Perspectives on September 11, 2001 from a Canadian Mennonite

October 4, 2001

The events of September 11/01 are etched into our very souls.

It is not that terrorist acts are new. Nor are the results entirely unprecedented. Hundreds of thousands have died before due to systemic terrorist activity all over the world. Why then has this day become such a defining moment in the life of the western world?

There are surely many answers to that question. The symbolic value of the venues chosen for destruction is one of them. To destroy targets symbolizing the foundation of USA wealth (the trade towers), the heart of USA power (the Pentagon), and within sight of the symbols of USA freedom (the Statue of Liberty and the Lincoln Memorial) is like an earthquake. It moves the very ground that many people assumed was solid footing.

A second answer is closely related to the first. This attack has accosted our self-image and challenged our identity as peace-loving, freedom championing people. Surely it cannot be that these self-identified, positive values can be the source of such irritation and hatred.

The responses to these events, from official and media sources, lead me to some observations of my own. I share these for the sake of continuing the critical discernment that is to be a part of our Christian task. I am especially concerned about how the faith I love, the Christian faith, is manipulated in justifying and explaining our reaction to these events.

An a-historical reading of the events

These events, as reported by major media networks, appear to have no history, no past, no precedent and no antecedent. They are reported as "unthinkable," "irrational," "senseless." It feels like an unexpected and unexplainable lightning bolt, out of the blue. From an a-historical perspective, they are entirely mystifying.

This perspective comes through in overt and camouflaged ways. The opening screen of the TV networks is a good example. "Attack on America" gives the impression that this is the beginning of something; it is an attack. And that the most logical response to this beginning is retaliation, i.e., an attempt to end what has begun. Perspectives from other parts of the world are different. The New York/Washington events are not a beginning. They are a part of a sequence of historical events. They are retaliation to previous attacks. Theologian and author Henri Nouwen says that perhaps a sin greater than the act committed is to forget what we have committed. In forgetting the story that has brought us here, we are in essence denying our humanity because we assume that each day is a blank screen. This may be so in animal life, it is not so in human life. Human life is part of a narrative. It is the result of what has gone before. We do no one a favor by interpreting these events a-historically.

The a-historical nature of the understanding also comes through in the official reasons given for these attacks. I have seen both Dan Rather (CBS news) and President Bush (in his address before Congress) explain that the root cause of the hatred leading to attack is envy of our way of doing things. The terrorists are envious of our prosperity, they are envious of our democratic system, they don’t like a consultative way of decision-making. They don’t like our elective process. They prefer not to be free. And because they dislike our "way of life" they attack us. These explanations focus only on who we think we are; they speak nothing about what we have done with who we are. We are left careening on a bus that, apparently, never started its journey. From a Christian perspective, an a-historical reading of events denies the basic premise of our faith, namely that God is a God of history and that we are a part of that story.

Just War versus Holy War

There is an attempt to shift USA retaliation efforts from the traditional Just War status to a Holy War classification. The two are not the same. Traditional Just War categories invite potential participants in war to consider whether war is formally declared, whether this is done by a "legitimate" state, whether it is declared against an identifiable state, whether non-military and innocent persons will be implicated, whether there is potential for victory, and what a "reasonable" use of force would be, given that one should not use more force than necessary to meet ones objectives.

In a Holy War, these criteria are ignored because they are not important. What is important is that it is a war declared by God, not to restrain the enemy but to eradicate evil. Because it is God-initiated, human criteria of justification play no part. Victory need not be assured, force need not be "reasonable," it does not need to worry about "legitimacy," the innocent can be made to suffer. Madeline Albright stated that a toll of 500,000 innocent children would not be too heavy a price to pay for their initiatives.

Bush’s official response to the events is bordering on Holy War thinking. It is clothed in religious, biblical, and "Christian" rhetoric. Its objective is to "rid the world of evil," a statement which is not only unrealistic but also heretical. People are to be brought "dead or alive" to the fount of justice, because the results of justice have been pre-determined. Options are narrowed. If you are not for us, then you are for the terrorists. Alternatives of peace-making would, I assume, put us on the side of the terrorists.

For those Christians who believe that sin and evil must be dealt with as a response to the redemptive initiative of God in Christ, specifically related to the cross, the assurance that the USA military is capable of "ridding the world of evil" is an affront and a serious challenge to our faith. It would appear that the shift from Just War status to Holy War is not accidental. It is an appeal to the undiscerning religious soul of America.

A reduced message

There is a dramatic reduction of Christian insight and doctrine in the efforts to speak "Christian-ly." Although God is mentioned often, the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is quoted frequently, prayer is encouraged, and religious principles are affirmed, there are some significant Christian elements that do not have space in the public "Christian" rhetoric. The "twin towers" of Christian faith and ethics, the cross and resurrection, are invisible. I have heard no one speak about the potential impact of the resurrection or the cross on projected public policy and the ethics of retaliation. I have heard no mention of the centrality of forgiveness in the way we view the world as Christians and in the way we understand God. Talk about compassion and love has been replaced by pre-conceptions of justice. Justice is something that is "done," either by bringing the enemy to it or taking it to the enemy. It is not something that is lived daily (and historically) which, if it were so understood, would make it a viable hope for the future.

We hear a lot of Christian language, but the message is not Christian. Whether this is done honestly or mistakenly, the result is that it is deceptive and puts our faith in a light that is not only unfortunate, it is apostasy. The proposed responses are identical to responses that, in the past, have come from other nations. While "Christian" language and symbols are used, the responses proposed do not have distinguishable "Christian" elements to them.

Surprised

I am surprised by what seems to surprise us. Why does the presence of terrible and dark evil in our world surprise us? Why are we surprised that evil seems to breed more evil? Why are we surprised that it never seems to be the right moment for us to forgive? Why are we surprised that powers are at war with each other? Why are we surprised that the way of the cross is difficult? Why are we surprised that promises of resurrection are hard to believe? Why are we surprised that walking the path of the cross and the resurrection can be done only through faith? Where has our faith really taught us to expect anything else?

I am also surprised by what doesn’t surprise us. The potential of a Godly surprise that can generate life through the events of death should energize and encourage us. It is this surprise that sustains our faith and gives us hope because such life, if it is to appear, comes through God’s initiatives and is out of our hands. We need to reaffirm the surprising possibilities of the love of God as the foundation of our faith, our ethics, and our lives.

Robert J. Suderman
Executive Secretary, Christian Witness Council
Mennonite Church Canada
September 21, 2001