1) The document discusses different perspectives on the relationship between just war theory, the gospel ethic of nonviolence, and their application to individuals and states. 2) It notes there are views that a just war is a necessary evil for states but the gospel ethic is ultimately normative, as well as views that differentiate between individual vocations and political responsibilities. 3) The author expresses sympathy for a view that a just war could be a probable good achieved through political means while still upholding nonviolence as an extraordinary virtue, and calls for serious consideration of multiple approaches.

1. In response to John Dear, SJ at
http://ncronline.org/blogs/road-peace/revenge-not-way
Most accept that it is not helpful to call those who disagree
with us on every particular matter of orthodoxy – heretics;
neither should we call those who disagree with us on widely
disputed matters of orthopraxy – “wolves in sheep’s clothing.”
In the faith development trajectory of most traditions,
belonging (orthocommunio) will enjoy a primacy over desiring
(orthopathy) which will precede behaving (orthopraxy), all
before believing (orthodoxy). Therefore, it is best that we
first model hospitality that they know they belong and next
invite them to our worship where our own holy desires were
first formed. If the right-behaving doesn’t ensue, it might be
better to introspectively discern where we, ourselves, may
have gone wrong in our community and liturgical life before
reflexively laying off the blame on our poor proselytees.
1) Some view a just war as a probable good to be achieved by
political statecraft and the Gospel ethic of nonviolence as an
invitation to an extraordinary virtue (praiseworthy and
exceeding the demands of justice) to be realized in the here
and now by individual vocation, both aspirations grounded in a
presumption for peace.
2) Others view a just war as a necessary evil and the Gospel
ethic as ultimately and finally – not immediately – normative,
both grounded in a presumption against violence.
3) And there are a few who take the Gospel ethic of
nonviolence as absolutely and immediately normative for both
individuals and states.
One might find merit in each of these approaches if each is
placed in the proper context. Are we dealing with ontic (pre-
moral) or moral evils? moral or practical realities? now or
eschatologically? individually or politically? necessary evils
vs lesser & higher goods? a presumption for peace (and
justice) or against violence? I resonate more with #1 than
either #2 or #3 above. But they also deserve serious
consideration.
The elements of these different stances are often combined in
other ways, too. Even those who hold to the very same
principles may differ in their moral judgments because they
may otherwise reasonably disagree regarding empirical and
prudential matters in evaluating what may also be a legitimate
plurality of solutions. In the writings of John Courtney
Murray, Reinhold Niebuhr, Stanley Hauerwas and John Howard
Yoder, many of these things are given thoughtful consideration
and from significantly divergent perspectives. Do check them
out.
My own thoughts?
I am least sympathetic to Niebuhr’s realism, which has found
1

2. its way piecemeal into the writings of Obama, McCain and
Clinton even if not systematically (which would be hard to do
for all sorts of reasons). Consistent with his catholic
stance, Murray’s approach is not at all dialectical or over
against “the world.” I very heartily resonate with the
Anabaptist and Mennonite sensibilities, perhaps more so from a
vocational and prophetic witness perspective, but no so much
from the belief that they would have any broader normative
impetus, especially for political statecraft.
Too many critiques engage caricatures. This may be especially
true of pacifism, which has about twenty distinct forms per
Yoder. Even buying into Murray’s distinction between
statecraft and vocation, wouldn’t our politics change
drastically if more of us embraced nonviolence? Even if we
reject Niebuhr’s realism, which colors the Gospel ethic as too
otherworldly, couldn’t we accept his practical accommodations
to human weakness on the basis of a compassionate pastoral
sensitivity (even as we would reject any theoretical
capitulations — i.e. watered-down Gospel — based on
disingenuous theological reinterpretations)?
As for normative impetus, it includes not only moral force but
practical considerations and the normative significance of
religion has always been much less about morality, which is
transparent to human reason without the benefit of special
revelation (although not in some grand Kantian way but an
approach that is much more contritely fallible than that), and
much more about an invitation into worshipful, loving
relationship.
On the occasion of Yoder’s passing, Hauerwas wrote:
“Reading Yoder made me a pacifist. It did so because John
taught me that nonviolence was not just another ‘moral issue’
but constitutes the heart of our worship of a crucified
messiah.”
Indeed, the response our crucified messiah invites is not only
ultimate but immediate. Still, it would be wrong to
characterize aspirations that clearly exceed the demands of
justice as generally morally binding.
1) Governments aren’t subject to the ethics of Jesus? Really?
<<<
To the extent state secularization has (properly and
thankfully) taken hold in our pluralistic society, no, the
government does not need the ethics of Jesus per se or what
are ostensibly Christian norms in particular. But precisely
because, as you suggest, such moral truth is neither private
nor available only to Christians but, as I said, is otherwise
already transparent to human reason (albeit fallibly so)
without the benefit of special revelation, not to worry, n'est
pas?
In the USA, state secularization, fostered by the
nonestablishment and free exercise clauses of the 1st
2

3. Amendment, has enhanced religion's influence in the public
square rather than marginalizing it (as happened on the
Continent post-Enlightenment), but, in order to profitably
exercise that influence, any specifically moral teachings must
be translated into the lingua franca (common parlance),
philosophically and/or common sensically, without
authoritarian appeals to such as Scripture, a Magisterium, a
Tradition or private experiences (revelations).
2) So does that mean that governments should not be just,
serve the common good, or seek peace? This sounds like
recycled dualism. While the government is not the church, the
mission of God working through the church is to transform ALL
life, including governments, into new birth. The truth of
Christ is not a private truth, available only to Christians,
but is the very logos that grounds all creation and calls all
governments into true vocation. <<<
Of course we are to permeate and improve the temporal order!
Secularization is a strategy for affairs of the state (not for
society or culture) and, with an amplified rather than
marginalized voice in the public square, religions have the
opportunity to influence the government politically, again,
translating their moral stances into arguments transparent to
human reason, indeed, being just, serving the common good and
seeking peace. There is nothing dualistic here in this
approach, which resonates more with JC Murray, less with
Niebuhr, who establishes a temporal dialectical approach (over
against) between the present world and other-worldliness,
eschatologically,or Yoder, who establishes a spiritual
dialectical approach between the world and the church,
ecclesiologically.
3) Conservatives can’t on one hand say that US is a Christian
nation that should hold to moral codes–about say, abortion and
gay marriage–and on the other deny that the government has a
role to play in being and seeking justice as Jesus prescribed.
<<<
Whether conservative, liberal or independent, whatever one's
moral emphases (among the life issues, usually, whether war or
abortion or extreme poverty), the same principles apply. JC
Murray shed some light on government's role; it is to maintain
the public order but not to codify and enforce all moral
realities. The subsidiarity principle, consistently applied,
establishes a proper bias against government (inherently
coercive) and for individual freedom in the service of human
dignity but with due attention to the common good.
All that said, in my view, morality is NOT what distinguishes
the core mission (much less core competency) of our religions,
which are not mostly about either describing or norming
reality, or even evaluating it, but are instead more about
interpreting reality vis a vis its meaning and giving it
eternal (beyond the mass-energy-space-time plenum)
significance. It might be helpful if the churches spent way
3

4. more time evangelizing (witnessing more by action, less by
apologetics) and way less time moralizing, in my view.
The teachings of Jesus are NOT mostly ethical or moral but
transcend (go beyond not without) these concerns to establish
the robustly relational, inviting us into a loving (not
moralistic in emphasis but, instead, intimate) trust
relationship that is intrinsically rewarding (like truth,
beauty and goodness are their own rewards) and with less
emphasis on the extrinsic rewards (e.g. for good behavior).
Finally, politics is the art of the possible, and the
charitable presumption might be that most people of large
intelligence and profound goodwill differ, therefore, not in
their moral stances but in their practical and strategic
approaches. These approaches get caricatured as moral rather
than practical differences in order to cynically manipulate,
demagogue and energize one political faction or another. If
religious leaders and politicians would declare a moratorium
on moralizing that might be pragmatically helpful and if they
would all shut up already with their moral grandstanding that
would be aesthetically appealing to me (I don't want to offer
a moral prescription for what they might do, for that would be
too ironic).
+++
Thanks for the feedback, folks. There are several key
distinctions in play, in my view, on which people can disagree
of course. Ron, you properly invoke a redemptive imagination
and speak of "justice" beyond retaliation. The way I have
approached these ideas is to look at the Gospel or Good News
as a brand new category; it indeed goes beyond Old Testament
justice but not by being a type of justice or a moral
category. It has moral implications but is not an essentially
moral proposition. Neither is it grounded in practical
considerations and extrinsic reward systems (like crime &
punishment or even afterlife calculations).
The Good News has the type of performative significance that
is much more closely related to how one might respond when one
is in love, when one has been invited and initiated into a
relationship characterized by intimacy, trust and abiding
presence. Being in love with one's spouse or children or
family is not foremost a moral reality, which is to say that
it is not mostly about doing something because it is right or
wrong, good or evil. Neither is this being in love driven, as
I said, by extrinsic rewards (what am I going to get out of
this?) or practical concerns. It is an intrinsically rewarding
reality like truth, beauty, goodness and freedom, which are
rewards in and of themselves. It is intensely personal and
much less so functional. Now, the Old Testament God was very
much more an impersonal deity, although more involved than any
deistic God of the philosophers. Jesus came and revealed God
as Abba, as Daddy, and invited us into that type of trust and
4

5. intimacy. Now, clearly, if we are going to respond to God in a
much more personal way (Daddy, lover, friend) and a much less
functional manner (cosmic policeman, provider), that will have
moral implications because we will, indeed, act differently
toward God and others, who are all now sisters and brothers.
But this is not first a moral reality but a robustly
relational dynamic. We do not start with behavior and belief
but, instead, with belonging and desire.
So, what differentiates the Christian brand in the marketplace
is not foremost a moral reasoning, which as Kevin properly
noted is already available to all people, being transparent to
human reason and, as Sammie recognized, is already at work in
the Old Testament, which was not dispensed with but is still
operative. Jesus didn't do away with the law or with justice
but broke open an entirely new category for relating to God
and it ends up exceeding the demands of justice with realities
like charity and mercy. When people do not act in accordance
with such Gospel imperatives as charity, mercy, forgiveness
and so on, they are not therefore necessarily being immoral or
even unChristian even if being Christ-like is an ideal to
which they aspire because there are many other distinctions
that may come into play. For example, many believe that the
Gospel ethic of nonviolence is an invitation to a personal
vocation (as even a voice of prophetic protest) but is not
otherwise being prescribed for the purposes of political
statecraft.
++++
5