Authenticity in Performance: The Case of the Moral President, The Lawless One, and 2 Thessalonians
When we perform, how do we know that our performances are authentic? Authenticity is one of the thorniest problems across the theological disciplines. How can we know when our interpretations are guided by the Holy Spirit, when our ethics correspond to what Jesus might have done, or when our theology meets the mind of God? Answers to these questions are perhaps made most difficult by the diversity of Christian approaches to the Christian life. I believe that pacifism is at the heart of the Christian faith. I find it difficult to believe that George W. Bush is acting in a Christian way when argues for war. This question is made all the more difficult by other arguments which declare Bush's moral superiority. It is difficult for me because my first instinct is to assume George W. Bush is imitating his father. If George W. Bush is performing any text, is it not the one his father wrote rather than one found in scripture? Can performance help me understand how Bush is a fellow Christian?
Questions of authenticity, deception, and lawlessness are at the heart of both George W. Bush's rhetoric before the second gulf war and the epistle of 2 Thessalonians. Let us try to understand something about authenticity, deception, and lawlessness by understanding Bush's pre-war rhetoric as a performance of 2 Thessalonians. We will proceed immediately to a description of the six elements—selection, genre, action, place, risk and relationship—which together shape performance. Once Bush's performance has been described we can begin to evaluate it. Is it an authentic performance of 2 Thessalonians?
Text
Selection
When a group of actors perform a play, they may perform the whole play, but plays are written to be watched all at once. When a Christian performs scripture they must always make some kind of choice about what particular text is being performed. Scripture, as a whole, does not come with an organized choreography. In our current case of the moral president we are trying to understand a certain rhetoric by seeing it as a Christian performance.
By suggesting 2 Thessalonians as an appropriate selection for this performance, I am not assuming that George W. Bush intentionally has 2 Thessalonians in mind when he speaks the possibility of war in Iraq. I am trying to understand his performance as Christian, and 2 Thessalonians serves this goal since so many of the same themes that appear in Bush's pre-war speeches also appear in 2 Thessalonians. The choice of 2 Thessalonians constrains both President Bush and myself to a certain set of possible tragectories. To further limit this case, I will focus on just one of Bush's speeches; his notable appearance at the United Nations on September 12, 2002.
Genre
It is surely interesting to the biblical scholar to probe the genre of 2 Thessalonians. Was this letter written primarily to exhort the church at Thessalonika? Is the letter a warning? Is it a forgery written to some nefarious, cloaked purpose? These kinds of questions must occupy some of our interest as responsible hermeneuts. For example, the question of the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians will become directly relevant to our study.
However, in evaluating the genre of 2 Thessalonians and George W. Bush's performance of it, the genre intended in the performance should be at the forefront of our attention. I want to suggest that the best genre for understanding Bush's speech as a performance of 2 Thessalonians is apocalyptic. President Bush establishes the context for his speech in its first sentence,
We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.
Although not in its first sentence, 2 Thessalonians certainly gives plenty of opportunities to be considered as an apocalyptic text.
For it is surely just on God's part to repay with afflictions those who are afflicting you, and to grant rest along with us to you who are undergoing afflictions, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his mighty angels, in blazing fire, inflicting punishment on those who do not acknowledge God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 2 Thessalonians 1.6-8
It may seem appropriate at this point to discuss the genre of Bush's performance. We could ask questions similar to those with which we began this section. Was this speech given primarily to exhort the United Nations? Is the speech a warning? Is it a forgery written to some nefarious, cloaked purpose? I do not think, however, that these questions are best posed here for in asking these questions we have moved beyond the text in consideration and begun to describe the praxis of the performer. Genre, in this way of approaching understanding, establishes the context for the selection in the world of the performer.
Praxis
Action
In this example, the description of the action is simple. George W. Bush speaks. More flamboyantly, the President engages in a rhetoric designed to convince his audience of his own trustworthiness and honour and his enemy's deceit and lawlessness.
Place
Just as genre establishes a context for selection, place establishes a context for action. An action can only happen once. Actions always happen in specific places. But actions can be directed at, or observed by, many audiences.
This speech is given at the United Nation General Assembly. In some ways this is a speech given to the whole world. In others it is given to a small group of elite diplomats. Since George W. Bush speaks as the President of the United States of America, and since he emphasizes that he is speaking on behalf of this nation in this speech, the speech must also be given to the United States. This speech could also be given to the people of, and leadership of Iraq since they remain a primary topic throughout. Finally, at one decisive juncture Bush speaks directly to the Muslim world.
I think we can keep at least two of these audiences in our mind throughout this study. Just as the writer of 2 Thessalonians wrote specifically to the church at Thessalonika, but through inclusion in the canon of the Christian Testament came to address all Christians at all times, so I think we can see Bush's speech as being addressed specifically to those people assembled at the United Nations General Assembly on September 12, and by extension to the whole world.
Feedback
Risk
What risks does George W. Bush take in making this speech? Perhaps we should start with the risks that Bush enumerates. Bush sees three, perhaps four, main risks in not engaging Iraq. Presumably, this speech is one way in which he intends to meet these risks. These are: 'assuming Iraq's good faith' when they could possess 'weapons of mass murder,' the United Nations ceasing to 'serve its purpose' thereby becoming irrelevant, and 'choosing a world of fear over a world of progress.' As mentioned above, Bush addresses the Muslim world at a crucial juncture at the end of the speech. A final risk, not stated explicitly by Bush but present implicitly, is that the non-Muslim world will lose a significant opportunity for reform. He says,
If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.
When we look at these risks more closely, we see that they are not risks that Bush himself engages in in making this speech but rather risks he thinks the world faces in Iraq as it is currently governed. The risks Bush enumerates are important. Presumably, his performance is occasioned due to the critical nature of these risks. If Iraq was not a threat, Bush could have used the occasion of this speech to address a different concern, or have chosen not to speak at all. Still, the risks which the performances declares are not the only ones we need to pay attention to.
When we look at performance in an attempt to understand an action or an text I think that it is crucial to address the question of risk engendered by the performer. Any performance involves some risk. It is in this element of risk that performance most readily distinguishes itself from ways of understanding more focused on practices, praxis, habits or virtues. If I practice guitar I risk nothing, but if I play my guitar for others I risk embarrassment at the least. When we perform scripture we risk our interpretation in front of a watching world.
So what risks does George W. Bush take in making this speech? Since this is a speech and not a sword fight with Saddam Hussein, the physical risks are quite small. Bush does risk his credibility and popularity with each of the audiences named above, particularly when he challenges or calls them to account.
Relationship
These risks are all taken in the context of certain relationships. Each of the audiences Bush engages will feel encouraged, outraged, bolstered, scared, chastened, or emboldened by his words. The people gathered at the United Nations on September 12 are clearly being encouraged to starkly challenge Iraq. They are called to remember who they are and to treat the leadership of Iraq based in their current convictions. George W. Bush reminds the delegates of the United Nations that Iraq poses a challenge common to both the United States and the United Nations. Bush clearly aims to strengthen relationships to the United Nations while challenging the leadership of Iraq.
The leadership of Iraq is challenged based on its abuses of human rights, but much more of Bush's rhetoric in this speech is directed against what he sees as a policy of deception and lawlessness. Bush clearly opposes himself against the government of Iraq and calls for a specific approach by others against Iraq's leaders.
Finally, this performance has global implications. Bush demonstrates how he understands lawlessness, his criteria for determining deception, and his suggested response. As we have seen in the months following September 12, 2002, the shock-waves have only begun to reverberate.
In these pages we have engaged in a somewhat thorough description of George W. Bush's speech before the United Nations from the standpoint of Christian performance. What remains is an evaluation of this performance.