persist.Alexanderprovidesaputativetheoryof howmoralprinciplesandthemoralsentiments playanindispensableroleineffectivechoice, actingasfastandfrugalmethodstosolve problemsinsocialcontexts.Whereaseachindividualwithinasocialcontexthasgoals,theabilityof
eachtoattainhisgoalisconstrainedbythefactof society.Thestructureofsocietythusconstrains howpeopleinteract,howpeoplelearn,andwhat peoplemaydotoattaintheirgoals.
RegentUniversityBradfordMcCall
CovenantofPeace:theMissingPeaceinNewTestamentTheologyandEthics. By
Pp.xviii,542, GrandRapidsMI/Cambridge,Eerdmans,2006,$35.00.
Inwhatshouldbecomeanimportantcontribution tobothfieldsofScriptureandChristianEthics, MennonitescholarWillardSwartleyseekstoplace peaceatthecentreofNewTestamentstudies. CrucialtoSwartley’sthesisisthecloselinguistic studyofGreekandHebrewwordsforpeace.Here henotesthewayinwhichthepeacelanguageof theBiblehasbeenlargelyoverlookedbyScripture scholars,eventhoseworkinginbiblicalbased ethics.BasedonhisanalysisoftheNewTestament,incontrastpeaceiscentraltotheGospels,to PaulandPaulineliterature–andeventotheBook ofRevelation.Moreover,heargues,thisis profoundlyrootedintheHebrewScriptures:the imageofGodasaviolentwarriorhasbeen disastrouslymisreadbyscholars.
IntheSynopticGospels,heargues,Jesusis consistentlyrepresentedasGod’speacemaker. MatthewspresentsJesusastheoppositeofan imperial,warlikemessianicSonofDavid–heis themessiah-kingwhoshowshisfollowersthe peaceablewayoflifethroughhislifeandthought. MarkrepresentsJesusasapeacemakerwho challengestheforcesofevilbutdoesnotaccept thesystem’sviolenceasnormative.Hisisa nonviolentconfrontationwithevilthatleadsto hisdeathandvindicationasGod’sSon.InLukeActsweseemasimilarrepresentationofJesusas themessiahofpeacewhoseexampleguidesand inspireshisfollowersinthechurch.Peaceisalso centraltothemessageofStPaul,arguesSwartley, whetheroneexaminesPaul’sChristologyorhis exhortationstotheChristiancommunity.ConsistentlyPauladvocatesnonviolentresistancetoevil.
ThisistruetoointheJohannineCorpus,where peaceandmissionareintimatelyconnected.Even theBookofRevelation–notoriousinsomecircles –proclaimsthismessage.TheChristiancommunitiesarecalledupontoresistthepowersofempire nonviolentlytothepointofmartyrdom.Itisnot theChristiancommunity’stasktoseekvengeance againsttheenemiesofGod.ThatisuptoGod.But itisadangerousmisreading,Swartleyargues,to assumethatGod’svengeancewillfollowthe conventionalpatternswenormallyassociatewith vengeance.
WillardM.Swartley.ThoughGodisrepresentedasawarriorinthe HebrewScriptures,itisamisreadingtoassume thatGodactslikeaconventionalwarrior.Byclose readingoftexts,Swartleypointsoutthatdivine vengeanceisbestunderstoodbytheinsightthat violencereboundsontheviolent.Goddoesnot inflictviolentpunishment;weinflictonourselves. SotooshouldwereadRevelation’spromiseof divinereckoning:theempireofantichristwill destroyitself.
WillardSwartleyhasamassedavastarrayof scripturaltextstoarguehiscase.Assuchitshould appealtoScripturescholarsandChristianethicists alike.ThoughIcannotmakeanyclaimtobeing theformer,Iamincreasinglyawareoftheneedfor amoresubtleandscientificuseofscripturein Christianethics.Apartfromthefewwhospecialize in‘ScriptureandEthics’,mostethicistsare,I suspect,nervousofScripture–withtheresultthat tooutsidersmoraltheologycanappearattimes quiterationalist,even(dareIsayit)‘ungodly’! Giventhatmostofuscannotbeexpertinboth disciplinesitisvaluable–andchallenging–tobe presentedwithabooklikethis.
ItisvaluableinthesensethatSwartley’sclear expositionofScripturechallengesustoseethe foundationtextsofChristiantraditionwithnew eyes.Nodoubtbiblicalscholarscanandwilldispute withhimovertheparticularmeaningsofwords–giventhatGreekhasthistendencytohavearange ofsubtlydistinctmeaningsattachedtowordsthis seemsinevitable.ForChristianethiciststhevalue andchallengeofthisbookistoinviteustoa reorientationofourthinkingaboutpeace.Many,if notmost,aresympathetic,oratleastacquiesce,toa ‘justwar’ethic.Thoughthisapproachisrooted traditionallyinclassicalphilosophyandjurisprudence,transposedintoChristiantraditionby AmbroseandAugustine,someexponentsalsoseek totraceitbacktoScripture,particularlytoHebrew Scripture’simageofGodasawarriorandofthe legitimationofforcebyGod’sChosen,theIsraelites. ThisstepiscalledintoquestionbySwartley’sbook. ByimplicationofScripture’snormativityfor Christians,thewholejustwartraditionisalso calledintoquestion.
IsSwartleyrightinhisassertion?Isheright,but overstatinghiscase?Andevenifheismisreading Scripture,shouldnotthemisreadinginviteusto considerthepurposeofsuchmisreading?Moral realists,thedisciplesofReinholdNiebuhr,would saythatevenifSwartley’sinterpretationis substantivelycorrectitisimpracticalina‘fallen’ world.Manyotherswouldarguethatadogmatic assertionofChristianpacifismisopentomisreadingandmanipulationtoexercisecontrol[through passive-ism]overoppressedpeoples–clearly not Swartley’sintention,onemustadd,butonewe haveseeninmanycountries.Andthereare certainlymanyproblemsevenwithnonviolent civildisobedience:evenGandhihimselfdoubted whether Satyagraha wouldhaveworkedagainsta Hitler.Thissaid,onemusttakenoteofthecritique ofarushtoarmedrevolutionbysuchdistin-
guishednon-pacifistliberationtheologianslike JuanLuisSegundo.
ThegreatestvalueofSwartley’sbookisits challengetoallconcerned:toScripturescholarsto reexaminepeaceasabiblicaltheme;tononviolent activistsandtojustwarriorsaliketoreflectmore criticallyontheirpresuppositions.
Asanaside,tantalizinglytooshortforthis reader,SwartleymeditatesonhowtheEucharistin theearlyChristiancommunitywasrootedin peace:actionsthat‘lookedback’notonlytothe LastSupperofthepeacefulmessiahbutalso forwardtothepeacefulreignofGod.Thissounds likeanotherbookinthemaking.Onewaitswith anticipation.
TheJesuitInstitute,Johannesburg,SA
AnthonyEganAGrammaroftheCommonGood. By PatrickRiordan.Pp.195, London,Continuum,2009, d65.00.
Thisbook,byaJesuitpoliticalphilosopher teachingatHeythropCollege,Universityof London,takesintoaccountnewchallenges(and opportunities)posedbyglobalizationandsurveys languageaboutthecommongoodemployedin severaldisciplines.Awarethatlanguageaboutthe commongoodcansufferfrombeingeithertoo vagueandimprecise–andthusuninformative–on theonehand,and,ontheotherhand,canbetoo ambitiousandthusthreateningofindividual liberty,Riordanoffersamappingoftheterritory withregardtothecommongoodparallelto Newman’smappingofaspectsoftheepistemology ofreligiousknowledgeinhis GrammarofAssent (p.6).Hecastshisnetwide,andthisisoneofthe strengthsofthebook.Heconsidersmaterialonthe commongoodfoundin‘theconstitutionsofstates, Churchdocuments,booksonpolitics,contributionstobusinessethics,considerationsofthelaw indifferentsystems,textsfromsociologyand economics’(p.9).Anythingnarrowermightfailto beadequatelyinclusiveofthebreadthofhuman concerns.
Variousquestionsarisewhenexploringwhatis meantbythecommongood.Whichaspectsof humanlifearetoreceiveattention–economic, social,cultural,political,religious?Whichqualitiesaretobepromoted–contemplation,friendship,justice?Isitpossibletoweighholinessagainst happinessashumangoals?Whoistobeincluded inaconcernforthecommongood–membersof one’simmediatefamilyorgroup,nation,race, religion,orpeoplefromother‘tribes’,criminals, enemies,competitors?Whichgoodsaretobe considered?Howaregoodstoberelated?Are
somehumangoodsincompatiblewithothers? Howmightprioritiesbedecidedandbywhom? Complexity,ambiguityandunpredictabilityin humanaffairsmakeithardtospecifyinadvance exactlywhatconditionsmustpertainifgoodsare tobeachievable.Canpeoplecooperateinpromotingandmaintainingtheconditionsforhuman fulfilmenteveniftheydisagreeabouthowthis fulfilmentistobeexpressedandunderstood?The commongoodcansurface(differently)ingames, sports,drama,music,relationships,politics,law andeducation.Isthereasingularcommongoodor isthenotioninescapablyplural?Isthecommon goodalready‘outthere’,readytobediscoveredor recognized,orisitsomethingnotyetinexistence, requiringtobeconstructed?Isitausefulfiction, or,worse,apieceoftrickery,atoolinthearmoury oftheunscrupulous,whoseekpoweroverothers? Isthecommongoodonlyrecognizabletothose whocanexercisecivicvirtuesorisitsomething equallytransparenttoall?ThesequestionsindicatetherangeofRiordan’sexplorationinthis book.
Thebookisstrongonhistoricalperspective (fromAristotletotoday),steepedininsightsfrom thepast,butalsoimpressivelycompetentinits probingbutsympatheticinterrogationofcontemporarythinkers.Riordanseemsequallyathomein hisanalysisoftextsfromthepastorthepresent,as inhisapplicationofconceptualtoolstoissuesin businessandpolitics.Hetreatsthecommongood as‘aheuristicconcept,namingsomethingwhichis tobediscovered,whichisnotsufficientlyknownto becapableofdetaileddescription,butsufficient fortheeliminationofcertaincandidateswhich