DOING GOD IN PUBLIC: AN ANGLICAN INTERPRETATION OF MACINTYRE'S TRADITION-BASED REASONING AS A CHRISTIAN PRAXIS FOR A PLURALIST WORLD SARAH CAROLINE ROWLAND JONES MA(Cantab), BTh(Hons) Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy DECEMBER 2011 Doing God in Public: An Anglican Interpretation of MacIntyre's Tradition-Based Reasoning as a Christian Praxis for a Pluralist World Sarah Caroline Rowland Jones Abstract „We don‟t do God‟, Alastair Campbell famously said of UK government policy-making. In contrast, Anglican Bishops at the 2008 Lambeth Conference committed themselves to reflect on contextualising their faith, and pursue their conclusions in public ethical discourse. This thesis proposes that the Bishops (and others) may justifiably pursue this two-fold course, through the application, reinterpretation and development of Alasdair MacIntyre's tradition-based moral reasoning. I contend that the validity of a MacIntyrean approach in contextualising Christianity is readily apparent; and can shed light on Anglican differences around human sexuality. Through distinguishing between MacIntyre‟s „utopian‟ theory and his practical requirement merely to be „good enough‟ to „go on and go further‟, I argue that we find effective resources for extensive moral rational engagement with other traditions, and, more surprisingly, within liberal democracy. This, I agree with Jeffrey Stout, has the potential to operate, to a useful degree, as akin to a „tradition‟. I then outline how the Bishops can best pursue substantive, rational, ethical dialogue, first, with other communities of tradition; second, with those groupings, widespread throughout society, which, though not fully-fledged communities of tradition, nonetheless sufficiently reflect them to be able to sustain some degree of moral debate; and third, through developing MacIntyre's appropriation of Aquinas‟ work on Natural Law, in circumstances that, or among those who, uphold no tradition. In each case, I argue the potential is greater than MacIntyre allows, and, importantly, is enhanced by constructive engagement, which it is therefore generally a morally rational obligation to pursue. With examples drawn primarily from the work of Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, I point to practical ways in which my proposed MacIntyrean praxis can both strengthen the Church‟s engagement in public discourse, and enhance the nature of the public space as a place for pursuing the common good. 2 Doing God in Public: An Anglican Interpretation of MacIntyre's Tradition-Based Reasoning as a Christian Praxis for a Pluralist World Sarah Caroline Rowland Jones Acknowledgements I should like first of all to thank Dr Karen Kilby, who has supervised the major part of this thesis and provided invaluable advice and direction, not least through introducing me to the work of Alasdair MacIntyre. I should also like to thank Professor Anthony Thiselton, with whose encouragement, and under whose guidance, I began research work. A debt of gratitude is also owed to the staff, both academic and administrative, of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies, in their unfailing helpfulness throughout my time as a research student. I could not have successfully completed this thesis, while simultaneously navigating various complex changes in my life during this time – including both emigration and major bereavement, and two periods which necessitated suspension of my studies – without their flexible and generous-hearted approach. My thanks are also due to colleagues and friends, past and present, from the worlds of diplomacy and politics, and of theology and the Church, and for the wide- ranging conversations we have enjoyed around the subject matter of this thesis. I am particularly grateful for the friendship and personal support of the former and current Archbishops of Cape Town, the Most Revd Njongonkulu Ndungane and the Most Revd Dr Thabo Makgoba, and also of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd Dr Rowan Williams. Finally, thanks are due to my nearest and dearest, human and canine, who have suffered my physical, but far more often mental, absence and neglect, with unwavering affection and support. 3 Doing God in Public: An Anglican Interpretation of MacIntyre's Tradition-Based Reasoning as a Christian Praxis for a Pluralist World List of Contents Page 1. Why MacIntyre? 5 2. Starting with MacIntyre 30 3. The Problem with MacIntyre 84 4. Working with MacIntyre 114 5. MacIntyre against MacIntyre 149 6. MacIntyre beyond MacIntyre 178 7. After MacIntyre 211 Bibliography 263 Abbreviations Works by Alasdair MacIntyre AV After Virtue (unless otherwise stated, 2nd ed.) London: Duckworth, 1985 WJWR Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988 TRV Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy and Tradition, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990 DRA Dependent Rational Animals London: Duckworth, 1999 GPU God, Philosophy, Universities: A Selective History of the Catholic Philosophical Tradition. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2009 Works by Jeffrey Stout EaB Ethics after Babel (2nd ed.) Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001 DaT Democracy and Tradition Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2004 4 Chapter 1 – Why MacIntyre? Introduction „We don‟t do God‟, Alastair Campbell famously rebuked a Vanity Fair journalist interviewing Tony Blair;1 while he, on retirement, himself told the BBC that he had been wary of talking about religion while Prime Minister for fear of being seen „as a nutter‟.2 A very different stance was taken by the Anglican Bishops at the 2008 decennial meeting of the Lambeth Conference. They committed themselves to reflect on their faith and how it should be lived within contemporary contexts, and then to bring to bear their conclusions within the wider world through lobbying and advocacy, engaging as appropriate with every dimension of public life.3 The aim of this thesis is to propose, through the application, reinterpretation and development of Alasdair MacIntyre's work on tradition-based moral reasoning, how the Anglican Bishops (and others like them) may justifiably pursue this two-fold course they set themselves. I hope to make the case that it is relatively straightforward to show the validity and value of a MacIntyrean approach to the first task, of contextualising Christianity with integrity for their own community of tradition, through their commitment to consider the interplay of gospel, culture and society. However, the applicability of MacIntyre's work to the second task – of bringing the voice of faith, thus understood, into the public space – might at first seem more tenuous, given the limitations he places on the possibility of substantive rational engagement with those of other traditions, and, even more so, within the context of liberal democracy. I shall argue that, contrary to this impression, MacIntyre's work provides extensive and effective resources on which to draw. In doing so, I shall offer 1 For an account of this encounter see Colin Brown, „Campbell interrupted Blair as he spoke of his faith: “We don‟t do God”,‟ The Telegraph, 4 May 2003, accessed 15 May 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1429109/Campbell-interrupted-Blair-as-he-spoke-of- his-faith-We-dont-do-God.html. However, since leaving government he has argued that „all leaders, whether of religious faith themselves or not, have to “do God”.‟ See Tony Blair, „Why we must all do God,‟ The New Statesman, 19 March 2009, accessed 15 May 2011, www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/03/world-million-faith-god. 2 See „Blair feared “nutter” label,‟ BBC News, 25 November 2007, accessed 15 May 2011, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7111620.stm for a report of this interview. 3 In place of the resolutions of earlier meetings, the 2008 Conference produced the less formal „Lambeth Indaba: Capturing Conversations and Reflections from the Lambeth Conference 2008‟, also known as „Indaba Reflections‟ with paragraph numbers cited here by §. Available at www.lambethconference.org/vault/Reflections_Document_(final).pdf. See §56 and §58. 5 justification for Jeffrey Stout‟s contention that MacIntyre „both underestimates the level of the agreement on the good actually exhibited by our society and overestimates the level required for us to reason coherently with each other in most matters of moral concern‟4 and I shall indicate why I consider him right to assert that MacIntyre „does not exclude, it seems to me, the possibility that moral discourse in our society can itself be understood as held together by a relatively limited but nonetheless real and significant agreement on the good.‟5 On this basis, I shall commend to the Anglican Bishops and those they lead an approach by which best to pursue substantive and rational ethical dialogue, first, with those of other communities of tradition (where I argue that in practice there is far greater opportunity than the limited scope MacIntyre appears to allow); second, with those groupings, widespread through society, which, though not fully-fledged communities of tradition, nonetheless enjoy a sufficient breadth and depth of those characteristics to be able to sustain some degree of moral debate; and third, through developing MacIntyre's appropriation of Aquinas‟ work on natural law, with those who belong to no tradition, or in circumstances that uphold no tradition (which I argue are far more limited than MacIntyre