This paper raises two questions about O'Donovan's The Ways of Judgment, one political, the other ecclesial. In the first place I ask whether it is adequate to propose that the state, in the interest of the common good, should be simply reactive. And I then raise the question of whether, in any case, being reactive implies a positive stance. If so, then why must that positive stance not be positively promoted? The second question concerns the position of O'Donovan as a spokesman for the Christian tradition, and asks in what sense he can be recognized as such. In what sense has a private theologian any kind of privileged position with regard to the traditions of Christianity in general? Can he speak only for himself? Were the latter answer correct it would seem that he can only preach to those converted to his personal version of Christianity. Which raises the wider question: What is the Christian tradition?
