title : The Church As Counterculture SUNY Series in Popular Culture and Political Change author : Budde, Michael L.

publisher : State University of New York Press isbn10 | asin : 0791446077 print isbn13 : 9780791446072 ebook isbn13 : 9780585285061 language : English Christianity and culture--United States. subject publication date : 2000 lcc : BR115.C8C49 2000eb ddc : 261/.0973 subject : Christianity and culture--United States.
105

4 TheNonviolentTerrorist: InDefenseofChristianFanaticism
STANLEYHAUERWAS OnBeingaFanatic Ibeginwithanapology.Icannotmeettheexpectationsofthosewhoorganized theconference.IcannotbecauseIrepresentadifferentpoliticsthanthepolitics thatcreatedthe"between"foundinthetitleoftheconference,thatis, "ChristianEthicsbetweenRadicalismandFanaticism."IwantChristianstobe radicals.IwantChristianstobefanatics.1IndeedIsuspectthatiswhyIwas invited.Youwantedanexampleofafanaticalradical.Iwilltrynottodisappoint you. Imustapologize,however,ifIhavemisunderstoodmyroleinthis colloquium.Intheletterinvitingmetoaddresstheconferencethepurposeof thecolloquiumissaidtobeanattempt"toanalyzethenecessityandthedangers oftheradicalismof(Christian)ethics."IassumeIamtorepresent"thenecessity" ofChristianradicalism.YetIwasaskedinparticular"todealasanethicistwith thequestionofthetensionbetweentheradicalityofthegospelinsociopolitical, peace,andecologicalmattersandtheriskofbecomingafanatic.Howcanyou liveouttheradicalityoftheChristianmessagewithoutbecomingintolerant?"I donotwanttokeepyouinsuspense.Beingafanaticisnotariskbuta requirementandthereisnothingwrongwithintoleranceifyouarethekindof ChristianradicalIbelievewearecalledtobe. Irealize,however,thatsuchasummaryanswerwillnotsatisfymostwho areworriedaboutChristiansactingresponsiblyintheworldaswe
89

knowit.Fanaticsandradicalsareseldomthoughttoberesponsible.Inother wordsIrealizeIbeartheburdenofproof.Inordertotrytomakean unapologeticcaseforChristianradicalismIamgoingtoprovideadefenseof whattomanyistheclearestcaseoffanaticismterrorism.Irealizethiswillseema bizarrestrategyforapacifist,butIhopetoshowwhynonviolencecannothelp butappearasaterroristtacticbythosewhowanttomaketheworldsafefor war. Inthelightofwhatmanytaketobethemoralanarchyofourculture,itis comfortingtothinkthatthereisastrongmoralconsensusaboutsomethingsfor example,childpornographyandterrorism.Thereforemyattempttoprovidea justificationofterrorism,atleast,akindoftheologicalterrorism,cannothelpbut seemunsettling.YetIwanttotrytoshowthatinsofarasmostcontinueto believethatwarisanecessaryinstrumentforthemaintenanceofthegoodsof thehumancommunity,thenterrorismcannotbeautomaticallysubjecttomoral condemnation. Iwanttobecandid,however,aboutwheremyargumentismeanttolead.I wantyoutobe,likeme,apacifist.AsapacifistIobviouslythinkthatwarand terrorismarenotcompatiblewithChristiandiscipleship.2YetmanyChristians thinkthat,thoughwaristerrible,undercertainconditionsitmaynotonlybe justifiedbutaduty.ThosethatwouldsojustifywarforChristiansusuallyassume thatterrorismisbeyondjustification.Iwilltrytoshowthattheattempttosave warasamoralprojectbydistinguishingwarfromterrorismwillnotwork.In short,ifyouthinkterrorismisprohibited,thensoiswar.Christiannonviolence, therefore,cannothelpbutappearasfanaticaljusttotheextentitchallengesthe assumed"normality"ofwarandviolence. Thediscussionoftheethicsofterrorism,however,ismeanttoprovidea contextforwhatItaketobethecentralquestionthatgaverisetothesubjectof thisconferencenamely,howcantheradicalcharacterofthegospelbereclaimed withoutmakingChristiansirrelevantor,worse,intolerant.RadicalChristocentric ethics,suchasIrepresent,atleasttosomeseemstothreatentheabilityof Christianstoactconstructivelyinaworldalreadyfartoodivided.Insucha dividedworldwhatisneeded,itisargued,isauniversalethiccapableof resolvingconflict.Incontrast,IwilltrytoshowthatifChristiansaretohelpsuch aworldlivemorepeacefully,wecanonlybewhatwearethosewhoworship JesusChrist,theSonofGod.Forthatisthebasisofour"radicalism"as Christiansthatis,wearenotradicalsbecauseweassumearadicalstanceonthis orthatissuethattheworldunderstandsasradical,butbecauseanystancewe assumemustbewitnesstotheGodofJesusChrist.
90

The"Ethics"ofTerrorism "Onecommunity'sterroristisanothercommunity'smartyr"isthekindof generalizationthatisastrueasitisfalse.Yetitisnotabadplacetobegin thinkingaboutterrorismjusttotheextentsuchastatementremindsusthatany descriptionofterrorismimplicatesasetofmoralpracticesandpresumptions. JamesBurtchaellrightlyarguesthatitis misleadingtoaddresstheethicsofterrorismandresponsetoterrorismby acceptingwithoutquestionthefashionablepresumptionthatterrorismisa developmentsodiscontinuouswiththetraditionsofwarfarethatitdeserves unconventionalmoralscrutiny.Onthecontrary,terrorism,likethemany enlargementsofviolencebeforeit,isalinealdescendentoftraditionalwarfare. Itcanbestbeunderstoodandevaluatedbyanalogywithconventionalconflict. AndIamincreasinglyoftheopinionthatitraisesnotoldquestionsaboutnew kindsofcombatbutnewquestionsaboutoldformsofwar.Itiswarfare's newestandmostsoberingprogeny.3 ItisinterestingtoreflectontheIsraeli/PLOconflictinthelightof Burtchaell'sclaimthatitisbynomeanseasytodistinguishwarfromterrorism. ThegovernmentofIsraelfounditusefultocallthePLOa"terroristorganization" becausetheysometimeskilledschoolchildrenonbuses.YetthestateofIsrael wasbroughtintopowerbyanextendedandverywellorganizedterrorist campaign.ItiseasytoforgetthatthosewholaterbecamepoliticiansinIsraelat onetimeintheirlivesblewupthePrinceDavidHotel.TothisdayIsraelassumes ithastherighttobombPalestinianrefugeecampsinretaliationfor"terrorist attacks,"butsuchbombingisnotconsideredterrorismeventhoughthecamps housewomenandchildren.Isthebombingperpetratedbyanestablished governmentbydefinitionnotterror?4NowthatthePLOisagovernmentwith landdoesthatmeanformeractsof"terrorism"arenowwar? Ithasbeenassumedthatastrongdistinctioncanbemadebetween terrorismandwartotheextenttheformerfailstoobservethecivilizedrulesof war,andinparticular,engagesinattacksoncivilians.Yetfromthe"terrorist" pointofviewdistinctionsbetweencombatantsandnoncombatantsarenot easilymaintained.Forexample,someyearsagotherewasageneraloutrage againstthosewhoraidedawhiteman'sRhodesianfarmandslaughteredhiswife andchildren.Yetfromtheperspectiveof
91

thosewhohadconductedtheraid,thosekilledwomenandchildrenalikehad been''washed,dressed,schooled,andconveyedabroadandentertainedand cultivatedbydintoftheoccupationoftheirlandandlowpaidlaboroftheir backsandthedeprivationandhumiliationoftheirchildren.Ithadbeenthewhite children'sfather'sriflethatviolatedthemandtheirhomeland,butitwashis familythatlivedgoodnaturallyonhisviolence.Howcouldhebeguiltyandthey beinnocent?"5 Suchexamplesarebutremaindersthatoftenthosewhoarecalledterrorist useviolencebecausetheyhavebeendeniedanyotheralternativebythe "recognizedgovernment."Ofcoursethisgoestotheheartoftheattemptto distinguishbetweenterrorismandwar,sinceanysuchdistinctiongainsitsmoral warrantfromtheassumptionbasedinjustwartheorythatthereisacontinuity betweenthepolicefunctionofthestateanditswarmakingpotential.The justificationofwarisbutanextensionoftherightofthestatetopunish.The latterispossiblebecauseitisthedisciplineduseofviolenceforthegoodin commonincludingthegoodoftheonepunished.Whichisbutareminder,as PaulRamseyemphasized,justwarisnotsomuchacasuistrytodetermineifa warmeetspriordeterminedcriteria,butratheranaccountofstateaction requiredfortheprotectionoftheinnocent.6Sowarisbutacontinuationofthe justiceinternaltothestatetransposedtorelationsbetweenstates. Thereare,however,somestrongreasonstodoubtthatwarisbuta continuationofthepolicefunctionofthestate.Thelatterincludesnotonlya prioragreementonwhatacrimemaybe,butalsorequiresthecriminalbe caught,adecisionbemadeofdegreeofguilt,theappropriatepunishment,as wellasthecarryingoutofthepunishment.Itisinstructivetonotethatthepolice donotcarryoutanyofthelastfunctionswhereasinwarallthefunctionsare carriedoutbythesameagent.Inshort,warlacksexactlythepriorinstitutions andpracticesthatlimittheviolenceintrinsictothepolicefunctionofthestate and,atleasttosomeextent,makesuchviolencelessarbitrary.Yetaswenoted above,itisjusttheassumptionofsuchcontinuitythathasunderwrittenthe distinctionbetweenwarandterrorism. Ofcourseitmaybeobjectedthatthiswayofthinkingaboutterrorism leavesoutthemostimportantaspectofjustwarreflectionthatis,theprincipleof noncombatantimmunity.Thosecalledterrorist,however,donotnecessarily attacknoncombatants,butiftheydotheyarenotwithoutsomemoralresponse. Suchanattackmaybeanattempttomakeclearthekindofwartheyunderstand theyareforcedtowagenamely,awarofthedesperatethatmustuseselective targetinginnonselectiveways.
92

Inthisrespectitisparticularlyimportanttorememberthatevenattackson civiliansbyallegedterroristsarenotindiscriminate.Whogetsblownupbya bombonabusmaybeindiscriminate,butthatthebombwasplantedonabusis notindiscriminate.Rather,suchbombingmaybetiedtopolicyobjectivesthat mayevenmakesuchabombinganalogoustothedefenseofciviliandeathson justwargroundsofindirecteffect;forallegedterroriststrategiesaremeantlike waritselftomakepeoplepreferpeace,oratleastorder,ratherthancontinuethe conflict.Thereforethe"randomviolence"oftheterroristisanythingotherthan randomjusttotheextentitisusedintheinterestofmakingtheadversarysue forpeace.Indeed,theterrorofterrorismisoftendesignedtobrutalizethose whomustfighttheterroristsothattheverymeanstofighttheterroristbecomes selfdefeating. Accordingly,JamesBurtchaellarguesthatterrorismwillincreasinglybeseen notasananomalybutasoneofthedegenerateprogenyofconventionalwar.He callsattentiontothreedistinctreactionstoweaponsdevelopment,suchasthe machinegun,elicitedinthiscentury.Somethoughtsuchweaponssohorrendous theywereinherentlyimmoral.Othersthoughtthemsoterribletheywouldmake warlesslikely.Stillothersthoughtsuchweaponsonlymadeclearhowhorrible warhasalwaysbeen.Burtchaellconcludesthatterrorismjustifiesallthree conclusionsasitisindeedsavageandinhumane.Yetsoiswar.So"inquiryinto thenatureandethicalimperativesofterrorismissoundonlyifwedonot imaginethatitisinhumanebycontrastwithwar,whichishumane.Conventional warfareisconventionallyinhumane."7 Yetthisisaconclusionfromwhichmostofuswouldrecoil.Butiftheabove discussionofterrorismhastaughtusanythingwemustaskwhoisthe"us"doing therecoiling.MaxStackhouserepresentswhatItaketobethemostpersuasive answertothatquestionthe"us"mustbetheuniversalvoiceofhumanity. Stackhousearguesthatweareatalosstorespondtoterrorismbecausesomeno longerbelieveinauniversalethic.AccordingtoStackhouse, Ethically,weareinanageinwhichthereisgravedoubtamongtheologians, philosophers,jurists,andsocialscientistsastowhetheranyuniversalprinciples existwhichcanbereliablyknownandusedbytheinternationalcommunityto definetortureorterrorismaswrong.Tobesure,manysaythatterrorismand tortureareterrible.Butwhenthequestionisposedastowhetherthereareany universalabsolutes,orwhetherthereare 93

intrinsicallyevilacts,orwhethertherearecrossculturalvalueswhichcouldbe thebasisfordeclaringsuchpracticestobeinherentlywrongwefindonlydoubt andskepticism.8

AccordingtoStackhouse,withoutsuchauniversalethicwehavenomeansto challengetheassumedrightofnationstatestomakedecisionsonthebasisof selfinterest. Stackhouse'sconcerntocounterthe"relativism"hethinkstobethecause ofourinabilitytocondemnterrorismcouldbemeantasacritiqueofme.9SinceI amallegedtoholdtheviewthatnouniversalethicexists,Irepresentaformof confessionaltheologythathasnobasisforsayingwhyterrorismiswrong.10As Stackhouseputstheissue: Ifwebelieveterrorismandtortureareinfactfundamentallycontrarytothe truthandjusticeofGodandoughttobestoppedeverywhere,wemust recognizethatthetheologicalfoundationsonwhichmanycontemporary contextualistandconfessionalisttheologiesrestareinadequatetothistask, whatevertheircontributionstootherareas.Sadly,theydonothavethecross cultural,intellectualormoralamplitudetoaddresstheseissues.11 Withoutsuchacrossculturalvision,Stackhouseargueswewillbeplungedintoa Hobbesianworldwhereallcontendagainstall,aworldinwhichonlymight makesright.Stackhousethinks,however,thatwedonotliveinaworlddevoidof universalprinciples.Suchprinciplesarethosefoundindemocraticallyauthorized constitutions,whichStackhousebelievestobetheharbingersofthe"enormous transformation"theworldiscurrentlyundergoingtowardthecreationofa "universalcivilization."12Stackhousearguesthatthosewhodonotrecognizethe universalityofsuchdemocraticallyauthorizedconstitutionsshouldberegarded asnotyetfullyrationalor,worse,morallyperverse.Asurprisinglyintolerant conclusionforsomeonesocommittedtotolerance.13Yetitisaconclusionthat helpsmakeintelligiblemywillingnesstodescribemyselfasaterroristfroma perspectivesuchasthatofStackhouse,peoplelikemethreatentheprojectto freetheworldofwarbecauseofourunwillingnesstoassumeauniversalstance. EpistemologicalCrisesandWar Sohowarewetogoon?Ifwearetobe"responsible"mustwebeableto provide,asStackhouseargues,anethicofuniversalprinciplesso
94

 thatwecandistinguishbetweenwarandterrorism?Orarewecondemned,asI amallegedtobe,torepresenta"local"or"restricted"morality,evenonecalled Christian,whichcannotprovideabasisforrationalagreementssowemight avoidwar?Icertainlydonotthinksuchanalternativetobeouronlychoice,but toshowwhyIwillneedtoexploreAlasdairMacIntyre'saccountofwhathecalls epistemologicalcrises.IndoingsoIshallhavetoaskyourpatienceasitmaynot beimmediatelyclearhowissuesofwarandterrorism(muchlesswhyI characterizemyownpositionasoneofChristianfanaticism)areclarifiedbywhat atfirstappearstobeawayofunderstandingscientificdisputes.YetbythetimeI amfinishedIhopetohaveshownyouwhyMacIntyre'saccountiscrucialfor helpingusrecognizethatnothingcouldbemorerationalthanthepeaceitisour privilegeandobligationtowitnessasChristiansandwhysuchapeace,fromthe world'sperspective,maybethoughttobeaformofterrorism. MacIntyre'saccountofepistemologicalcrisesisacorrelativeofhis traditionedaccountofrationality.AccordingtoMacIntyre,itwasthecentral aspirationoftheEnlightenmenttoprovidestandardsandrationaljustification thatanyrationalperson,thatisapersonindependentofallsocialandcultural particularities,wouldorshouldacceptwithoutrecoursetoappealstoauthority. 14Thisidealhasbeenimpossibletomaintainbecauseithasprovedimpossible tosecureagreementonpreciselythoseprinciplesthatweretobeundeniableby allrationalpersons.Yetwhatisparticularlytroublingisanyattempttoprovide analternativeaccountofrationalitytothatoftheEnlightenmentcontinuestobe judgeddeficientbythefailedstandardsofthatsameEnlightenmentstandard. YetMacIntyrearguesthatanalternativeaccountofrationalinquiryis possibleasthat"embodiedinatradition,aconceptionaccordingtowhichthe standardsofrationaljustificationthemselvesemergefromandarepartofa historyinwhichtheyarevindicatedbythewayinwhichtheytranscendthe limitationsofandprovideremediesforthedefectsoftheirpredecessorswithin thehistoryofthatsametradition."15Suchaviewofrationalityishistorical,since anyattempttojustifyistonarratehowtheargumenthasgonesofar; accordingly,anysubjectneedingjustificationisitselfaconceptwithahistory; whichmeansthattherecanbenodenialofthediversityoftraditionsofenquiry. ForthoseschooledonEnlightenmentpresuppositionsthislastpointis particularlytroubling.FromsuchaperspectiveitisassumedthatMacIntyre cannotavoidrelativismand,inspiteofhisdenials,mayevenadvocate relativism.16Moreoverthisview,itisalleged,hasdisastrous
95

politicalresultsbecauseifthereisnoalternativetorelativismthenweare condemnedtoliveinaworldofwar.Absentanywayofsecuringagreements betweenpeoplewhootherwisesharenothingincommonotherthantheir rationality,itseemstheonlyrecourseforresolvingdisputesiswar. YetMacIntyrearguesthattraditionsmaybeabletoresolveconflictsnot onlywithinthetraditionitselfbutbetweentraditions.Inthisrespect,itis importanttoattendtotheantiCartesianandantiHegelianaspectsof MacIntyre'saccountoftraditions.ForMacIntyre,unlikeCartesians,assumesthat traditionsbeginnotfromunassailableselfevidenttruths,butratherare contingent.Moreover,incontrasttoHegelianpresumptionsthateachtradition mustsharewithallothertraditionssomefinalrationalstate,forMacIntyre "traditionsarealwaysandineradicallytosomedegreelocal,informedby particularitiesoflanguageandsocialandnaturalenvironment,inhabitedby GreeksorbycitizensofRomanAfricaormedievalPersiaorbyeighteenth centuryScots,whostubbornlyrefusetobeorbecomevehiclesoftheself realizationofGeist.ThoseeducatedorindoctrinatedintoacceptingCartesianor Hegelianstandardswilltakethepositivityoftraditiontobeasignof arbitrariness.Foreachtraditionwill,soitmayseem,pursueitsownspecific historicalpath,andallthatweshallbeconfrontedwithintheendisasetof independentrivalhistories."17 Yetthissuggestionisbeliedby"oneparticularkindofoccurrenceinthe historyoftraditions,"whichMacIntyrecalls"epistemologicalcrises."18Such crisescanoccurinthehistoryofparticularpersons,groups,andforawhole tradition.Indeed,suchacrisisinatraditionmaywellfinditselfmanifestinour inabilitytotellthestoriesofourliveswithnarrativecoherence.Tosharea culturemeansweshareschematathatareatonceconstitutiveofandnormative forintelligibleactionsthatis,itmeanswecan"get"ajoke.Yetitmayhappenthat anindividualmaycometorecognizethepossibilityofdifferentpossibilitiesof interpretationwhichpresentanalternativerivalschemataofwhatisgoingon aroundhimorher.MacIntyresuggeststhatShakespeare'sHamletexemplifiesin thepersonofHamletaswellasthequestionofhowtointerprettheplay, Hamlet,theproblemofhavingtoomanyschemataforinterpretation.19That suchacrisismayoccurdoesnotmeanitcanalwaysberesolvedsinceitmay,asit wasinthecaseofHamlet,makeitimpossibleforhimorustounderstandwhatis goingonaroundus.Suchalackofunderstandingmaymakeitimpossibleforus tomakeourownlivesintelligibleandmayevenlead,asitdidforHamlet,to madness(ortothenecessitytofeignmadness).Yeteventhat
96

descriptionmaybetoocomfortingsinceitassumesthatinsuchasituationwe areabletodistinguishnormalityfrommadness. Anewnarrativeisrequiredfortheresolutionofanepistemologicalcrisis. Suchanarrativemustenableagentstounderstandbothhowtheycouldhave intelligiblyheldtheirformerbeliefsandhowtheymayhavebeenmisledby them.Whenhistoricallyfoundedcertitudesarerenderedproblematic,new conceptsarerequiredtoenrichourschemestofurnishsolutionstoproblems thatseemintractable;anexplanationmustbegivenwhythetraditionhad, beforethesenewresourceswereavailable,seemedsterileorincoherent;and thesetasksmustbecarriedoninafashioninwhichthenewconceptual resourcesareseenincontinuitywiththetraditionasarticulatedtothatpoint.20 MacIntyresuggeststhewaytheCatholicdoctrineoftheTrinitywasresolvedin thefourthcenturyisagoodillustrationfortheresolutionofanepistemological crisis.Aquinas,providingthemeansinwhichAristotlecouldbereceivedintoan Augustinianframework,isofcourseMacIntyre'scrucialexemplificationofa successfulresolutionofanepistemologicalcrisis.21 Relativismnowappearsasthedoctrinethatdeniesthepossibilityof epistemologicalcrisesoccurring,butbytheveryfactthatsuchcrisesoccurwe cannowseethatrelativismasapositionisamistake.MacIntyre,however,is willingtoconcedetotherelativistthatoverlongperiodsoftimerivaltraditions, bothinternallyandinrelationtooneanother,maydevelopwithout encounteringmorethanminorepistemologicalcrises.Yetwhenthishappens suchtraditionswillbeunabletoencountertheirrivalsinawaytodefeat them.22Moreover,thereisnothingtopreventatraditionfromdegenerating intoaselfcontainedenclavetoavoidrecognizingthatitisbeingputinto questionbyrivaltraditions."Thisis,"MacIntyreobserves,"partofthe degeneracyofmodernastrology,ofsometypesofpsychiatricthought,andof liberalProtestantism."23 MacIntyre'sconcessionthatforlongperiodsoftimetraditionsofvery differentkindscancoexistwithoutbringingtheirconflictsanddisagreementsto rationalresolutionmakesclearthatanepistemologicalcrisis,whilepossiblyquite painful,isevenmoreimportantlyagreatachievement.Ourproblemisnotthat Christianscomeintoconflictwiththeworldinwhichwelive,butthatwedonot. Indeed,fromthisperspectivewarcannowbeseenasafailuretosustainthe kindofconflictMacIntyredescribesasanepistemologicalcrisiswarisnecessary whentraditionsareunabletorecognizethecrisestheycreateforoneanother. Thisisnottodenythatawarmightbetheformanepistemologicalcri

97

sismighttakeorthatterrorismcouldbeconstruedasadesperatewaytoforcea conflictthatisotherwisedenied.Yetwarandterrorismusuallyarenotwell knownforproviding"conceptualschemes"thatallowcontinuitywiththepastto benamed. WitnessasTheologicalTerrorism MacIntyre'saccountofepistemologicalcrisesiscrucialifwearetoavoidthe unhappychoicebetweenStackhouse'sappealtouniversalprinciplesandwar. Moreover,ifMacIntyreisright,thenwecanbetterappreciatewhyChristian nonviolencecannothelpbutbeseenfromadvocatesofboththosealternatives asaformofterrorism.ForChristianshavebeensentoutintoaworldofwarto challengethenecessityofwararmedonlywiththeweaponsoflove.Put differently,thatChristiansarefirstandforemostcalledtobewitnessesby necessitycreatesepistemologicalcrisesforthosethatdonotworshiptheGodof JesusChrist.(Ofcourse,Ialsowanttocreatesuchacrisisforthosewhodo worshipChristbutthinktheycanstillparticipateinwar.)Suchcrisesmayforlong periodsbeirresolvableandthetensioncreatedtemptallinvolvedtoviolence. ThatChristiansmustresistsuchtemptationsisnotbecausesuchviolencemay not,atleastforawhile,seemtoprovide"peace,"butbecausethepeace providedisnotthepeaceofChrist. Christianwitnesssounderstoodisparticularlythreateningtothosewho assume,likeStackhouse,thatouronlyalternativetowarandterrorismisto representauniversalalternative.24Thatnarrative,inspiteofitsgreatdesirefor peace,cannothelpbutattempttosilencethosewhorepresent"particularistic" traditions."Particularists,"particularlythosewhorefusetoacceptthe marginalizationofferedbysuchuniversalists,cannothelpbutappearasfanatics and/orterroristswhothreatenwhatappearstobeouronlyhopeforpeace. FromtheperspectiveofliberalChristianity,Christianswhoinsistonthe"politics ofJesus"25cannotbutappearlikeIslamicfundamentalistsnotabadplacetobe frommyperspective. Witnesscanbeunderstoodasauniversalimperative,butitissuchasan expressionofhoperatherthananassuredresult.AsEmmanuelKatongole observes,"witnessinvolvestheaffirmationofthehermeneuticalsignificanceof thepresenceofothers.Becausehumanbeingsarenotaccidentallyculturally mediated,butnecessarilyso,truthdoesnotcomeasacorrespondencetoan independentlyexistingreality.Rather,
98

truthisaninterpretativeperformancerealizedthroughandwithinthecultural linguisticpractice.Thishistoricalnatureoftruthmilitatesagainstany epistemologicalsingularityorselfsufficiency.Witness,astheformofcontact betweenhistoricallyconstitutedtraditions,affirmstherealizationthatnoone traditionisinpossessionofthetruth.Ifthatwerethecase,contactwithother traditionswouldtaketheoftenpreferredformofenforcementandimposition." 26 Itisimportanttoobservethatwitnessinnowayismeanttoavoidthe importanceofargument.YettohaveanargumentrequiresthatChristiansfirst listentowhattheotherhastosay.Suchlistening,moreover,maywellcauseus tolearnbetterwhatwehavetosay.Suchlisteningmayevencreate epistemologicalcriseswithinChristianselfunderstanding.Yetthatistheriskwe musttake,sinceourtraditionisunintelligibleifwefailtobewitnessesforthe peacethatGodhassecuredfortheworldinJesusChrist.Inthatnameandthat namealoneisatoncethelegitimationaswellasthenecessityofourwitness. Whichfinallymustbringusbacktoquestionsofwarandterrorism.Does thepositionIhavetriedtosketchinthispapermeanChristiansmustfinally accepttheinevitabilityofwarand,perhapseven,ourinabilitytodistinguishwar fromterrorism?Icertainlyseenoreasonwhysuchaconclusionmustfollow fromwhatIhavesaid.Christianwitnessisanalternativetowarjusttotheextent Christianwitnessestablishesconnectionsbetweenthosewhohavenoreasonto beconnected.Suchconnectionsinthemselvescannotinsurepeacebecause, contrarytoliberalsentimentalitythatassumesifpeopleonlycometoknowone anotherbetterviolenceislesslikely,theexactoppositemaybethecase.Rather, whatiscrucialarethenarrativeconnectionsChristianwitnessmakespossible, believingaswedothatthestoryofChrististheendofallstories. Suchconnections,whichIbelievearebutanotherwordforchurch(forwe mustnotforgettheChristianwordforuniversaliscatholic),giveChristiansthe resourcesfordistinguishingwarfromterrorism.Forastheanalysisabove suggests,tobeabletodistinguishwarfromterrorismdoesnotfinallyreston conceptualdistinctions,importantastheyare;butrather,throughthesharingof storiesweareenabledtoseethechildrenofmyenemiesarenotmyenemies. Sucha"seeing"isanachievementthatrequirestheslowworkofthosewho mustlearntowaitinaworldofwar,knowingastheydothatGodwouldnot haveGod'sKingdomaccomplishedthroughviolence.Withoutsuchafanatical peopleweliterallywouldbewithouthope.

99

Notes 1.See,forexample,myDispatchesfromtheFront:TheologicalEngagementswiththeSecular (Durham,N.C.:DukeUniversityPress,1994),p.5. 2.Violenceandnonviolencearedescriptionsofbehaviorthatrequiresanalogicaldisplay.In otherwordswedonotjust"know"violenceornonviolencewhen"weseeit."Peacetoooften isjustanothernamefortheabsenceofoverthostilities.Foranexchangeaboutthe"meaning" ofnonviolenceseePaulRamsey,SpeakUpforJustWarorPacifism(UniversityPark: PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1988)andmyresponseinthe''Epilogue."InDispatches fromtheFrontIarguethatwecannotknowwhatviolence(andwar)isabsentthepracticeof nonviolence.Thismayappeara"smallpoint,"butIthinkitssignificanceisoftenoverlooked. FromaChristianperspectivenonviolenceisnotanexceptiontowar,butratherwarand violenceareconceptuallyandinpracticeparasiticalonnonviolence. 3.JamesTunsteadBurtchaell,TheGivingandTakingofLife:EssaysEthical(NotreDame,Ind.: UniversityofNotreDame,1989),pp.21112. 4.Forexample,theUnitedStatesDepartmentofDefenseassumesthatterrorismisdefinedas useofviolencebythoseoutsideadulyconstitutedgovernment.Thus"terrorismisthe unlawfuluseorthreateneduseofforceorviolencebyarevolutionaryorganizationagainst individualsorproperty,withtheintentionofcoercingorintimidatinggovernmentsor societies,oftenforpoliticalorideologicalpurposes."YetasBurtchaellpointsout(p.213),such adefinitionleavesnoroomforstateterrorismdirectedtoitsownpopulationortoanother state.In1954theU.S.Governmentengineeredtheoverthrowofthedulyelectedgovernment inGuatemala,forinstance,andhassincemadeeveryefforttohaveanobviouslyterrorist control"dulyconstituted,"whilehavingtooverlookitsmassacresof100,000Guatemalans, andthe"disappearing"ofcountlessothers.(It'sinterestingthatinU.S.newsreportsthose Guatemalanswhoprotestordefendthemselvesareroutinelylabeled"rebels.")Burtchaell providesotherdefinitionsfromtheFBI,InternationalLawAssociation,andothersthatonly helponeseethatno"definition"ofterrorismcanbemadetodotheworkofanalysis. 5.Burtchaell,GivingandTakingofLife,p.221.Myuseofthisexampleisnotmeanttosuggest itisimpossibletodistinguishbetweencombatantsandnoncombatants.Justwarthinkershave rightlyemphasizedtheimportanceofthatdistinction.Yetthatdistinctioninitselfisnot sufficienttodistinguishwarfromterrorism. 6.InChristianEthicsandtheSitIn(NewYork:AssociationPress,1961),Ramseysays, "democracymeansjustifiableandlimitedresistance(andthusitrefinesandestablishes proceduresformakingajustifiablerevolution,whichisinprincipletoapplytodomestic politicsthesamelineofreasoningthatdroveChristiansintheearlycenturiesofthiserato justifyandlimitwarfarefortheresistanceandcorrectionofevil."p.93.Laterinthesamebook heobservesthatdemocracyisnothingmorethanjustumbellum,"bothinitsorigininWestern

100

historyandintheprinciplesofChristianethicsrequiringparticipationinitasaformof regularizedstrugglebetweenmanandmaninthemidstofwhichalonewehaveinthisfallen worldanylifewithmanpreserveduntoahigherandmoreopenfellowship."p.104. 7.Burtchaell,GivingandTakingofLife,p.231. 8.MaxStackhouse,"Torture,TerrorismandTheology:TheNeedforaUniversalEthic," ChristianCentury103,no.29(October8,1986):861. 9.Stackhouse'smostsustainedcriticismofmypositioncanbefoundinhis"Liberalism Dispatchedvs.LiberalismEngaged,"ChristianCentury112,no.29(October18,1995):96267. ThoughthisarticletakestheformofareviewofmybookDispatchesfromtheFront,itisa wholesaleattackonwhathetakestobemyposition.WhatStackhousethinksImustthinkis onlywhatsomeonelikeStackhousecanthinkIthinkbecauseofthewayhethinks.For example,inhisreviewhesuggeststhatIthinkreligiousclaimsareimmunetorationalcriticism. Icertainlydonotthinkthattobethecase,thoughIshouldliketoknowmorewhathethinks rationalcriticismtobe.Imentionthispointsinceitrelatestothegeneralargumentofthis essay.IcertainlyhaveastakeinrationalcriticismthoughIamquitesuspiciousofappealsto rationalcriticismintheabstract. 10.ForaresponsetothechargeIama"confessionalist"seemy"FailureofCommunicationor ACaseofUncomprehendingFeminism,"ScottishJournalofTheology50,no.1(March,1997). ThisarticleisaresponsetoGloriaAlbrecht'sreviewofmybook,InGoodCompany.Ifindit interestingthatStackhouseandAlbrechtsharetheviewthatImustbea''confessionalist" sincetheyare,politically,atotherendsofthespectrum.Ithink,however,thisisbutan indicationofhowdeeplyeachofthemisembeddednotonlyinpoliticalliberalismbutmore importantlyintheologicalliberalism. 11.Stackhouse,"Liberalism,"p.862.Stackhouse'sassumptionthatwemusthaveareasonfor knowingwhyterrorismiswrongis,ofcourse,partoftheproblem.Suchaviewfailstoseethat thequestionisnotjustificationbutdescription.Terrorismisoneofthosedescriptionsthat workwithinthepracticesofacommunitythatmakethequestion,"Whatiswrongwith terrorism?"distinctlyodd.Tortureworksmuchthesamewayasdowordslikemurderand, perhaps,abortion.Thatsuchwordsexistcangivetheimpressionthatauniversalethicof principlesexiststojustifytheiruse.Butsuchdescriptionsasdescriptionsneednojustification. 12.Stackhouse,"Liberalism,"p.863.StackhousedevelopsthispositioninhisCreeds,Society, andHumanRights:AStudyinThreeCultures(GrandRapids,Mich.:Erdmans,1984). 13.TheverydayIwaswritingthisparagraphIreceivedmycopyofTheNewYorkReviewof Books,44,no.1(January9,1997),whichcarriedareviewbyWilliamMcNeillofSamuel Huntington's,TheClashofCivilizationsandtheRemakingofWorldOrder.McNeillquotes Huntingtontotheeffectthat"WesternbeliefintheuniversalityofWesternculturesuffers fromthreeproblems:itisfalse;itisimmoral;anditisdangerous."AccordingtoMcNeill Huntington

101

thinksitfalsebecauseothercivilizationshaveotheridealsandnorms;itisimmoralbecause imperialismisthelogicalconsequenceofuniversalism;itisdangerousbecausesuch universalisticassumptionsmakewarmorelikely."DeclineoftheWest?",p.18.ThoughIhave otherthingstosay,certainlyHuntingtonhassaidsomeofwhatneedstobesaidinresponseto Stackhouse. 14.AlasdairMacIntyre,WhoseJustice?WhichRationality?(NotreDame,Ind.:Universityof NotreDame,1988),p.6. 15.Ibid.,p.7.NotenoughattentionhasbeenpaidtotheformMacIntyre'sargumenttakesin thisbook.Hecannotprovideanyargumenttoendallargumentswiththosewhowantto assumeEnlightenmentviewssincehisownaccountofrationalitycanonlybedisplayed.The narrativedetailconcerningtheScottishEnlightenmentinthebookisnotMacIntyresimply showingheunderstandsStair,Hutchenson,andHume,butratherisnecessaryforhisdefense ofhowrationalityrequiresnarrative. 16.Thischargesimplywillnotgoawaynomatterhowmanytimesthepointismadethatthe very"problemofrelativism"hasbeencreatedbytheepistemologicaltheoriesthatclaimtobe ouronlyhopeagainstrelativism.MacIntyre'saccountofrelativismasanoptionthatdepends onthedevelopmentofcosmopolitanculturesseemsexactlyright.SeeMacIntyre,Whose Justice?WhichRationality?,pp.389403. 17.Ibid.,p.361.Thatatraditioniscontingent,however,doesnotmeanMacIntyrebelievesit impossibletoarriveatfirstprinciples.Indeed,hebelievesAquinasexemplifieshowthe articulationofsuchprinciplesispossible.SeeMacIntyre'sFirstPrinciples,FinalEnds,and ContemporaryPhilosophicalIssues(Milwaukee,Wisc.:MarquetteUniversityPress,1990). 18.MacIntyrefirstdevelopedhisaccountofepistemologicalcrisesinhis"Epistemological Crises,DramaticNarrative,andthePhilosophyofScience,"TheMonist69,no.4(October, 1977):45372.ThisessayhasbeenreprintedinWhyNarrative?:ReadingsinNarrative Theology,editedbyStanleyHauerwasandL.GregoryJones(GrandRapids,Mich.:Eerdmans, 1989),pp.13857.ReferencestothisarticlewillbetoWhyNarrative?. 19.MacIntyre,"EpistemologicalCrises,Narrative,andPhilosophyofScience,"pp.13841.Itis importanttonotethatMacIntyre'saccountofepistemologicalcrisisisnotaninvitationto resumetheEnlightenmentpresumptionthatbeforewecanknowanythingwemustfirsthave anaccountofhowweknow.AsNicholasLashnicelyputsthematterepistemologyiswhatwe dowhenthingsgowrong.TheBeginningandEndof"Religion"(Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,1996),pp.11216.Itisnotquiterighttothinkanepistemologicalcrisisalways indicatessomethinghasgonewrong,butattheveryleastacrisisindicatessomesensethatwe haveaproblem. 20.MacIntyre,WhoseJustice?WhichRationality?,p.362. 21.SeeinparticularMacIntyre'saccountinhisThreeRivalVersionsofMoralEnquiry: Encyclopaedia,Genealogy,andTradition(NotreDame,Ind.:UniversityofNotreDamePress, 1990),pp.10526.ByfocusingontheseexamplesIdonotmeantodistractattentionfromthe compellingexamplesthatMac

102

Intyreusesthatcomefromthehistoryofscience.YetonesuspectsthatMacIntyre'saccount ofepistemologicalcrisiswasfirstilluminedforhimfromtheologyand,inparticular,Newman.I mentionthistosuggestthatinherentinMacIntyre'saccountofthesemattersis,Isuspect,a verypromisingwaytoappreciateatoncethedifferenceandthesimilaritybetweenthekindof knowledgegainedthroughtheologyandthatgainedthroughscience.Nottheleastresult couldbethatthecurrentprejudiceagainsttheformerinfavorofthelattermightbe challengedwithoutrecoursetoKuhn. 22.MacIntyre,WhoseJustice?WhichRationality?,p.366. 23.MacIntyre,"EpistemologicalCrises,Narrative,andPhilosophyofScience,"p.147. MacIntyrenodoubttakesgreatpleasureinprovidingthesethreecandidatesasexamplesof degeneratetraditions.Ionlywishthelistmightbetakenasawonderfuljoke.However,Ifear itisunfortunatelyalltootrue. 24.ItismyviewthatthesignificanceofMacIntyre'sargumentinhisThreeRivalVersionsof MoralEnquiryhasyettobeappreciated.ForwhatMacIntyreattemptsinthatbookisto createanepistemologicalcrisisfortheencyclopedistandgenealogist.TheformMacIntyre's argumenttakesisasimportantasitscontent.Putsimply,MacIntyrefightsfairjusttothe extenthisargumenttakestheformofanarrativethatinvitesfurtherresponse.MacIntyre's work,therefore,musthavethesameessentialincompletenessthathesoinsightfullysuggests inThreeRivalVersions(p.124)istheheartandsoulofAquinas'Summa. 25.Iam,ofcourse,referringtothetitleofJohnHowardYoder's,ThePoliticsofJesus(Grand Rapids,Mich.:Eerdmans,1994).ThisisthesecondeditionofthebookthatcontainsYoder's updatefromthe1972edition.Forawonderfulattempttoworkoutthepoliticsofa perspectivelikeYoder'swithincurrentdiscussionsinpoliticaltheory,seeThomasHeilke,"On BeingEthicalwithoutMoralSadism:TwoReadingsofAugustineandtheBeginningsofthe AnabaptistRevolution,"PoliticalTheory24,no.3(August,1996):493517.Heilkedevelopsthe Anabaptistpracticeofthebanasanalternativetothepoliticsofviolence.Henotesthatsucha "politics"maynotseemsuchtothosewhoassumethatthe"efforttosustainahegemonic, territorial,sovereignentity,embodiedinaphysicalcollectiveofhumanbeingsandarticulated toactionforitsownselfpreservation"constitutestheonlyentitythatdeservesthename "political"(p.513).Suchaviewofpoliticshelpsmakeclearwhythechurchcannothelpbut appearasathreattosuch"politics''thechurchisapolitythatrepresentsnosuchcollective butisatonceathomeandnotathomeinallsuchpolitics.Thechurch,likemanyterrorist organizations,canbeunderstoodasaninternationalconspiracyagainstallpoliticsbasedon "selfpreservation." 26.EmmanuelKatongole,ParticularityandMoralRationality:QuestioningtheRelation betweenReligionandEthicswithReferencetotheWorkofStanleyHauerwas(Ph.D.diss. KatholiekeUniversiteit,Leuven,1996),pp.2089.Katongole'sclaimthattruthdoesnotcome asacorrespondencetoanindependentrealityItaketobearejectionofcrudecorrespondent theoriesoftruth,thatis,theoriesthatMacIntyrecharacterizesasconceivingarealmof

103

factsindependentofjudgmentorofanyotherformoflinguisticexpression.MacIntyrerightly suggeststhatthereismuchtobesaidforcorrespondencetheoriesandoneunderstandsthat therelationbetweenmindanditsobjectsisgivenexpressioninjudgments.SeehisWhich Justice?WhichRationality?,pp.35460.

104