The Moral Theology of Roger Williams: Christian Convictions and Public Ethics.
Kelsay, John
THE MORAL THEOLOGY OF ROGER WILLIAMS: CHRISTIAN CONVICTIONS AND
PUBLIC ETHICS. By James Calvin Davis. Columbia Series in Reformed
Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Pp. xvii + 178.
$24.95.
Roger Williams has long fascinated historians of colonial America.
This 17th-century author, religious seeker, and erstwhile
"founder" of the Rhode Island colony, was a crucial figure in
the development of notions of religious liberty, as Perry Miller and
others have insisted.
Yet, Davis's account of the role of Christology in
Williams's writings provides strong evidence that these
commentators fail to appreciate the theological structure of
Williams's ideas. As D. has it, Williams was thoroughly embedded in
Christian theological discourse, particularly as developed by John
Calvin and his Puritan followers. Yet Williams's appropriation of
Calvin's ideas was hardly slavish. In depicting the Incarnation as
less a matter of fulfillment and more a kind of radical departure by
which God establishes a new way of dealing with humanity, Williams found
his way to quite distinctive understandings of Scripture, eschatology,
and most notably of ecclesiology. D. writes: "[The Incarnation]
symbolized a radical break in the way God related to the world, the
moment when God changed the nature of the relationship between God and
human beings.... Formerly God had singled out one political entity
[viz., Israel] with whom to hold covenant, endorsing an integration of
earthly and spiritual methods and priorities to characterize and
regulate [the divine covenant]. With the advent of Christ, however, the
political manifestation of an elect people was replaced with a
covenanted community that was spiritual in nature. Associated with no
single nation or culture, the church regulated its membership by
spiritual recourse only and relied on the persuasive powers of
'scattered witnesses' or evangelists to propagate the
Christian message. The disassociation of ecclesial and civil power that
Williams believed characterized history after the incarnation reflected
the fact that 'the nature of Christian life until the millennium
was implacable opposition between Christ and the world'" (27).
Williams's understanding of the Incarnation thus led to a radically
separatist notion of the Church, in which true believers were to be
gathered in associations of "scattered witnesses." To put it
bluntly, Williams could never find a gathering of witnesses that suited
him, at least not for very long.
D. believes that Williams's theology has import for
contemporary discussions of the Christian life. This is particularly so
with respect to the ways Williams's understandings of natural law
and conscience address disputes between "universalists" and
"particularists," and serve to fund the practice of
"civility." Knowledge of moral precepts like "do not
murder" constitutes a kind of "candle or light"
(Williams) "that remains in every person despite sin, providing
moral direction and telling us the difference between right and
wrong" (62). Similarly, conscience serves to signify the
"light" that lightens every person, and by which each
understands him- or herself to be accountable for acts done or undone.
Here D. highlights fascinating and important distinctions between
Williams and other Reformed theologians, particularly with respect to
the notion of "erroneous conscience." For Williams, the point
of this notion was that religious and moral error might nevertheless be
conscientious, and thus worthy of respect. For his opponents, discipline
is medicine for the conscience of a sinner.
Natural law and conscience provide support for the practice of
civility, which D. describes as "respect for and cultivation
of" common morality (93). According to D., "civility"
indicates the possibility of integrating Christian commitment with
respect for religious and moral plurality. Here lies Williams's
importance for contemporary Christian reflection. In arguing this point,
D. puts Williams in conversation with Stanley Hauerwas, James Gustafson,
and others.
D. makes a compelling case for reading Williams as a theologian.
The import of Williams's thought for contemporary theological
ethics is another matter. D. is correct that Williams provides a model
by which one can speak about the overlap between Christian conviction
and something like a liberal political order. At the same time,
Williams's radical separatism impoverishes the life of the Church.
I read Williams's pure, yet scattered, witnesses in the light of
Ernst Troeltsch's notion that the Church in the 20th century would
form along the lines of a "mystic type" in which believers
associate with like-minded persons, and maintain bonds of fellowship so
long as these prove helpful for private spiritual quests. As Troeltsch
had it, such "spiritual associations" could not sustain the
social witness characteristic of historic Christian faith. In this
respect, both "church" and "sect" were and are
superior forms of organizing Christian life.
Here Troeltsch's comments seem apt. I admire D.'s
treatment of Williams, and hope that students of religious ethics will
pay much attention to this well-researched and interesting study. While
one might not share D.'s optimism regarding Williams's promise
for contemporary Christian ethics, The Moral Theology of Roger Williams
is a major scholarly contribution.
JOHN KELSAY
Florida State University, Tallahassee
