10 Years After 9/11: The Good and the Bad

On the morning of September 11, 2001, I was at home in Washington, D.C. getting ready to go to Sojourners’ office. I was upstairs listening to the news on NPR when I heard the first confusing report of a plane crashing into the south tower of the World Trade Center. I immediately called downstairs to Joy and asked her to turn on the television to see what was going on. Moments later, as we ate breakfast together with our three-year-old son Luke, we watched the second plane strike the north tower. I still remember my first response to Joy, “This is going to be bad, very bad,” I said.

Of course, I meant more than just the damage to the Twin Towers and the lives lost, which became far greater than any of us imagined at first. Rather, my first and deepest concern was what something like this could do to our nation’s soul. I was afraid of how America would respond to a terrorist attack of this scope.

But as the Towers collapsed, and the suffering of this horrible event became increasingly clear in the hours and days that followed, other parts of the American soul revealed themselves — the heroic responses of the first responders, and a city and nation of people taking care of each other. As ordinary citizens gave their lives for strangers, they became our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers. In the days that followed the 9/11 attacks, the stories of pain, loss, and self-sacrifice brought Joy and me to tears several times. The suffering of many led to the service of many more.

For a moment, the world’s last remaining superpower was vulnerable, and we all felt it. In Washington, people fled from downtown D.C., walking and running right past our house, and gathered to pray at places such as Sojourners’ office. Joy helped Luke set up a little water station, as people frantically rushed by our house.

In our sudden sense of vulnerability we were now, and perhaps for the first time, like most of the world, where vulnerability is an accepted part of being human. And in those first days following 9/11, America, not the terrorists, had the high ground. The world did not identify with those who cruelly and murderously decided to take innocent lives in response to their grievances — both real and imagined. Instead, the world identified with a suffering America — even the front cover of the French newspaper Le Monde ran the headline, “We are all Americans now.”

But it was Washington’s response that I was most worried about. Within a short period of time, the official reaction to terrorism would simply be defined as war — a decade of it — resulting in many more innocent casualties than on September 11, 2001. In response to America’s own suffering, many others in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world would now suffer — all in the name of our war on terrorism. The opportunity for deeper understanding, reflection, and redirection would elude us as we sought to erase our vulnerability with the need to demonstrate our superior force and power. This was done quite easily in the early days of both our new wars. But now, we see that the longest series of wars in American history has failed to resolve or reverse the causes of the violence that struck us, or to make us safer. They just made it all worse.

The world expected and would have supported a focused and sustained effort to pursue and bring this small band of criminals to justice. But these last 10 years of manipulated and corrupted intelligence, endless war, practices and policies of torture, secret armies of assassination, global violations of human rights, indiscriminate violence with countless civilian casualties, and trillions of dollars wasted caused America to lose the high ground long ago. The arrogance of American power was our only response to the both the brutality and complexity of terrorism. Perhaps, this arrogance is most recently and brazenly exhibited in former Vice-President Dick Cheney’s new book tour, where he boasts of having absolutely no regrets for any of the momentous decisions he took part in. These are decisions which have made the world an even more divided, polarized, dehumanized, and dangerous place — 10 years after September 11, 2001.

But, fortunately, the official and failed response of Washington to the terrible tragedy of 9/11 has not been the only response. A new generation of Christians has asked how Jesus would respond to these same events. Many of them would agree with what Methodist Bishop Will Willimon recently said in the evangelical magazine Christianity Today: “American Christians may look back upon our response to 9/11 as our greatest Christological defeat … when our people felt vulnerable, they reached for the flag instead of the cross.” As many of those who have grown up in the decade since 9/11 confront the conflicts of their world, they are reaching for different things than their government. They are forging alternative responses to issues of injustice and violence, and rejecting the terrorism and war sequence of Washington’s twisted and failed moral logic.

And despite the hateful diatribes of fundamentalist leaders in all our religious traditions, other pastors have decided to love their neighbors, and even their enemies in response to Jesus’ call. Their stories are slowly being told, from American neighborhoods where Muslims have moved in, to conflict areas around the world where faith is being used for bridge building and healing, instead of more revenge killings. Christian leaders are sharing meals, fasting, and prayer with Muslim leaders. Some have defended each other’s congregations and homes in the face of heated threats and rhetoric. While differences between faith traditions are not being glossed over, the nature of a loving and reconciling God is being courageously affirmed across religious lines. In all of this, we are saying that government responses need not define our own.

Last weekend, my son Luke just turned 13 years old, and my son Jack is now eight years old. They both understand what Christianity and Islam are and are not. In their classrooms, they have friends who are Muslim. The other day, my son Jack, who missed the events of 9/11, heard a disparaging remark on television about Islam and quickly retorted, “That’s not true, there is a Muslim boy in my class, and he is not like that at all.” Luke and I recently watched the National Geographic special that described the events of the day, which we remember this week. It helped him to put the pieces in place from his memories of 9/11 as a three-year-old. I was struck with how he looks at the world with more sympathy than fear, and how strongly he feels about war’s inability to solve any of the problems and conflicts between people.

Last year, the actions of extremists marred the commemoration of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and ignited international violence. This year, many interfaith services will mark the 10th anniversary. Sojourners is co-sponsoring a press conference with the World Evangelical Alliance on Friday, September 9, which will overlook Ground Zero in New York City. Global Evangelical leaders will be calling for peace and unity, and we will say that while religion has historically been the cause of conflict, it can also serve as a solution. We will give examples of Christians and Muslims living together peacefully, even in the most conflicted parts of the world, and call for Christians to be good neighbors to the Muslim community. As we gather in our houses of worship this Sunday, September 11, many pastors will remind their parishioners of two fundamental truths: We must not be overcome by evil, but rather overcome evil with good, and “they will know we are Christians by our love.”

—-
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.



Print Friendly

About the Author

Jim WallisJim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street — A Moral Compass for the New Economy, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.View all posts by Jim Wallis →

  • Matt

    This post completely infuriates me so much I don’t even know where to start.  How about starting at the assertion of “10 years of manipulated and corrupted intelligence, endless war, practices and policies of torture, secret armies of assassination, global violations of human rights, indiscriminate violence with countless civilian casualties.” This sentence reeks of conspiracy theorist lunacy and the facts don’t back up you claim. The men you say belong to ”secret armies of assassination” willingly fight for you ability to defame them and caricature them as envoys of evil. How nice it must be to ignore reality?
    Next, lets examine your pacifist ideology. I’ve noticed you don’t really condemn the acts of Muslim terrorists but you condemn the actions that have kept Americans safe. George Orwell said in 1942 that pacifism, “is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security.” In today’s world, being a pacifist is the same as being pro-Muslim terrorists. There is no middle ground. You cannot close your eyes and ears and run from reality and use scripture taken out of context in order to justify cowardice. I’m very curious how Romans Ch. 13 fits into your Red Letter Christian philosophy.
    Lastly, as Christians, we should be the first and the loudest to speak out against the evil teachings of Islam. An elementary study of that religion demonstrates its extremely hateful and violent nature. To pick this time in history to advocate for some happy-go-lucky bonding with the Muslim faith is very callous.
    I apologize for my comments length and if it seems to be written out of anger. I’m just dumbfounded by this posting.  The Bible does not teach non-violence, especially where governments are concerned.  I’m just curious, if taking the fight to the enemy and destroying them and saving American lives wasn’t the correct answer to Sept. 11th, then please enlighten us with what you would have done differently? 

    • http://jesusjusticeandjargon.blogspot.com/ Schuyler Stallcup

      Brother Matt,
      “Taking the fight to the enemy” sounds nothing like Jesus’s command to love our enemy. It sounds nothing like turning the other cheek. And it sounds nothing like the Prince of Peace. I don’t believe Jim thinks Jesus was a pacifist, as pacifism indicates running from conflict. We are often told that there are two options when confronted with conflict, fight or flight. Jesus believed in neither. He choose a third way. Nonviolent resistance. That is what made His command to turn the other cheek so beautiful and counter-cultural. He didn’t tell us to run, but he also didn’t tell us to fight back. (For more on this, read Walter Wink’s Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way.) Now, as for your question about Romans 13, it is something that I and many others have struggled with. I think Shane Claiborne says it best. Check it out: http://nickloyd.com/2009/07/23/what-about-romans-13/ Anyways Matt, I hope we will both continue to seek out the truth of Jesus’s loving and counter-cultural message.
      Much love,
      Schuyler 

      • Matt

        What in the world is non-violent resistance? I honestly have no idea what that means. That term is an oxy-moron. Perhaps non-violent resistance refers to me not running away from my enemies like a coward, but not fighting them either. Instead I should watch them approach me and the country with big smiles on their faces as they further their evil goals with zero resistance from me. Then I can resist non-violently by committing hari-kari as they get closer. I don’t mean to be rude, but apparantly absurdity is the only way to communicate this point.

        As for that Shane Claiborne article, Claiborne clearly contradicts himself in it. (As he does with a lot of his writings) He agrees that Romans Ch. 13 clearly states that authority on earth is derived from God and he is well documented in saying that he is a pacifist, therefore against revolutions from unjust gov’ts. But he says in this article that God is not necessarily in favor of all gov’ts on earth as he is not in favor of all authorities. Claiborne makes the claim that our first duty is to obey our Heavenly Father. I completely agree. But if we live under a state that God does not find favorable, then shouldn’t we revolt? But revolting is a sin because it requires violence. There are way too many holes in the pacifist worldview for it to be taken seriously.

        • http://jesusjusticeandjargon.blogspot.com/ Schuyler Stallcup

          First off, I take no offense. These sort of conversations are great as long as they’re in love. You didn’t come off as rude. As for what non-violent resistance looks like, it looks exactly like the movements that Dr.King and Ghandi led. Movements that, if I may say so, were quite successful. It is an ideology that I believe is firmly rooted in the teachings and life of Jesus. I love that you used the word “absurdity”. It really is absurd in the world’s eyes!! Paul reminds us of this in 1 Corinthians: “ For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are dying, but to us who are saved it is the power of God.  For it is written,
          ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,I will bring the discernment of the discerning to nothing.’ Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the lawyer of this world? Hasn’t God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”As for your thoughts on Shane contradicting himself, I disagree. But it would take far too long to discuss the whole article. I will say two things. First, Romans 13 talk about submission, which is not to be confused with obedience.Finally, in regards to your question, the answer is no. We absolutely should not attempt to over throw a government. Jesus made that very clear. There were many Zionist who were disappointed with Jesus because they had expected the Messiah to come and help them overthrow the oppressive Roman government and become ruler himself. But Jesus showed us that was not his way of going about spreading the Kingdom of God. Instead he preferred we work as mustard seeds, doing small things with great love. Peace and Love

          • Matt

            Ghandi was not an example of non-violence being successful. He was successful in garnering a bunch of attention and getting very skinny by not eating, but according to George Orwell, who wrote in 1942, the British government regarded Ghandi as almost an ally. Definitely not a threat. Orwell also said that if the Japanese made it to India in WWII then Ghandi would be helpful to them as well. Post-war economics and the cost of empire being to high is why the Brits left India. Not Ghandi’s hunger strikes. MLK is an interesting figure in American history. An examination of his life shows that he had some terrible moral flaws and if some of these accounts can be trusted did some pretty awful things. That being said, and I am in no way trying to discount the sacrifices of so many, but the Civil Rights Movement was a success of attracting media attention in order to influence northern states to push federal laws into existence. Non-violence marches and sit-ins did little to change southern laws. Its nice to look back and canonize these figures as great men of history, but history is very often different than reality. I am in no way here discounting the necessity for civil right reform in the 1950s-60s.

            Lastly, do you suppose that there is a difference between the Christianity as it pertains to the individual and Christianity that pertains to the state?

          • http://jesusjusticeandjargon.blogspot.com/ Schuyler Stallcup

            I wish I could respond to everything you touched on, but for the sake of not getting carpel tunnel, I won’t. But as for Dr.King having “some terrible moral flaws,” don’t we all? I know I sure do. It blows me away how wretched I am. But for some reason God still loves us, so let’s be slow to judge. In regards to your question, I believe that following Christ should define every aspect of our lives. As for whether or not Jesus’ teachings apply to the state, I don’t recall Jesus saying that if you became king or president that his teachings didn’t apply. That being said, no one could possibly be elected or run a state with the ideology of turning the other cheek and loving your enemy, which is exactly why I believe that Christians today, just as the members of the Early Church, should not seek places of political power. I would love to suggest the book Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne to you, but you seem to already have a pretty strong opinion of his writings. But if you wanna give it a shot with an open mind, it is really brilliant in understanding the context of Jesus’s message and Early Church history. 
            Peace brother

      • Keith

        There are many instances in the Bible where Jesus chose the “active resistance” to deal with situations. Are you suggesting that you would sit there and not protect your family if they were being threatened??? Really??? The Bible doesnt script everyday decisions but more gives you the discerning wisdom to deal with what comes your way. If you would allow your wife, children, family members to be harmed because you “think” that Jesus would want to you chose the non-violent resistance path then God help you and God help your family. I will go back to the above post by Matt. You have no answers and your theory of the ‘third’ way would have eliminated the spread of the gospel by a free nation into every corner of the earth. That my friend is what your philosophy would have accomplished.

        • http://jesusjusticeandjargon.blogspot.com/ Schuyler Stallcup

          Thank you for your thought-provoking input, Keith. It is much appreciated. First off, could you cite some of those instances? As for your question about protecting family, I would first say that a refusal to use violence against an intruder, does not mean you refuse to protect your family or any one for that matter. There are means of protecting people without using violence, and of course the ultimate protector is God. But this is a question a sincerely struggle with. I pray that if that situation should ever arise that God would give me the wisdom to do what is most loving. I ask that you will pray for me too. As I see it now, Jesus was quite clear when he said “do not resist an evil person.” And I want, more than anything to take His words literally and seriously. Of course, I don’t claim to have absolute certainty that this is what Jesus meant. But I have tried to study God’s word earnestly, like a child, and this is what I have taken from it. And that “spread of the gospel” you mentioned. was the beginning of Christ’s message being cheapened. When crusaders offered people the decision to convert or be killed, it was the beginning of a Christianity that no longer resembled Christ. 
          Much love brother.

          • http://jesusjusticeandjargon.blogspot.com/ Schuyler Stallcup

            *I

          • Keith

            Whether you like my style of straight forwardness or not doesnt concern me. What concerns me is that you actually would sit and let a demonic force attack your family or friends and sit idly by. That is disconcerting and unfortuneatly very wrong. How can you think that Jesus commands us to help the less fortuneate but not protect our won family??? Im really worried about a generation of people that actually think that passive resistance in the past could have led to anything other than complete domination by evil regimes.
            I hope you never witness someone being assaulted and just stand by and let them be hurt or even killed…..YOU will answer for your non action. Shameful.
            ‘Spread of the gospel” …..the Crusades??? LOL   Man you really are stretching it…I was referring to the millions who have been reached by American Missionaries and Churches here and abroad. Your reference is really demeaning to all of us.
            As I just argued about the death penalty on another liberal blog here…You have a responsibility to the innocent…the victims….the ones who cant protect themselves. Because of weak policy repeat crimes are committed everyday and many times the innocent pay with their life. Isnt it funny that your line of thinking parallels ultra liberal policy in the U.S.  The same ones who denounce that God even exists.
            To answer your question about examples in the Bible about active resistance I think you already know of Gods aniahlation of men, women and children in more than one instance so dont patronize me.
            What happened when the people were using the temple to sell and barter?? I dont believe that was passive either….
            By the way, Im not sure if you were being sarcastic at the beginning of your reply or not but I will give it the benefit of the doubt.

          • http://jesusjusticeandjargon.blogspot.com/ Schuyler Stallcup

            First off, I wasn’t being sarcastic. I really believe that these types of conversations, when done in love, are exactly what we need in the Church. I don’t think you are understanding my position. If I ever encountered a person being assaulted, of course I wouldn’t stand by. The group Christian Peacemaker Teams has a motto: “Getting In the Way.” This is exactly what I would do in that situation. Just because I refuse to kill a man, does not mean that I would not get in the way of an assault. And nonviolence doesn’t always mean not touching someone. I would have no problem tackling a person who was harming or about to harm another. Frankly, that would be the most loving thing I could do for either person. Once again, NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE AND  PASSIVITY ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS. And Dr.King reminds us that nonviolence begins in the heart. “You not only refuse to shoot a man, you refuse to hate him.” My commitment to nonviolence is rooted in my attempt to love all people, to avoid demonizing individuals and deeming them deserving of death. How can I, a wretched sinner who is deserving of death, possibly be in a position to decide who deserves to die. And I don’t recall Jesus telling the townspeople who were about to stone a woman who had committed adultery, to go ahead so that all the other women who were thinking about cheating would be deterred. He didn’t seem to think that way. As for Old Testament killings of men, women, and children we must look at the Bible as a whole. This was when God’s chosen people was also a state. Also, this was before Jesus came and shook things up. I do not claim that God is a nonviolent God, I just believe that since Jesus came, He calls us to be a nonviolent people. And you are absolutely right in saying that Jesus driving people out of the temple was not passive. Once again, Jesus taught a Third Way. Neither fight, nor flight. He did move the people out of the temple, but he did not go through with a sword killing people for desecrating holy ground (which no one would have blamed him for). There are no instances in the entire New Testament of Christians picking up the sword (except ol’ Peter, who was promptly scolded by Jesus and told to put his sword away.) I sincerely apologize if I offended you, it was certainly not my intention. I take it that you’ve done missionary work, which is awesome. I’d love to hear about your experiences. Perhaps we could continue to talk by e-mail or something. You really make me question my beliefs, which I think is great. 
            Much love to you my friend. 

    • Keith

       WOW….Matt you are spot on my brother. I am concerned that this line of thinking is perpetuating in America because of these types of postings. It is a shame and disgrace. Your last sentence is the key……they have no answer….only to love them into unity. Their answer would have been the destruction of America at Pearl Harbor. We should have lost that war but we didnt because of people like you and I. They knew that we would defend our country so they didnt invade…Thank you Jesus.  “There would be a gun behind every blade of grass” was the reason they didnt. Instead of ridiculing and complaining about America why dont you show some GRATITUDE. And that is what ticks me off…

  • mike

    If not the right wing Christians than its the Left wing Christians who are trying to run our goverment (forgein policy) on their interpretation of the Bible.

  • Drew

    Mr. Wallis,

    The week of 9/11 should be about one thing and one thing only – celebrating the lives and mourning the loss of the victims/military/first responders that died in or as a result of terrorism, and celebrating the lives of the survivors/current and veteran military/first responders that are still with us.  I find it disappointing, almost disgusting, that so many use the week of 9/11 to engage in political punditry.  I am surprised that you also unashamedly admit that your first thought on 9/11 was in regards to political punditry and how this event would play out, rather than with the victims of terrorist mass murder.

  • Anonymous

    The problem in all of this is that we are tricked into focussing on, and joining in the conflict. As I read Jesus in the Bible, when confronted with the clash of powers, he did indeed choose a third way based in scripture and in the ethos of God. The classic is the woman caught in adultery. To the ppowers it was either kill the woman or disobey the law. And yet Jesus managed to get the God perspective and then teach a higher living for all including the woman. Other examples are the Samaritan, confrontation with Pilate, confrontation with Peter (Mark 8). The way of the cross is the way to a holy reconciliation for ALL.

  • Tyler Wiggs

    Good Evening,

    Once again, I would like to thank God for our ability to have an open discussion, and I would like to thank everyone for their thoughtful comments.  While I could address the fallacies, misguided statements, and assumptions taken as facts, I am not so sure that a brief posting is going to completely alter one’s point of view.  Instead, I have to believe that the Holy Spirit will work in my life as I write this entry and the lives of others as you read this.  Even if one “side” could completely answer all of the questions already posed, surely more would arise.  In the same sense, the Bible is so vast that we see a perfect example of how people of varying perspectives can find support for their positions within the same book.  The real question is where are our hearts?  Are we dying to ourselves and letting the Holy Spirit guide us, or are we sticking to our worldly desires and passions?  Are we open to what God is telling us, or are we trying to mold Him into our own image?  Are we living out our lives as Christ lived out His?  How do we honestly think that Jesus would respond in this situation?  

    I do not think that we should ever close ourselves off and say that we have figured out exactly what God thinks and no one can tell us differently because God’s ways are not our ways.  Each person is created in His image, and everyone can teach us something.  We need to start focusing on the good in people and figuring out ways to love everyone.  If we find ourselves lost in love, we may just forget the issues that divide us.  Heaven will be a wonderful place where we are bound together by the love of Christ, and we will cease to worry about our differing viewpoints.  As Christians, we should be working to provide the world with a glimpse of heaven, for in doing so, God will be glorified.

    I wish you all a blessed evening!

    In Christ,
    Tyler

×

TRENDING: 5 God Excuses to Avoid After A Natural Disaster>>