Note: This article supplements and should be read in conjunction with “My Shari’a.”
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has written a book, The Truce of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005), outlining some of his larger beliefs concerning issues of war and peace. Originally published in the early 1980s and revised recently, it provides valuable insight into Williams’ political thought, and how he sees the Christian Church working in the political realm—as well as what line of thinking may have influenced his comments on shari’a.
Williams believes that the Church “must be a standing challenge to all war-oriented policy; above all to a policy which . . . speaks in terms of retaliation and a balance of terror.” Those positions, according to Williams, “assume[e] that our interests are a priority for which no price is too high—the very assumption which the catholic Gospel utterly contradicts.” He does not call on the Church to oppose national security or national defense, both of which he considers necessary. But he calls the Church to stand against any view “that we [can] live without” other human beings, whoever they may be. War is evil to Williams partially because he believes it involves a rejection of other people for whom Christ died.
To this point, Williams’ views seem predictably liberal. But throughout The Truce of God, Williams often undermines this supposition by rejecting several common tenets of progressive thought and adhering to Christian orthodoxy. Williams’ central concern is that nations are, like individual human beings, self-deceitful: In their attitudes and actions, he sees them rejecting the Christian understanding of original sin. Countries that believe in their own innate goodness and look at their history through rose-colored glasses are self-deceived, Williams says; they don’t recognize their own sinfulness. He applies the same criticism to the peace movement of the 1960s and 1970s, which he sees as having naively but dangerously proclaimed a belief in the goodness of humanity. (Williams does call Christians to work for peace, but at the same time he sees peace as always accompanied by conflict. Christ always, according to the archbishop, leads Christians into conflict with the world, and peace only comes from obedience to God’s will.)
As a result, the archbishop believes that nations must always be circumspect and open to reevaluating their motives and actions throughout history. From Williams’ point of view, such self-evaluation should lead nations to repentance and amendment of their actions. Perhaps most dangerous to him are beliefs that war is inevitable and that peace is achieved through a buildup of arms. The archbishop warns of nations being fundamentally self-interested and inconsiderate of how their actions will hurt other countries—often leading to disastrous consequences on the world stage.
Take the example of terrorism. It, according to Williams, is always “morally outrageous” and “wicked,” and terrorists are always responsible for their actions. Still, the archbishop asserts that the reasons for what they do almost always are rational as opposed to irrational, even though they are “appallingly wicked.” He believes that governments need to study terrorists’ thinking and see if any national policies or past actions have encouraged terrorism. If so, the governments need to repent of what they have done wrong. Furthermore, he argues that nations must work preemptively against possible terrorism not by building up arms or initiating preemptive strikes, but by (as much as possible) avoiding activities that may unintentionally or even inadvertently encourage terrorism.
Importantly, Williams does not assign automatic moral equivalence between different parties in a conflict, as some liberals do. Continuing with the example of terrorism, he writes, “[t]his is not to say that there is ‘moral equivalence’ between the terrorist and the combatant in the ranks of the Western alliances.” Williams does believe that both groups “are open to moral challenge” because those who plan for war—even in reacting against terrorism—are aware that innocent people most likely will be killed in the conflict. He also leaves open the possibility of cases in which both the terrorist and the combatant are equally in the wrong, even if for different reasons. However, he stresses, “[t]his does not mean that [both sides] have to be judged indistinguishable on moral grounds” (emphasis in original). So Williams rejects moral equivalence (at least in the vast majority of cases) but apparently still sees both parties in a war (e.g., the War on Terror) as inevitably being at fault in some manner.
Williams’ sense of morality and application of the doctrine of original sin inform his views on the Church’s role relating to war and peace. While the archbishop believes that the Church should have an influential voice in political issues and that societies should look to the Church for guidance, he doesnot believe the Church’s role is to focus on policy prescriptions. Rather, the Church should exercise political influence by calling governments to a right understanding of human nature—that they are fundamentally sinful
The Church, according to Williams, fulfills this call through influencing others and working in the world. He proposes the development of international “moral communit[ies]” influenced by the Church’s right understanding of human nature that can positively impact their spheres of influence. He does not place hope in international governing bodies like the United Nations, which he sees as unable to provide such moral leadership (perhaps because he sees nations as inherently self-interested). Rather, the archbishop proposes options ranging from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to Christian communities—all of which should have a concern for helping the parts of the world in which they exist. And Christians should not pursue grandiose plans for changing the world, but should be content to make a difference in small ways, focusing mainly on their local area. God, Williams affirms, is pleased to work through small actions and uses them to transform people and societies.
How do Williams’ views illuminate his proposal regarding shari’a? The archbishop clearly believes that it is wrong to assume that anyone is purely evil and always to be rejected. He extended that same benefit of the doubt to shari’a in his recent comments. The fact that Muslims believe that all of shari’a comes not from man, but from God, does not appear to have impacted him. Liberal Muslims, while they hold to the divine origin of shari’a, have views that sometime sharply diverge from those of traditional and radical Muslims. Some liberal Muslims interpret shari’a as either requiring or allowing both a democratic form of government and peaceful coexistence of Muslims with those of other faiths. Others believe that the interpretation of shari’a is never divine and so always fallible, a view that opens the possibility of radically reinterpreting shari’a‘s regulations. Significantly, it is the work of liberal Muslims to which Williams appealed in his recent comments—and which probably motivated his rejection of what he called “an all-or-nothing approach” to shari’a.
No comments yet
Leave a Reply