Abstract principle and concrete responsibility

A God who demands bold action and promises forgiveness

Just to be clear:

1.     I’m in favor of free speech. The solution to hate speech is more free speech. Usually.

2.     There are many abstract principles I believe in – free speech and assembly, freedom of religion, a free press, justice, mercy – you get the idea.

3.     And there are, at times, necessary limits on any abstract principle. So, it’s not okay to yell fire in a crowded theater. Concrete responsibility at times outweighs the abstract principle.

4.     Christians share in the stewardship of institutions and nations. Part of that stewardship is sorting through when to uphold the abstract principle and when to act on concrete responsibility.

5.     So, in what I’m saying here I’m doing three things: First, the educator part of Brother Robert wants to encourage broader and deeper reflection in our moral and ethical struggles. Second, the citizen wants to act responsibly according to his conscience. And third, the Christian, religious, and priest is sharing his own view about the need for concrete responsibility to take place over abstract principle around the increase in antisemitism.

6.     And in returning to my role as the citizen of an imperfect liberal democracy, I hope others will sort this out and disagree with me as they uphold the abstract principle.

In Letters and Papers from Prison Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, “The ultimate question for a responsible man to ask is not how he is to extricate himself heroically from the affair, but how the coming generation is to live. It is only from this question, with its responsibility toward history, that fruitful solutions can come, even if for the time being they are very humiliating. In short, it is much easier to see a thing through from the point of abstract principle than from that of concrete responsibility. The rising generation will always instinctively discern which of these we make a basis for our actions, for it is their own future that is at stake.”

Having returned from the safety of teaching at a seminary in the United States to the world of Nazi Germany, Bonhoeffer ended up struggling with a moral dilemma. He’s decision to participate in the plot to kill Hitler was a decision for concrete responsibility over abstract principle. His own ethical purity sacrificed for what he saw as the future of his nation.

He wrote, "Who stands his ground? Only the man whose ultimate criterion is not in his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, or his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all these things, when he is called to obedient and responsible action in faith and exclusive allegiance to God. The responsible man seeks to make his whole life a response to the question and call of God. …Only now, are we Germans beginning to discover the meaning of free responsibility. It depends upon a God who demands bold action as the free response of faith, and who promises forgiveness and consolation to the man who becomes a sinner in the process."

His commitment was a to God “who demands bold action … and who promises forgiveness.” This wasn’t an intellectual resolution to his moral dilemma but an act of obedience and humility.

The parish church exists in a contemporary world awash in the demands of abstract principles. Our members frequently find themselves either struggling with, or avoiding, trying to work out which abstract principle is correct. Sometimes that struggle is necessary. And at other times it is evading moral responsibility if what is needed is concrete responsibility.

When a manipulative and extremist politician asks you “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate the school’s code of conduct or policies on bullying and harassment?” Maybe the appropriate and moral answer isn’t a hypocritical response about free speech[1]. Maybe we find concrete responsibility and bold action by remembering the history of antisemitism, the holocaust, and October 7.[2] Maybe.

There are moments when moral action, concrete responsibility, calls for more of a “let your yes be yes and your no, no” – type response. As in - “Yes, that violates our code of conduct and is morally reprehensible.”

Maybe the university presidents were correct that you need to take context into account. The issue is which context actually offers you the appropriate moral guidance? What is there in your mind to be part of your reflection, your contemplation?

You may want to say, but there’s a problem with Bonhoeffer’s approach. We need principles to ground and guide us. I’d say, yes, Bonhoeffer knew that. That’s why it was a moral dilemma for him. That’s why there was a need for forgiveness for his bold action. Deciding that, in this case, there needed to be a tilt toward bold action and concrete responsibility must have been rooted in his assessment of the situation in front of him, what was necessary for the well-being of future generations, what he knew of German and world history, and his broad sense of social ethics.  

And so it would be for three university presidents. As I write this, two of them have apologized. As always it’s a mix of things done, and things left undone.

Claudine Gay was sorry, saying she “got caught up in what had become at that point, an extended, combative exchange about policies and procedures.” She thought she should have been connected to her “guiding truth” that threats to the Jewish community and students need to be challenged.

Liz Magill said, "in that moment, I was focused on our universities, long-standing policies aligned with the US Constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable. I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence, human beings can perpetrate. It's evil -- plain and simple."

Apologies are sometimes a good thing. They don’t quite say, “please forgive me.” But they are close.

As I was writing this Ms. Magill resigned. The NYT report characterized the situation she faced, “With students deeply divided over the war, university presidents have tried to balance pro-Palestinian protesters’ right to free speech with concerns that some of their language has been antisemitic.”

If the antisemitic language were just of the “I hate Jews” variety it wouldn’t be morally okay, but free speech claims would seem to have validity. But too much of what we hear is extermination and violence condoning language. The question I’m raising is whether this is one of those times when we need to tilt toward the concrete responsibility of saying “no” to such expression. Given the long history of antisemitism, given the images of Nazi mobs in front of Jewish businesses and institutions, might this be a moment in time to say, this is much worse than yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. It appears that, on reflection, two of the presidents have moved in that direction at least in regard to their student codes of conduct.

The language games are themselves a form of terror. Yes, the intifada was an uprising. It was a very violent uprising. The attempt to flip the story and use the word genocide against Israel and the Jews is cruel manipulation.  The misuse of words like occupier, apartheid, and colonialist are in effect a cover to justify violence against Israel and Jews.

Back to the three presidents. It makes perfect sense to me that in that situation they were aware of being in a kind of combat. Under pressure from a politician they didn’t like or trust. They lost themselves for the moment.

I still wonder what was in the deeper part of their reflection.  My guess is that one part had to do upholding the principle of free speech. Magill said that was true for her. Another part may have had to do with their struggle to maintain peace on the university campuses. Knowing that one segment, would disagree with them, feel hurt, and there would be the loss of financial support. And that another segment would engage in loud and aggressive demonstrations that included more antisemitism. 

We know there are limits to free speech. You can’t yell fire in the movie theater. I’m wondering if maybe now, at this moment, having a norm that you can’t yell genocide, either directly, or indirectly, in front of Jewish institutions, in a manner that threatens Jewish students and professors, in a manner that doesn’t just cause discomfort because it is free speech that differs or makes you uncomfortable, but because it is bullying and harassment, it is incitement and true threats, and historically that this kind of threat by the mob has led to the death of millions. What we are seeing is targeted, repetitive, and extreme harassment that is aimed at a specific community of people. We know where this leads. Might this moment call for concrete responsibility over abstract principle?

Heavenly Father, in you we live and move and have our being: We humbly pray you so to guide and govern us by your Holy Spirit, that in all the cares and occupations of our life we may not forget you, but may remember that we are ever walking in your sight; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

This abides,

Brother Robert, OA

---

[1] In FIREs 2024 College Free Speech ratings Harvard comes in last (248), Penn is 247

[2] A history of Nazis standing outside Jewish shops screaming hate, of German Bund gatherings in Madison Square Garden, of our turning away the M.S. St. Louis filled with Jewish refugees. The three presidents are all well-educated enough that they probably know the long history of antisemitism --  persecution and resentment when they refused to adopt the religion of local king, the Roman army destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem and Jews were exiled and scattered, then a Christian desire to have their religion seen as superseding Judaism, accusing the Jews as murderers of God. Jews being forbidden to marry Christians and restricted from government roles,  Jews barred from most occupations and forced into work such as money-lending and commerce. then the fantasies and mythologies emerged of Jews involved in ritual murders and “blood libel,” Crusader massacres of Jewish communities, that they were responsible for the Bubonic Plague, and they used the blood of Christian boys to make Passover Mat, 100,000 Jews were burned alive in Austrian and Germany, expelled from several nations (England,  France, and Spain). More? Russian secret police published The Protocols of the Elders of Zion about a secret plot by rabbis to take over the world, then The Dreyfus Affair, followed by more than 500 Jewish communities destroyed and 60,000 Jews murdered in the Ukraine pogroms (1917-21). And more – the Holocaust. Here’s a statement for the Vatican in 1998: “This century has witnessed an unspeakable tragedy, which can never be forgotten — the attempt by the Nazi regime to exterminate the Jewish people, with the consequent killing of millions of Jews. Women and men, old and young, children and infants, for the sole reason of their Jewish origin, were persecuted and deported. Some were killed immediately, while others were degraded, ill-treated, tortured and utterly robbed of their human dignity, and then murdered. Very few of those who entered the [concentration] camps survived, and those who did remained scarred for life. This was the Shoah.” And in 1997, Pope John Paul II spoke of, “… erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability have circulated for too long...” and “contributed to a lulling of many consciences” at the time of World War II, so that, while there were “Christians who did everything to save those who were persecuted, even to the point of risking their own lives, the spiritual resistance of many was not what humanity expected of Christ’s disciples.” In recent years there’s been a dramatic increase of antisemitism, some is  connected to Israel. Some less direct as seen in an excessive criticism of Israel and accusations that Jews  are not loyal to the countries in which they live or that they have too much power. (Thanks to the Anti-Defamation League and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum for their information and work.)