Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2006 Prophecy and Casuistry: Abortion, Torture and Moral Discourse M. Cathleen Kaveny Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at:https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of theHealth Law and Policy Commons Recommended Citation M. C. Kaveny,Prophecy and Casuistry: Abortion, Torture and Moral Discourse, 51 Vill. L. Rev. 499 (2006). Available at:https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/343 This Lecture is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please [email protected]. VILLANOVA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 51 2006 NUMBER 3 Donald A. Giannella Memorial Lecture PROPHECY AND CASUISTRY: ABORTION, TORTURE AND MORAL DISCOURSE M. CATHLEEN KAVENY* I. INTRODUCTION N his groundbreaking book, After Virtue, the philosopher Alasdair .MacIntyre argues that "the most striking feature of contemporary moral utterance is that so much of it is used to express disagreements; and the most striking feature of the debates in which these disagreements are ex- pressed is their interminable character."' In support of his claim, he gives examples from three well-known and seemingly never-ending debates of our time: the debate over whether it is ever just to wage war, the abortion debate and the debate about the relative priority of social equality and individual liberty.2 The consequence of this interminable disagreement, MacIntyre believes, is a widespread emotivism, which he defines as the view that "all evaluative judgments and more specifically all moral judgments are nothing but expressions of preference, expressions of attitude or feel- ing, insofar as they are moral or evaluative in character."3 What has caused such disagreement? According to MacIntyre, it was the loss of a coherent tradition of moral reasoning. In the wake of the religious wars of the early modern era, the Enlightenment project aimed to provide the West with a rational, secular foundation for moral norms that was both universally applicable and universally acceptable. With its failure, we are left with bits and pieces of incompatible moral traditions, the flotsam and jetsam from the shipwrecks of innumerable attempts to * John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and Professor of Theology, Notre Dame. A.B., Princeton University; M.A., M. Phil.,J.D., Ph.D, Yale University. This Essay is based on Professor Kaveny's lecture given on February 23, 2005. 1. ALASDAIR MAcINTYRE, AFTER VIRTUE 6 (1981). 2. Id. at 6-7 (discussing idea that competing arguments within each debate may be logically valid, yet there is no rational way to weigh claims against each other). 3. Id. at 11. (499) VILLANOVA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 51: p. 499 formulate a coherent framework for moral reflection that have been prof- fered over the centuries in the West.4 What to do now? In the celebrated last chapter of this celebrated book, MacIntyre opines that "we are not waiting for Godot, but for an- other-doubtless very different-St. Benedict."5 According to MacIntyre, the only hope that "morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness"6 is to mimic the strategy that allowed them to survive the dark ages of the past: the creation of monastic environments dedicated to passing on the tradition of the virtues. In later books MacIntyre comes to identify this tradition more closely with the Christian tradition, particularly as exemplified in the thoughts of St. Thomas 7 Aquinas. My fear, however, is that MacIntyre's monastery will be far less harmo- nious than he hopes. Serious tensions may well arise between and among the dedicated neo-traditionalists committed to retrieving and preserving the possibility of coherent moral discourse within the monastery walls. Why? As I will argue in this Essay, the intractability of contemporary moral disagreement does not arise solely from the inevitable tension among frag- ments of moral argument plucked from incompatible moral theories. Our difficulties do not stem solely from the challenge of brokering the rival moral claims of Kantians and utilitarians, or from negotiating the tension between hedonists and stoics. In the United States at the turn of the twenty-first century, we also confront serious moral disputes among persons who see themselves as belonging to the same moral tradition, and as holding themselves accountable to the same values and same account of the virtues. Consider, for example, the 2004 American presidential elec- tion. It was widely perceived to be an election that turned to some degree upon "moral values."8 Yet it generated bitter controversy among members 4. Id. at 238 (noting ramifications of failed Enlightenment project). 5. Id. at 245. 6. Id. at 244. 7. See generally ALASDAIR MAclNnvRE, THREE RwAL VERSIONS OF MORAL EN- QUIRY. ENCYCLOPAEDIA, GENEALOGY, AND TRADITION (1990) (discussing three dis- tinct methods of moral thought); ALASDAIR MACINTYRE, WHOSE JUSTICE? WHICH RATIONALITY? (1988) (addressing questions raised by After Virtue). 8. 2004 Election Results, CNN.coM (2004), http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/ 2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.O.html. The poll left unspecified what was meant by "moral values." A question in a CNN Poll asked which issue was most important to voters in their selection for president. The options were: taxes, education, Iraq, terrorism, economy/jobs, moral values, health care. Kerry won 73% of the votes from voters who believed Iraq was the most important issue, 80% of those who said economy/jobs, and 77% of those who said health care. Those who thought terrorism or moral values voted for Kerry far less frequently (Kerry received 14% and 18%, respectively). Bush won 80% of the votes from voters who believed that moral values was the most important issue and 80% of those who said terrorism. In contrast, Bush received only 26% of those who said Iraq, 23% of those who said health care, and 18% of those who said economy/jobs. All of these categories implicate "moral values." For example, the question of Iraq raises issues of when and under what conditions it is just to wage war, and both the economy 2006] PROPHECY AND CASUISTRY of the same religious communities, who presumably view the nature and purpose of human life in much the same way.9 In attempting to probe the nature of the disputes among co-religion- ists surrounding that election, we must tread cautiously. Some disagree- ments no doubt turned on factual questions: Did President Bush in fact have a reasonable basis for thinking there were weapons of mass destruc- tion in Iraq? Other disagreements turned on narrowly prudential judg- ments regarding the intermediate and long-term consequences of various courses of action: What was the likely effect of the American presence in Iraq for the stability of the Middle East? In addition, it goes without saying that not everyone who self-identifies as a member of a particular moral or religious tradition will treat its resources as a significant component in their own moral deliberations. Nonetheless, setting those cases to one side does not eliminate the problem. We continue to find ourselves faced with deep clashes of moral judgment among well-educated, committed adherents of the same relig- ious tradition.10 They do not give rise to fruitful discussion about differ- ences, but instead signal the breakdown of conversation, and frequently even the breakdown of community. My hypothesis is that at least some of these clashes-and some of these ensuing breakdowns-are not precipi- tated by factual disputes, or by the application of mutually inconsistent moral premises. Instead, they are driven by clashes in moral sensibility, which shapes and reflects clashes in style of moral discourse. More specifi- cally, I believe that they are driven by tensions between the prophetic style and health care raise issues of socialjustice. All these issues have been the subject of extensive reflection by moralists working within the Christian tradition, as well as other moral traditions. For an article putting the poll questions in a broader context, see Dick Meyer, Moral Values Malarkey, CBSNEws.coM, Nov. 5, 2004, http:/ /www.cbsnews.com/stories/ 2004/11/05/opinion/meyer/main653931.shtml (criticizing debate). For more extensive analysis, see Moral Values: How Important? Voters Liked Campaign 2004, but Too Much 'Mud-Slinging', PEW RES. CENTER, Nov. 11, 2004, http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/233.pdf (reviewing voter opinions). 9. See John C. Green et al., The American Religious Landscape and the 2004 Presi- dential Vote: Increased Polarization, PEwFORUM.ORG (2004), http://pewforum.org/ publications/surveys/postelection.pdf (discussing voter characteristics). 10. According to a CNN exit poll, Protestants comprised 54% of the voting population in the 2004 presidential election; 59% of them voted for Bush, while 40% voted for Kerry. Catholics, who constituted 27% of voters, gave 52% of their votes to Bush, and 47% to Kerry. Twenty-five percent ofJews, who comprise 3% of the population, voted for Bush, while 75% voted for Kerry. Among those who acquiesced to the description: white evangelical/born-again (23% of the popula- tion), 78% voted for Bush, while 21% voted for Kerry. Of those who did not ac- cept this description, 43% voted for Bush, while 56% voted for Kerry. Sixty-one percent of those who attended church weekly voted for Bush, while 39% voted for Kerry. Breaking down this statistic by religion gives an interesting picture: 70% of Protestants who attend church weekly voted for Bush (29% voted for Kerry), while only 50% of Catholics who attend church weekly voted for Bush (43% voted for Kerry). See 2004 Election Results, supra note 8 (describing proportions of population voting for Bush or Kerry based upon demographic and religious characteristics). VILIANOVA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 51: p. 499 and the casuistical style-between prophecy and casuistry.11 In testing this hypothesis, I would like to work inductively, attempting to describe and to map this clash, and perhaps to take a few small steps at managing it in a way that might prevent the breakdown of conversation, even while refus- ing to pretend to have reached a false truce. Let me begin by forthrightly acknowledging my limitations; prophecy and casuistry are big topics, and I am just beginning this study: so I begin with what I know best, hoping to move outward from there; I am a moral theologian working in the Christian tradition, in particular the Catholic Christian tradition. I am also an American lawyer. The resources upon which I will draw are largely made available. through those venues. But 11. My approach is similar to, but not identical with, the approach taken by the Jesuit John W. O'Malley in his important volume, Four Cultures of the West. O'Malley and I share a fascination with rhetoric. Regarding the disputes between Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation, he observes that: "[H]ow things were said was just as important as what was said, even though the how and the what could never be neatly separated." SeeJOHN W. O'MALLEY, FOUR CULTURES OF THE WEST 2 (2004). O'Malley argues that the West has produced four "cultures": the prophetic culture, the academic culture, the humanistic or poetic culture and the artistic culture. By culture he means a "configuration" of meaning; he goes on to say that: The elements within the configuration are forms, symbols, institutions, patterns of feeling, patterns of behavior, and the like. Among such ele- ments in culture two [academic culture], for instance, are lectures, exam- inations, academic gowns, and, most certainly, the diploma. Style of discourse is an especially important element in the configuration of any given culture, constitutive and revelatory of its design. Professors talk dif- ferently from poets. When taken together, the elements express a set of reciprocally dependent values and interpretations of reality. The artist has different priorities than the prophet. The different priorities suggest how the internal logic of the configuration makes it self-validating to those living within it and resistant to other such configurations. Prophets sound unrealistic, even dangerously reckless, to the statesman. I use the word configurationb ecause it indicates relationships and proportions. Val- ues central to one culture may be found in another but not so centrally as to give it shape. Id. at 29-30. O'Malley's project is much broader than mine. As the foregoing quotation suggests, he is concerned with illuminating four ways of perceiving what amounts to reality as a whole. In contrast, my focus in this Essay is upon how a moral agent-or someone trying to influence a moral agent-grapples with the prospect of taking a morally controversial action or following a morally controversial pro- gram of action. The scope of my project is therefore more similar to that ofJames Gustafson in his Varieties of Moral Discourse. See generallyJAMES GUSTAFSON, VARIETIES OF MORAL DISCOURSE: PROPHETIC, NARRATIvE, ETHICAL, AND POLICY (THE STOB LEC- TURES) (1988). As will become apparent below, I am indebted to Gustafson's dis- cussion of prophetic discourse. What I term "casuistical discourse" or "practical reason" incorporates elements of what he terms ethical discourse and policy dis- course. Nonetheless, my focus differs from Gustafson's in two respects. First, as my examples of abortion and torture in the last presidential election indicate, my focus is more upon live moral controversies than upon the more timeless reflec- tion of academics. Second, I am more concerned with elaborating upon the stormy relationship between prophetic discourse and the discourse of casuistry or practical reason. 2006] PROPHECY AND CASUISTRY 503 one cannot begin to talk either of prophecy or casuistry without honoring the foundational contribution made by the Jewish tradition. The Pro- phetic books of the Hebrew Bible are a gift to all peoples, particularly to Christians, for they form part of our "Old Testament." Moreover, the Jew- ish tradition has incorporated an extensive understanding of law and casu- istry.12 In addition, Islam offers its own prophetic resources in the Qu'ran and centuries of Qu'ranic commentary, as well as jurisprudential and casu- istical resources in fikh-literature.13 But I must begin where I can. In Section II, I will briefly explain what I mean by "prophecy" and "casuistry," or more precisely, by the "prophetic" style of discourse and the "casuistical" style of discourse. In Section III, I will illustrate how the deci- sion to use on one or the other genre of moral discourse constrains the shape of the ensuing moral conversation, even among people who share the same moral and religious world view. My analysis will focus on two issues that provoked a tremendous amount of discussion in religious cir- cles in general and in Catholic circles in particular both before and in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential election: abortion and torture. Let me assure those readers who are weary of the culture-wars that my primary objective is not to engage the arguments themselves. Instead, I want to take notice of the form-prophetic or casuistic-in which those argu- ments were cast around the time of the election, and to attempt to unravel the consequences of that form for the ensuing moral conversation among persons who share the same basic world view. How do we find a way be- yond the tension between these two forms of moral discourse, even while preserving their respective raisons d'etre? I will grapple with this question in Section IV. After describing several less-than-successful attempts to overcome the tension between prophecy and casuistry, I will attempt to articulate a way in which they might be brought into a fruitful relationship of creative tension. II. DEFINITIONS Both casuistry and prophecy are discursive practices with long histo- ries in Western moral discourse. Naturally, the meaning of either term cannot be fully understood apart from those stories. It will suffice here, 12. For a brief introduction to Jewish perspectives on the relationship of law and morality, see Law and Morality, in 10 ENCYCLOPAEDIAJUDAICA 1480-84 (1971). For an introduction to Jewish perspectives on prophecy, see Prophets and Prophecy, in 13 ENCYCLOPAEDIAJUDCA 1151-82 (1971). 13. For a brief introduction to Islamic views of prophecy, see U. Rubin, Prophets and Prophethood, in 4 ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE QUR'AN 289-307 (2004). For an introduction to Islamic views of law, see W. Hallaq, Law and the Qur'an, in 3 ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE QUR'AN 149-72 (1993); M.B. Hooker, Shari'a, in 9 ENCYCLO- PAEDIA OF ISLAM 321-28 (1997);J. Schacht, Fikh, in 2 ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF ISLAM 886- 91 (1964);J. Schacht, Hiyal in 3 ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF ISLAM 510-13 (1967). See also DUNCAN B. MACDON.LD, THE DEVELOPMENT OF MUSLIM THEOLOGY, JURISPRUDENCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY 65-117 (Premier Book House 1964) (1903) (outlin- ing development of Muslim jurisprudence). VILLANOVA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 51: p. 499 however, to provide brief, working definitions that will facilitate my own analytical purposes. I hope that a fuller picture of the nature and scope of casuistry and prophecy, of casuistical discourse and prophetic discourse, will emerge during the course of my discussion. A. Prophetic Discourse To give a straightforward, but circular, definition of prophetic dis- course is to say that it is the discourse characteristic of prophets. Some would call Nostradamus a prophet, and treat his predictions as proph- ecy. 14 Others would deem Bob Dylan a prophet, and proclaim that his life and songs channeled something of a divine spirit.15 In my view, the use of the terms "prophet," "prophecy" and "prophetic" in both these contexts should be viewed as analogical extensions of their core meaning. As I am using them here, the paradigmatic meaning of the terms "prophet" and "prophecy" centers around the prophetic writings in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible.16 The term "prophetic discourse" refers in the first in- 14. Michel de Nostradamus (1503-1566), was a French astrologer and physi- cian whose prophecies created intense interest not only in his own time, but in much later times, including our own. Nostradamus, in 8 THE NEW ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRiTANNICA 802 (2005) (describing Nostradamus). 15. Bob Dylan (1941- ), an American folk singer whose life and songs helped to define the generation that came of age in the 1960s. Dylan, Bob, in 4 THE NEW ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA 309 (2005) (discussing Bob Dylan). 16. How does one identify prophetic literature? As David Petersen argues, one can give at least two answers to this question: a canonical answer, which fo- cuses on certain scriptural books, and an authorial answer, which focuses on the writings of those deemed to be prophets. DAVID L. PETERSEN, THE PROPHETIC LITERATURE: AN INTRODUCTION ch. 1 (2002) (suggesting possible definitions of prophetic literature). The canonical answer would focus on the fact that both Jewish and Christian traditions divide the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament into three categories: Torah, Prophets and Writings. The Hebrew canon divides the prophetic books into the categories of those attributed to the "Former Prophets" (the book of Joshua, the book of Judges, the first and second books of Samuel and the first and second books of Kings) and those attributed to the "Latter Prophets" (the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the "Twelve," which include the books of Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi). The Hebrew canon places the book of Daniel, as well as the book of Lamentations, under the category of the "Writings." Protestant Christians recog- nize the Hebrew canon as their canonical Old Testament, while Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians include an additional seven books in the Old Testament, including Baruch among the prophetic books, as well as additional passages in the book of Daniel. Donald Senior, GeneralI ntroduction, in THE CATHOLIC STUDY BIBLE, RG 2-4 (Donald Senior ed., 1990) (describing Biblical texts and background). As Petersen notes, the difficulty with this approach is that it is difficult to think of the books of the "Former Prophets" as prophetic literature. PETERSEN, supra, at 2 (not- ing problems with identifying prophetic literature). The prophets' writings are also frequently divided according to the categories of "major prophets" and "minor prophets," which division refers to the length of the writings, not to their importance. The major prophets include Isaiah, Jer- emiah, Ezekiel and sometimes Daniel. The books of Lamentations and Baruch are attached to the book of Jeremiah. Lamentations purports to be written by Jer- 2006] PROPHECY AND CASUISTRY stance to the rhetorical forms and substantive concerns that are character- istic of the biblical prophet. What sort of discourse is characteristic of the biblical prophets? Here, it is helpful to note that four terms are commonly used to describe them in the Hebrew Bible: h6zeh ("seer"), r6'eh ("diviner"), 'Vs hd' e16 hfm ("man of God") and ndbf' ("prophet").17 In general, the first term refers to some- one who receives divinely ordained visions, while the second refers to someone who can discern helpful information from the divine world.18 Broadly speaking, these two terms account for the fact that we sometimes use the term prophet to refer to someone with the power to predict future events, such as Nostradamus. The third term, which is prominent in the stories of Elijah and Elisha, refers to men who "possess the power of the holy and hence are dangerous, powerful, and due appropriate respect."19 In my view, the use of the term "prophet" with respect to Bob Dylan evokes the sense that he was in some sense as a holy man of his time, that is, as a man with a mysterious and potentially dangerous contact with the divine. The fourth term, ndbf', is the most common term used in the Hebrew scriptures for a prophet. What does it mean? Scholars note that it came to have a very broad range of meanings that came to overlap in time with the meaning of the three other terms. Nonetheless, the root meaning of this term, nab, which means "to call," appears to be significant.20 A prophet is someone who is called and commissioned by God, usually to emiah after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, and Baruch was Jeremiah's scribe. The minor prophets are identical with the "Twelve" identified with respect to the Hebrew Canon above. Prophet, in 11 NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA 764 (2d ed. 2003) (explaining history and development of term). As Petersen notes, another way of identifying prophetic literature is by saying that it is literature spoken or written by the Hebrew prophets. There is, however, a clear difficulty with this approach. Not all of the literature pertaining to the prophets is written by or attributed to them. For example, the prophet Elisha is written about in the book of 2 Kings; he did not write it. Someone other than Jeremiah, probably his scribe Baruch, wrote about certain aspects in Jeremiah's life (e.g., Jeremiah 28). Scholars generally agree that the book of Isaiah cannot be attributed entirely to the prophet known by the name Isaiah bin Amoz, because many sections of that book refer to events that took place long after his death. PETERSEN, supra, at 3-4 (explaining difficulties of definition). Petersen himself opts for a more general, "generative" definition of prophetic literature. It is "that [which] attests to or grows out of (i.e., is generated by) the activity of Israel's prophets." Id. at 4. 17. PETERSEN, supra note 16, at 5 (discussing terminology). Specialists in the field emphasize the impossibility of pinning mutually exclusive univocal meanings on these terms. See id. at 6-8 (defining terms). For a more specialized historical discussion, see JOSEPH BLENKINSOPP, A HISTORY OF PROPHECY IN ISRAEL 26-30 (West- minster John Knox Press 1996) (1983) (examining historical labels). 18. PETERSEN, supra note 16, at 6 (explaining terminology). 19. Id. 20. See, e.g., BLENKINSOPP, supra note 17, at 28-29 (noting development of nab); PETERSEN, supra note 16, at 6 (discussing terminology); Bruce Vawter, C.M., Introduction to Prophetic Literature,i n THE NEWJEROME BIBLICAL COMMENTARY 188-89 (1990) (providing history of Israelite prophecy). 506 VILLANovA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 51: p. 499 deliver a message to God's people.21 That message frequently pertained to God's perspective on the relationship between God and Israel, and more specifically to the ways in which His chosen people were fulfilling- or failing to fulfill-the obligations of their covenant at a particular time and place in their history. It is this aspect of prophetic discourse that is of particular interest to us here, for it is the aspect which strives to function as an impetus for social critique and reform. As the great Jewish thinker Abraham Joshua Heschel stated: The prophet was an individual who said No to his society, con- demning its habits and assumptions, its complacency, wayward- ness, and syncretism. . . .His fundamental objective was to reconcile man and God. Why do the two need reconciliation? Perhaps it is due to man's false sense of sovereignty, to his abuse of freedom, to his aggressive, sprawling pride, resenting God's involvement in history.22 One can, however, speak "prophetically" in the sense described by Heschel without appropriating for oneself the mantle of a prophet. To put the point another way, persons who do not claim actually to be deliver- ing particular messages from God can and do draw upon the forms and the themes of prophetic discourse preserved in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament in order to call attention to the moral and political challenges confronting their respective societies. Such persons do not believe God has directly conscripted them to communicate a new message to the com- munity on his behalf. They do, however, tend to see themselves as follow- ing in the footsteps of the biblical prophets; as illuminating the moral dangers of the current situation by drawing upon the themes and style of discourse of the biblical prophets. What are the basic characteristics of prophetic discourse more gener- ally, particularly as invoked in contemporary discussion of moral issues? In the Stob Lectures at Calvin College, the distinguished Protestant 21. As stated in A History of Prophecy in Israel- The standard introductory formula 'thus says Yahweh' is taken from the protocol used in official oral and written communications emanating from a royal court, which suggests that the prophets understood them- selves as emissaries of Yahweh. The royal messenger was an important official, often a member of the court, whose task was to relay a message or command from the ruler verbatim, though he might add some words of an exhortatory, comminatory, or explanatory nature of his own. This provides a simple but important clue to the way in which prophets con- ceived of their task, since several of them claimed to have access to the presence of Yahweh as divine ruler and to have been sent out on a mis- sion by Yahweh.... The conviction of acting under such a mandate is essential for understanding how prophets thought theologically of their authority and right to a hearing. BLENKINSOPP, supra note 17, at 29-30 (footnotes omitted). 22. ABRAHAM J. HESCHEL, The Prophets vol. 1 (1969). 2006] PROPHECY AND CASUISTRY ethicist James Gustafson maintains that prophetic discourse characteristi- cally "takes the form of moral or religious indictments. It is the word of the Lord proclaimed against the moral evil and apostasy of the world and societies. It shows in dramatically vivid language just how far the human community has fallen from what it ought to be."23 Gustafson believes these indictments have two characteristics. First, "they usually, though not always, address what the prophet perceives to be the root of religious, moral, or social waywardness, not specific instances in which certain poli- cies are judged to be inadequate or wrong."24 Second, prophetic dis- course "use[s] language, metaphors, and symbols that are directed to the 'heart' as well as to the 'head.' The prophet usually does not make an argument; rather he demonstrates, he shows, he tells."25 An additional characteristic of prophetic discourse identified by Gus- tafson is its utopian nature. Gustafson does not use this term technically, but merely to indicate that "prophets sometimes proclaim and depict an ideal state of affairs which is radically in contrast with the actual state of affairs in which we live together in society."26 As Gustafson also notes, the path from the real to the ideal is not necessarily clear: "Of itself, the uto- pian vision does not precisely show how we are to get.., to the fulfillment of the alluring ideal future." Of what use are the Hebrew prophets to us here and now? As the scholar of rhetoric James Darsey tells us, the use of prophetic rhetoric has a long tradition in American political and social controversies.27 Borrow- ing from Matthew Arnold, Darsey argues that reform movements either conform to the ideal of "sweetness and light" (from Greek ideals of rheto- ric) or to the ideal of "fire and strength," which come from the Hebrew prophets. Arguing that the "'fire and strength' of the prophets is as much a part of our cultural inheritance as is the 'sweetness and light' of the Greeks,"28 he maintains that our inability to grapple with it has lead to an inability to understand our own social plight. The prophets, as Darsey notes, were radicals: "Radicalism ... is defined by its concern with the political roots of a society, its fundamental laws, its foundational princi- ples, its most sacred covenants. It is common for radicals to claim to be the true keepers of the faith; they oppose society using its own most noble expressions and aspirations."29 Both so-called "liberals" and so-called "conservatives" can be radicals in this sense; Darsey's case studies in the use of prophetic rhetoric include the abolitionist Wendell Phillips,30 the 23. GUSTArSON, supra note 11, at 7-8. 24. Id. at 8. 25. Id. at 11. 26. Id. at 13. 27. See generallyJ AMES DARsEv, THE PROPHETIC TRADITION AND RADICAL RHETO- RIC IN AMERICA (1997) (outlining American prophetic history). 28. Id. at 7. 29. Id. at 9. 30. Id. at 61-84 (noting Phillips's position as orator).