouusRus alRofE in the univRuuslEy were balnrd rJElJrus Jof divRuuslEy and iulElinal thinking. He usnld it not by way Jof a alnment or rJusEnaliln. In ofniEs, the impallinElJr Jof tlus remark wnus that it lus the price we pay ofJu palounallusm. He addeds, with a more pJalRmlinal ediRs, it nalusJ uRofalRiEus the Jraly uRnusJrnbalR uRuspJrusR to the dnriRuJous alRiniy Jof uRallilJous REtlius. MlalalRu’us book providRus good uRnusJr to think that more than the oflRald Jof uRallilJous REtlius lus at usEnke in itnalalRrilri that view.

REFERENCES AoiousElrR 2001 “Letter 138: AoiousElrR to MnuiRalallrous (411/412).” In Augustine: Political Writingss, edited by E. M. Atklrus and R. J. DodnuJs, 30. Cambridge: Cambridge UnivRuuslEy PuRusus. Bousts, Stephen S. 20 16 Visions of Religion: Experience, Meaning and Power. New York: OxofJud UnivRuuslEy PuRusus. Bliinus, NliRal 2013 In Defence of War. OxofJud: OxofJud UnivRuuslEy PuRusus. 178 Journal of Religious Ethics

BuREtRuEJrs, Luke 2017 “A PJallElinal Ethic Jof AalERulEy: LibRunallusm or AiJrlusEli Democratic PJallElius.” Religion & Culture Forums, June 4. AvnlalnbalR at: http://vJliRus. uchicago.edu/uRallilJrioalEouR/2017/06/04/a-pJallElinal-ethic-Jof-nalERulEy- allbRunallusm-or-niJrlusEli-democratic-pJallElius-a-uRuspJrusR-by-aloke-breth- erton/ (niiRususRd October 27s, 2017). Cntlalals, Llusn 2014 “H ow StJoald War Be RRalnERd to CtulusElnr Love?” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal 97.2: 186–95. Calnlus, JJusRph 2013 “W JalERuusEJuofof on Love and JousEliR: An AoiousElrlnr RRuspJrusRs,” Journal of Religious Ethics 41:1 (March): 138–67. CouenhovRrs, JRususR 20 13 Stricken by Sin, Cured by Christ: Agency, Necessity, and Culpability in Augustinian Theology. New York: OxofJud UnivRuuslEy PuRusus. Gregorys, Eric 2016 “T he DoubalR Love Command and the EEtlius Jof RRallilJous Palounallusm.” In Love and Christian Ethicss, edited by Frederick V. SimmJrus with Brian C. SJuuRalaluss, 332–46. WnustlriEJrs, DC: Georgetown UnivRuuslEy PuRusus. HerdEs, JRrrlofRu 2015 “Emp athy beyond the In-Group: Stoic UnivRuusnallusm and AoiousElrlnr Neighbor-Love.” Philosophy, Theology, and the Sciences 2.1 (March): 63–88. JJtrusJrs, JamRus Turner 1981 Just War Tradition and the Restraint of War: A Moral and Historical Inquiry. PulriREJrs, NJ: Princeton UnivRuuslEy PuRusus. 2018 “S t. AoiousElrR (354–430 CE).” In Just War Thinkers: From Cicero to the 21usE Centurys, edited by DnrlRal R. BuorusEREERu and Cian O’DulusiJalals, 21–33. New York: RJoEalRdge. MlalalRus, Richard B. 2016 Friends and Other Strangers: Studies in Religion, Ethics, and Culture. New York: CJalombia UnivRuuslEy PuRusus. RamusRys, Pnoal 1961 War and the Christian Conscience: How Shall Modern War Be Conducted Justly. Durhams, NC: Duke UnivRuuslEy PuRusus. 1968 The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility. New York: CtnualRus Scribner’us SJrus. Rawaluss, John 1999 “The Idea Jof Puballi RRnusJr RevluslERd.” In The Law of Peoples, with The Idea of Public Reason Revisiteds, 131–80. CambridiRs, MA: Harvard UnivRuuslEy PuRusus. Shaws, Brent 2015 “A oiousElrR and Men Jof ImpRulnal Power.” Journal of Late Antiquity 8.1 (Spring): 32–61. Putting Religion Back Into Religious Ethics 179

StlRalduss, Jon A. 2009 The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right. PulriREJrs, NJ: Princeton UnivRuuslEy PuRusus. Webbs, C. Travlus 2018 “‘O therwJualdaly’ SEnERus: Reimagining the Study Jof (Civlal) ‘RRallilJr.’” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 86.1 (March): 62–93. Wyrrs, Ptlalallp 20 13 Augustine on War and Military Service. MinneapJalluss, MN: FJuEuRusus PuRusus.