ASSIGNMENT

Healing for a Broken World: Christian Perspectives on Public Policy (STEVEN MONSMA, 1ST EDITION COPY WRITTEN 2008)

MONSMA:CHAPTER 12

12: War and Terrorism

ALONG WITH ALMOST ALL AMERICANS, I vividly remember where I was and what I was doing the morning of September 11, 2001. I lived in California at the time. I had my radio alarm set for 6 A. M .—9 A.M. in the east—and the news came on as I was waking up. There were vague reports of an airplane crashing into one of the World Trade Center towers in New York City. I assumed that in foul weather a small private plane had accidentally crashed into one of the towers and did not think too much of it. I went about my daily routine.

But before I was out of the shower, my wife informed me that a second plane had crashed into the second World Trade Center tower. I immediately sensed these were terrorist attacks and that something dreadful was going on. My wife and I watched with mounting horror as we saw television images of the two towers burning, and then one after the other crashing to the ground. Horror was added to horror as we heard of another plane crashing into the Pentagon and of a fourth crashing into a Pennsylvania field.

I suspect all of us were as moved as we were that day because, even though we are not strangers to violence, this was something new. We read daily of automobile crashes that take lives; we can put natural disasters such as tornadoes that take lives into an understandable category; we even have, after a fashion, come to accept the random violence of street crime. But this was different. This was a planned, coordinated attack on the United States.

Since 9/11 of 2001, there have been other attacks linked to terrorists affiliated with the same radical Islam as the 9/11 attackers: In 2002, 180 were killed in the bombing of a Bali night club in Indonesia;in 2004, 191 were killed in a Madrid train bombing; in 2005, 52 were killed in London transit attacks. In 2006 a plot to blow up as many as ten airplanes over the Atlantic was uncovered just in time.

How are we as Christians to react to cruel terrorist attacks against civilian targets designed to take as many lives as possible? We are told to forgive our enemies and to turn the other cheek. But did our Lord mean to include twenty-first-century terrorists? God has established governments to pursue justice in this world and to punish wrong doers. Surely terrorists who indiscriminately take human lives must be included in the wrongdoers whom governments are called to punish. But exactly what does this mean in terms of the anti-terrorist policies our government should pursue?

These are the questions I consider in this chapter. I first discuss how the key biblical principles we have been considering throughout this book relate to the question of war and terrorism. In the next section I suggest how to apply these principles to the ongoing struggle our country is waging in an effort to stop the evil intentions of terrorists and keep us all safe.

Key Biblical Principles

Creation, Sin, Redemption

In 1989 the world heaved a sigh of relief and looked forward to better days. The unbelievable had happened. The Berlin Wall fell. Then, first in East Germany, followed by one country of Eastern Europe after another, communist governments fell and jubilant crowds jammed city squares as freedom replaced repression. Next the Soviet Union itself crumbled; its non-Russian provinces gained their independence, and free market and democratic reforms swept through Russia. The long Cold War struggle against the Soviet Union and its communist ideology had ended with victory for the West and the forces of freedom.

We all rejoiced, thanked God, and looked forward to an era of peace and security. But it was not to be. Soon war and ethnic cleansing broke out in the Balkans. American armed forces were fighting in the deserts of the Middle East to repel Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. Rwanda experienced genocide as Hutu extremist groups slaughtered some eight hundred thousand Tutsis and moderate Hutus. And then came 9/11, other terrorist attacks, and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. North Korea and Iran are moving to acquire nuclear weapons. Russia is slipping back into authoritarianism. Today some even look back nostalgically to the more stable patterns of the Cold War years.

But we ought not to be surprised. Christ himself warned that there would be “wars and rumors of wars” until his coming again in power (Matt. 24:6). The reality of sin in the world and the pride and selfishness that tend to mark nations—and our own hearts—all too easily degenerate into a love of power and an overwhelming pride in one’s own nation or one’s own ethnic or religious group.

Without a clear understanding of human sinfulness that reaches into all of our hearts, it is easy to imagine that if only we get rid of a communist Soviet Union or an especially evil ruler, such as Saddam Hussein or a terrorist mastermind such as Osama bin Laden, peace will reign on earth. We will all live in security. But such thinking denies the Christian teaching of sin. Evil is not centered in one especially evil regime or one especially evil ruler. As we saw in chapter 2, it is everywhere, because it is lodged in each human heart, and thus is present in every nation.

This sounds like a council of despair. However, the story does not end with sin and evil. God has not abandoned the world, but is still active in it. In Jesus Christ God has sent a Savior to redeem the world and to right what has gone so very wrong. The results are all around us. There are world leaders and regimes that are peaceful, seek the welfare of their neighbors, and work to stop the evils others are perpetrating. When a natural disaster strikes, such as the tsunami that flooded parts of south Asia in December 2004, other nations, our own included, rush in with assistance. Good and evil are both present in our world, and there is a constant, ongoing struggle between them. Through it all, God is in control.

In the times between Christ’s coming to redeem the world and his second coming in power to make all things right, we are called to work as God’s peacemakers. We are to avoid a naïve optimism that thinks shalom will come by the efforts of our or any other country;we are also to avoid a deep pessimism that thinks all our efforts to stem violence and bring peace will be futile.

Solidarity

Immediately following 9/11 the Paris newspaper Le Monde carried this headline: “We Are All Americans Now.” In the United States the slogan “united we stand” suddenly appeared on billboards, bumper stickers, and other public places. Both the French headline and the slogan illustrate the principle of solidarity. In the face of brutal terrorist attacks, the French newspaper was saying we are one with you Americans in your grief and loss. “United we stand” proclaimed that all Americans stood with New York, Washington, and all who had suffered loss. An attack on some was taken to be an attack on all.

Solidarity means standing together in a unity of concern and help with those who have suffered harm. Even today many risk their own lives to root out terrorist cells and capture those involved in terrorist activities. They devise new means to spot terrorist attacks before they occur and in other ways oppose wanton killing by al Qaeda and other modern-day terrorists. They are acting in solidarity with those they are seeking to protect.

“We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers, just as surely as John F. Kennedy declared himself to be a Berliner in 1962 when he visited Berlin. Indeed, just as in the gravest moments of our own history, how can we not feel profound solidarity with those people, that country, the United States, to whom we are so close and to whom we owe our freedom, and therefore our solidarity?”1

—JEAN-MARIE COLOMBANI, LE MONDE, SEPTEMBER 12, 2001

Surely we as Christians need to identify with the victims of terrorist attacks—whether our own citizens killed on 9/11 or those in other parts of the world. Indifference—an attitude of “I’m glad I’m not affected”—is not an option for us.

Justice

It surely is just to protect men, women, and children from death such as almost three thousand of our fellow citizens suffered on 9/11. This is a part of government’s God-given duty to promote a just order in society. But how does a government root out potential terrorists before they act and punish those who have engaged in terrorist acts—in a just manner? Here is where we need to do some careful thinking. As we urge our government both to seek justice by rooting out terrorist threats and to do so in a just manner, it is important for us to keep in mind four perspectives rooted in God’s Word. The first is that our country and its government are themselves far from perfect and prone to make errors and to act from improper motives. When in 2002 President George W. Bush referred to an “axis of evil” that included Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, he was criticized for making sweeping, moralistic judgments. But if Saddam’s government in Iraq was not an evil regime, and if the governments of Iran and North Korea are not evil regimes today, I do not know what evil is. Thousands have died under these brutal, repressive regimes, and they have threatened their neighbors with death and destruction.

But an additional biblically rooted perspective needs to be recognized as well. Chapter 2 quoted Solzhenitsyn as saying, “the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.”This is a profound truth rooted in Scripture: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). We evangelicals readily acknowledge this truth, but we often miss its full implications.

If this is true of every human heart, it is also true of every government—including our own. That is why from our founding we have relied on a system of divided powers and checks and balances to keep our government restrained. We rightly fear unlimited governmental power, because we understand that government can become a force for evil as well as a force for good. But we Americans seem to recognize this truth and its implications more quickly in the case of domestic policies than in the case of foreign policies, and especially policies dealing with war and peace. Then we often too quickly give the benefit of the doubt to our leaders.

Fighting al Qaeda and other terrorists who would attack us requires an active, powerful government; the potential for wrong doing that lies in all of our hearts requires restraints be put on that same government.

A second important perspective grows out of the first: Basic human rights must be protected even as we struggle against terrorists who would destroy us. The United States has worked to protect human rights by writing them into the civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights and other legal codes. If in fighting terrorists we do away with protections for our basic civil liberties, the terrorists will have already won. We face a ruthless enemy and some additional powers for our authorities are needed, if they are to be successful in protecting us. But the evil that lies within the hearts of all—including our own authorities—requires curbs on those new powers.

In addition, the torture of terrorists to extract information and the holding of suspected terrorists in prisons for years is unjust. Both of which, sadly, have been acts in which our government has engaged since 9/11. Terrorists and those suspected of having ties to terrorists are also God’s image bearers with God-given human rights that no one—including our authorities—should violate.

“If angels were to govern, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”2

—JAMES MADISON, FOUNDING FATHER AND FOURTH PRESIDENT

In the struggle against terrorism it is easy for a pragmatic mind-set to take over. If by some “mild” forms of torture, we may be able to extract information that will save hundreds, even thousands, of lives, is this not something we should do? If someone may be a key in the al Qaeda network, should we not hold him indefinitely, even if we may later prove to be wrong? After all, thousands of American lives could be at stake. But such thinking is wrong.

In our personal lives, we recognize a pragmatic, the-end-justifies-the-means mind-set is wrong. I recall, early in my teaching career, catching a student plagiarizing material and handing it in as his own. When I confronted him with what he had done, he admitted it, but he further explained that he had become so busy teaching Sunday school and attending other church activities, that he had run out of time to do his own work! Teaching Sunday school is commend-able,as is earning good grades on one’s school work. But God is concerned not only with what we achieve, but with how we go about achieving it. Both must be in keeping with his will.

It is similar for nations. Using the end to justify any means is as wrong for nations as it is in our personal lives. Our country ought to pursue justice by protecting us from terrorists who would kill indiscriminately. But in doing so we must not act unjustly toward those who oppose us.

“Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear. It degrades everyone involved—policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation’s most cherished values. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable. . . . Let America abolish torture now—without exceptions.”3

—A 2006 STATEMENT SIGNED BY MANY EVANGELICAL AND OTHER RELIGIOUS LEADERS

A third perspective, deeply rooted in the Bible and Christian history, is the just-war theory. It originated in the thinking of Augustine more than 1,500 years ago and has been accepted, with some variations, by most Christians ever since. It sets down six conditions if military action is to meet the biblical standard of justice. They are as follows:

1. Just cause. Military force may be used only to defend against an external attack or to respond to a grave evil and those who are committing it.

2. Comparative justice. Recognizing that there are usually injustices on both sides in a dispute, the injustice being suffered by one party must clearly outweigh the injustice being suffered by the other.

3. Legitimate authority. Only properly constituted governments, not individuals or nongovernmental groups, may use military action.

4. Right intention. Military force may be used only to correct the grave injustice that has been committed—not for material gain or other advantages.

5. Probability of success. Military force may not be used in support of a futile cause or where the destruction that is likely outweighs the good to be achieved.

6. Last resort. Military force may be used only when all other means of achieving success have been tried and have failed.

Just-war theory rests on two foundations. One is that governments are instituted by God for a special role in human society. Governments are to promote justice and punish wrongdoers, and in so doing are allowed to “bear the sword” (Rom. 13:4). There are things governments may do in pursuit of justice that no individual may do. This we saw earlier in chapter 3. The second foundation is that governments may not rush off to war quickly or easily. In God’s sight, war is something to be avoided if at all possible. It is an awesome act that reveals as nothing else the brokenness of our world.

Just-war theory is the beginning not the end of our thinking about how our nation can, in a Christian manner, respond to the challenge terrorism presents. It forms a basis for the American government to engage in war and warlike actions; it also raises many cautions or warning flags.

A fourth and final Christian perspective important for a just struggle against terrorists is forgiveness. In October 2006 the world was shocked when a man entered an Amish school in Pennsylvania, separated the boys from the girls, tied the girls up, and began to execute them one by one. He killed five girls before killing himself. But the world was even more shocked when the Amish community that had been subjected to unimaginable violence met with the widow of the man who had killed their children, forgave her for what had happened, and even expressed solidarity with her by attending the funeral of her husband, who had caused them untold sorrow. How could those who had been deeply violated act on the basis not of vengeance or cold indifference, but of love and forgiveness?

We Christians know the answer—even when we as individuals struggle to live up to the will of our Savior. Christ has taught us to pray, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors” (Matt. 6:12, KJV). Forgiveness—even of our enemies—is the hard but undeniable burden our Lord has put on us. This also is a matter of justice. One thing that is due the terrorists who have sworn to destroy us is forgiveness.

The Application of Biblical Principles

The War on Terror

On September 14, 2001, three days after the al Qaeda attacks on the United States, President George W. Bush mounted the steps to the pulpit at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., and delivered one of the most heartfelt and moving addresses of his presidency: “We are here in the middle hour of our grief. So many have suffered so great a loss, and today we express our nation’s sorrow. We come before God to pray for the missing and the dead, and for those who love them.”

But later in the same address he made this statement: “But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.”4 Six days later, before a joint session of Congress, he said, “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”5 It is necessary to ponder these words carefully—and in light of the principles of a broken world, solidarity, and justice.

War was clearly forced upon us on September 11, 2001. In fact, Osama bin Laden had issued a statement years earlier that was in effect a declaration of war. Al Qaeda represents an evil that it is right for our government to oppose with all our might; solidarity requires all of us to rally to the defense of those who are threatened;and, after having been attacked, there is a just cause as demanded by just-war theory.

Yet questions can be raised concerning the latter two statements of President Bush. They seem to promise a war that is nearly open-ended in its reach and goals. Is it really possible to “rid the world of evil” in a broken, sinful world? The Bible teaches this will come about only when Christ returns in power and every knee will bow before him (Phil. 2:10; Rom. 14:11). Even if we do not take the president’s words literally, do they not reveal a mind-set that can easily slip into thinking that by our efforts we can bring about a world without the sort of evils that will always be present in a sinful world?

The quotation from President Bush’s address to a joint session of Congress promised a war on terror that reaches beyond the al Qaeda organization that attacked us to include “every terrorist group of global reach.” This raises a crucial question we need to weigh carefully:Is the “war on terror” a true war, similar to World War II, or is it a war in the sense of an intense struggle, strenuous efforts, and sacrifices?We sometimes think of wars in the second sense. Our leaders have at times announced “a war on drugs,” “a war on crime,” or even “a war on poverty.” Is this the sort of war we are in? Or is this a real war, with identified enemies, battlefields, and military forces?

These are not merely theoretical questions professors might pose to a freshman class to get students thinking. Their practical consequences are enormous. Either type of war potentially can be justified under biblical principles. But these same principles also teach that governments can be perverted to wrong ends. That is why James Madison insisted on a system of checks and balances. If this is true, there is no occasion when a sense of caution and checks and balances are more needed than when a government exercises the power to make war militarily or to exercise its police power to catch, prosecute, and perhaps execute evildoers.

But what sort of war is the war on terror? If it is a war in a literal sense, it would be limited by having a clearly defined enemy and by the rules of war. Presumably the enemy is al Qaeda. After all, it is the organization that attacked us on 9/11. Should President Bush have asked Congress for a formal declaration of war against al Qaeda? And, if he concluded the threat went beyond al Qaeda, against other, named terrorist organizations or states? If this had been done, it would have limited and focused the actions of our nation and military. There would have been a clearly defined enemy. In addition, the rules of war, such as the Geneva Convention, would clearly have been an obligation on us and might have prevented the unjust use of torture. It would have given our military the clear legal authority to hold members and sympathizers of al Qaeda as prisoners of war until a peace settlement had been reached.

Or is the war on terror not a literal war, but a war-like struggle against evil forces, similar to an ongoing “war” against drug dealers or organized crime? If this is the case, the power of our government would again be limited. This time it would be limited by the rights promised under the Bill of Rights to all Americans and aliens living in our country who are suspected or accused of crimes.

There are dangers in waging a war on terror without either (1) clearly declaring war on a specified country or organization, or (2) making clear that this “war” is against an international band of criminal thugs who are to be brought to justice by means of a vigorous use of the tools available to the criminal-justice system. The dangers arise from the government picking and choosing what rules apply to it and what tactics to use—at times acting as though this is a literal war and at times as though it is a hunt for especially vicious international criminals. Our war on terror is more likely to be fought in a just manner, if we would clearly answer this question one way or the other.

What kind of a war is this then? What kind of war ought it to be? On these questions Christians can and will differ. A case can be made either way. The important thing is that we conscientiously seek to answer such questions based on biblical principles and perspectives, not simply on national pride, fear, or a pragmatic acceptance of whatever we believe will stop terrorism.

Afghanistan and Iraq

There can be no doubt that by almost any definition the United States is involved in a real war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Fighting is ongoing and soldiers are dying. No doubt some who are reading these words have lost in these wars family members whom they loved more than life itself. For them—and for all of us who stand in solidarity with them—the continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are real, tragic, and bitter. But also perhaps necessary and just. That is what I consider in this section. How ought we as Christian believers evaluate our country’s actions in these far-off countries?

We need to consider two sets of questions in terms of both of these countries. First, were our original invasions of these countries justified on biblical principles? Both countries had what clearly were evil regimes. The Taliban in Afghanistan oppressed women, persecuted Christians, and in other ways violated human rights—and actively gave aid and sanctuary to those who attacked the United States on 9/11. The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq earlier attacked its neighbor Kuwait and cruelly oppressed many of its own people, especially the Kurds in the north and the majority Shiite Muslims in the south. The world had reason to believe that it possessed weapons of mass destruction.

9781581349610_0195_001

12: War and Terrorism

“The Lord Is My Strength and My Defense”

(Exodus 15 : 2, TNIV)

ALONG WITH ALMOST ALL AMERICANS, I vividly remember where I was and what I was doing the morning of September 11, 2001. I lived in California at the time. I had my radio alarm set for 6 A. M .—9 A.M. in the east—and the news came on as I was waking up. There were vague reports of an airplane crashing into one of the World Trade Center towers in New York City. I assumed that in foul weather a small private plane had accidentally crashed into one of the towers and did not think too much of it. I went about my daily routine.

But before I was out of the shower, my wife informed me that a second plane had crashed into the second World Trade Center tower. I immediately sensed these were terrorist attacks and that something dreadful was going on. My wife and I watched with mounting horror as we saw television images of the two towers burning, and then one after the other crashing to the ground. Horror was added to horror as we heard of another plane crashing into the Pentagon and of a fourth crashing into a Pennsylvania field.

I suspect all of us were as moved as we were that day because, even though we are not strangers to violence, this was something new. We read daily of automobile crashes that take lives; we can put natural disasters such as tornadoes that take lives into an understandable category; we even have, after a fashion, come to accept the random violence of street crime. But this was different. This was a planned, coordinated attack on the United States.

Since 9/11 of 2001, there have been other attacks linked to terrorists affiliated with the same radical Islam as the 9/11 attackers: In 2002, 180 were killed in the bombing of a Bali night club in Indonesia;in 2004, 191 were killed in a Madrid train bombing; in 2005, 52 were killed in London transit attacks. In 2006 a plot to blow up as many as ten airplanes over the Atlantic was uncovered just in time.

How are we as Christians to react to cruel terrorist attacks against civilian targets designed to take as many lives as possible? We are told to forgive our enemies and to turn the other cheek. But did our Lord mean to include twenty-first-century terrorists? God has established governments to pursue justice in this world and to punish wrong doers. Surely terrorists who indiscriminately take human lives must be included in the wrongdoers whom governments are called to punish. But exactly what does this mean in terms of the anti-terrorist policies our government should pursue?

These are the questions I consider in this chapter. I first discuss how the key biblical principles we have been considering throughout this book relate to the question of war and terrorism. In the next section I suggest how to apply these principles to the ongoing struggle our country is waging in an effort to stop the evil intentions of terrorists and keep us all safe.

Key Biblical Principles

Creation, Sin, Redemption

In 1989 the world heaved a sigh of relief and looked forward to better days. The unbelievable had happened. The Berlin Wall fell. Then, first in East Germany, followed by one country of Eastern Europe after another, communist governments fell and jubilant crowds jammed city squares as freedom replaced repression. Next the Soviet Union itself crumbled; its non-Russian provinces gained their independence, and free market and democratic reforms swept through Russia. The long Cold War struggle against the Soviet Union and its communist ideology had ended with victory for the West and the forces of freedom.

We all rejoiced, thanked God, and looked forward to an era of peace and security. But it was not to be. Soon war and ethnic cleansing broke out in the Balkans. American armed forces were fighting in the deserts of the Middle East to repel Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. Rwanda experienced genocide as Hutu extremist groups slaughtered some eight hundred thousand Tutsis and moderate Hutus. And then came 9/11, other terrorist attacks, and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. North Korea and Iran are moving to acquire nuclear weapons. Russia is slipping back into authoritarianism. Today some even look back nostalgically to the more stable patterns of the Cold War years.

But we ought not to be surprised. Christ himself warned that there would be “wars and rumors of wars” until his coming again in power (Matt. 24:6). The reality of sin in the world and the pride and selfishness that tend to mark nations—and our own hearts—all too easily degenerate into a love of power and an overwhelming pride in one’s own nation or one’s own ethnic or religious group.

Without a clear understanding of human sinfulness that reaches into all of our hearts, it is easy to imagine that if only we get rid of a communist Soviet Union or an especially evil ruler, such as Saddam Hussein or a terrorist mastermind such as Osama bin Laden, peace will reign on earth. We will all live in security. But such thinking denies the Christian teaching of sin. Evil is not centered in one especially evil regime or one especially evil ruler. As we saw in chapter 2, it is everywhere, because it is lodged in each human heart, and thus is present in every nation.

This sounds like a council of despair. However, the story does not end with sin and evil. God has not abandoned the world, but is still active in it. In Jesus Christ God has sent a Savior to redeem the world and to right what has gone so very wrong. The results are all around us. There are world leaders and regimes that are peaceful, seek the welfare of their neighbors, and work to stop the evils others are perpetrating. When a natural disaster strikes, such as the tsunami that flooded parts of south Asia in December 2004, other nations, our own included, rush in with assistance. Good and evil are both present in our world, and there is a constant, ongoing struggle between them. Through it all, God is in control.

In the times between Christ’s coming to redeem the world and his second coming in power to make all things right, we are called to work as God’s peacemakers. We are to avoid a naïve optimism that thinks shalom will come by the efforts of our or any other country;we are also to avoid a deep pessimism that thinks all our efforts to stem violence and bring peace will be futile.

Solidarity

Immediately following 9/11 the Paris newspaper Le Monde carried this headline: “We Are All Americans Now.” In the United States the slogan “united we stand” suddenly appeared on billboards, bumper stickers, and other public places. Both the French headline and the slogan illustrate the principle of solidarity. In the face of brutal terrorist attacks, the French newspaper was saying we are one with you Americans in your grief and loss. “United we stand” proclaimed that all Americans stood with New York, Washington, and all who had suffered loss. An attack on some was taken to be an attack on all.

Solidarity means standing together in a unity of concern and help with those who have suffered harm. Even today many risk their own lives to root out terrorist cells and capture those involved in terrorist activities. They devise new means to spot terrorist attacks before they occur and in other ways oppose wanton killing by al Qaeda and other modern-day terrorists. They are acting in solidarity with those they are seeking to protect.

“We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers, just as surely as John F. Kennedy declared himself to be a Berliner in 1962 when he visited Berlin. Indeed, just as in the gravest moments of our own history, how can we not feel profound solidarity with those people, that country, the United States, to whom we are so close and to whom we owe our freedom, and therefore our solidarity?”1

—JEAN-MARIE COLOMBANI, LE MONDE, SEPTEMBER 12, 2001

Surely we as Christians need to identify with the victims of terrorist attacks—whether our own citizens killed on 9/11 or those in other parts of the world. Indifference—an attitude of “I’m glad I’m not affected”—is not an option for us.

Justice

It surely is just to protect men, women, and children from death such as almost three thousand of our fellow citizens suffered on 9/11. This is a part of government’s God-given duty to promote a just order in society. But how does a government root out potential terrorists before they act and punish those who have engaged in terrorist acts—in a just manner? Here is where we need to do some careful thinking. As we urge our government both to seek justice by rooting out terrorist threats and to do so in a just manner, it is important for us to keep in mind four perspectives rooted in God’s Word. The first is that our country and its government are themselves far from perfect and prone to make errors and to act from improper motives. When in 2002 President George W. Bush referred to an “axis of evil” that included Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, he was criticized for making sweeping, moralistic judgments. But if Saddam’s government in Iraq was not an evil regime, and if the governments of Iran and North Korea are not evil regimes today, I do not know what evil is. Thousands have died under these brutal, repressive regimes, and they have threatened their neighbors with death and destruction.

But an additional biblically rooted perspective needs to be recognized as well. Chapter 2 quoted Solzhenitsyn as saying, “the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.”This is a profound truth rooted in Scripture: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). We evangelicals readily acknowledge this truth, but we often miss its full implications.

If this is true of every human heart, it is also true of every government—including our own. That is why from our founding we have relied on a system of divided powers and checks and balances to keep our government restrained. We rightly fear unlimited governmental power, because we understand that government can become a force for evil as well as a force for good. But we Americans seem to recognize this truth and its implications more quickly in the case of domestic policies than in the case of foreign policies, and especially policies dealing with war and peace. Then we often too quickly give the benefit of the doubt to our leaders.

Fighting al Qaeda and other terrorists who would attack us requires an active, powerful government; the potential for wrong doing that lies in all of our hearts requires restraints be put on that same government.

A second important perspective grows out of the first: Basic human rights must be protected even as we struggle against terrorists who would destroy us. The United States has worked to protect human rights by writing them into the civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights and other legal codes. If in fighting terrorists we do away with protections for our basic civil liberties, the terrorists will have already won. We face a ruthless enemy and some additional powers for our authorities are needed, if they are to be successful in protecting us. But the evil that lies within the hearts of all—including our own authorities—requires curbs on those new powers.

In addition, the torture of terrorists to extract information and the holding of suspected terrorists in prisons for years is unjust. Both of which, sadly, have been acts in which our government has engaged since 9/11. Terrorists and those suspected of having ties to terrorists are also God’s image bearers with God-given human rights that no one—including our authorities—should violate.

“If angels were to govern, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”2

—JAMES MADISON, FOUNDING FATHER AND FOURTH PRESIDENT

In the struggle against terrorism it is easy for a pragmatic mind-set to take over. If by some “mild” forms of torture, we may be able to extract information that will save hundreds, even thousands, of lives, is this not something we should do? If someone may be a key in the al Qaeda network, should we not hold him indefinitely, even if we may later prove to be wrong? After all, thousands of American lives could be at stake. But such thinking is wrong.

In our personal lives, we recognize a pragmatic, the-end-justifies-the-means mind-set is wrong. I recall, early in my teaching career, catching a student plagiarizing material and handing it in as his own. When I confronted him with what he had done, he admitted it, but he further explained that he had become so busy teaching Sunday school and attending other church activities, that he had run out of time to do his own work! Teaching Sunday school is commend-able,as is earning good grades on one’s school work. But God is concerned not only with what we achieve, but with how we go about achieving it. Both must be in keeping with his will.

It is similar for nations. Using the end to justify any means is as wrong for nations as it is in our personal lives. Our country ought to pursue justice by protecting us from terrorists who would kill indiscriminately. But in doing so we must not act unjustly toward those who oppose us.

“Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear. It degrades everyone involved—policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation’s most cherished values. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable. . . . Let America abolish torture now—without exceptions.”3

—A 2006 STATEMENT SIGNED BY MANY EVANGELICAL AND OTHER RELIGIOUS LEADERS

A third perspective, deeply rooted in the Bible and Christian history, is the just-war theory. It originated in the thinking of Augustine more than 1,500 years ago and has been accepted, with some variations, by most Christians ever since. It sets down six conditions if military action is to meet the biblical standard of justice. They are as follows:

1. Just cause. Military force may be used only to defend against an external attack or to respond to a grave evil and those who are committing it.

2. Comparative justice. Recognizing that there are usually injustices on both sides in a dispute, the injustice being suffered by one party must clearly outweigh the injustice being suffered by the other.

3. Legitimate authority. Only properly constituted governments, not individuals or nongovernmental groups, may use military action.

4. Right intention. Military force may be used only to correct the grave injustice that has been committed—not for material gain or other advantages.

5. Probability of success. Military force may not be used in support of a futile cause or where the destruction that is likely outweighs the good to be achieved.

6. Last resort. Military force may be used only when all other means of achieving success have been tried and have failed.

Just-war theory rests on two foundations. One is that governments are instituted by God for a special role in human society. Governments are to promote justice and punish wrongdoers, and in so doing are allowed to “bear the sword” (Rom. 13:4). There are things governments may do in pursuit of justice that no individual may do. This we saw earlier in chapter 3. The second foundation is that governments may not rush off to war quickly or easily. In God’s sight, war is something to be avoided if at all possible. It is an awesome act that reveals as nothing else the brokenness of our world.

Just-war theory is the beginning not the end of our thinking about how our nation can, in a Christian manner, respond to the challenge terrorism presents. It forms a basis for the American government to engage in war and warlike actions; it also raises many cautions or warning flags.

A fourth and final Christian perspective important for a just struggle against terrorists is forgiveness. In October 2006 the world was shocked when a man entered an Amish school in Pennsylvania, separated the boys from the girls, tied the girls up, and began to execute them one by one. He killed five girls before killing himself. But the world was even more shocked when the Amish community that had been subjected to unimaginable violence met with the widow of the man who had killed their children, forgave her for what had happened, and even expressed solidarity with her by attending the funeral of her husband, who had caused them untold sorrow. How could those who had been deeply violated act on the basis not of vengeance or cold indifference, but of love and forgiveness?

We Christians know the answer—even when we as individuals struggle to live up to the will of our Savior. Christ has taught us to pray, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors” (Matt. 6:12, KJV). Forgiveness—even of our enemies—is the hard but undeniable burden our Lord has put on us. This also is a matter of justice. One thing that is due the terrorists who have sworn to destroy us is forgiveness.

The Application of Biblical Principles

The War on Terror

On September 14, 2001, three days after the al Qaeda attacks on the United States, President George W. Bush mounted the steps to the pulpit at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., and delivered one of the most heartfelt and moving addresses of his presidency: “We are here in the middle hour of our grief. So many have suffered so great a loss, and today we express our nation’s sorrow. We come before God to pray for the missing and the dead, and for those who love them.”

But later in the same address he made this statement: “But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.”4 Six days later, before a joint session of Congress, he said, “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”5 It is necessary to ponder these words carefully—and in light of the principles of a broken world, solidarity, and justice.

War was clearly forced upon us on September 11, 2001. In fact, Osama bin Laden had issued a statement years earlier that was in effect a declaration of war. Al Qaeda represents an evil that it is right for our government to oppose with all our might; solidarity requires all of us to rally to the defense of those who are threatened;and, after having been attacked, there is a just cause as demanded by just-war theory.

Yet questions can be raised concerning the latter two statements of President Bush. They seem to promise a war that is nearly open-ended in its reach and goals. Is it really possible to “rid the world of evil” in a broken, sinful world? The Bible teaches this will come about only when Christ returns in power and every knee will bow before him (Phil. 2:10; Rom. 14:11). Even if we do not take the president’s words literally, do they not reveal a mind-set that can easily slip into thinking that by our efforts we can bring about a world without the sort of evils that will always be present in a sinful world?

The quotation from President Bush’s address to a joint session of Congress promised a war on terror that reaches beyond the al Qaeda organization that attacked us to include “every terrorist group of global reach.” This raises a crucial question we need to weigh carefully:Is the “war on terror” a true war, similar to World War II, or is it a war in the sense of an intense struggle, strenuous efforts, and sacrifices?We sometimes think of wars in the second sense. Our leaders have at times announced “a war on drugs,” “a war on crime,” or even “a war on poverty.” Is this the sort of war we are in? Or is this a real war, with identified enemies, battlefields, and military forces?

These are not merely theoretical questions professors might pose to a freshman class to get students thinking. Their practical consequences are enormous. Either type of war potentially can be justified under biblical principles. But these same principles also teach that governments can be perverted to wrong ends. That is why James Madison insisted on a system of checks and balances. If this is true, there is no occasion when a sense of caution and checks and balances are more needed than when a government exercises the power to make war militarily or to exercise its police power to catch, prosecute, and perhaps execute evildoers.

But what sort of war is the war on terror? If it is a war in a literal sense, it would be limited by having a clearly defined enemy and by the rules of war. Presumably the enemy is al Qaeda. After all, it is the organization that attacked us on 9/11. Should President Bush have asked Congress for a formal declaration of war against al Qaeda? And, if he concluded the threat went beyond al Qaeda, against other, named terrorist organizations or states? If this had been done, it would have limited and focused the actions of our nation and military. There would have been a clearly defined enemy. In addition, the rules of war, such as the Geneva Convention, would clearly have been an obligation on us and might have prevented the unjust use of torture. It would have given our military the clear legal authority to hold members and sympathizers of al Qaeda as prisoners of war until a peace settlement had been reached.

Or is the war on terror not a literal war, but a war-like struggle against evil forces, similar to an ongoing “war” against drug dealers or organized crime? If this is the case, the power of our government would again be limited. This time it would be limited by the rights promised under the Bill of Rights to all Americans and aliens living in our country who are suspected or accused of crimes.

There are dangers in waging a war on terror without either (1) clearly declaring war on a specified country or organization, or (2) making clear that this “war” is against an international band of criminal thugs who are to be brought to justice by means of a vigorous use of the tools available to the criminal-justice system. The dangers arise from the government picking and choosing what rules apply to it and what tactics to use—at times acting as though this is a literal war and at times as though it is a hunt for especially vicious international criminals. Our war on terror is more likely to be fought in a just manner, if we would clearly answer this question one way or the other.

What kind of a war is this then? What kind of war ought it to be? On these questions Christians can and will differ. A case can be made either way. The important thing is that we conscientiously seek to answer such questions based on biblical principles and perspectives, not simply on national pride, fear, or a pragmatic acceptance of whatever we believe will stop terrorism.

Afghanistan and Iraq

There can be no doubt that by almost any definition the United States is involved in a real war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Fighting is ongoing and soldiers are dying. No doubt some who are reading these words have lost in these wars family members whom they loved more than life itself. For them—and for all of us who stand in solidarity with them—the continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are real, tragic, and bitter. But also perhaps necessary and just. That is what I consider in this section. How ought we as Christian believers evaluate our country’s actions in these far-off countries?

We need to consider two sets of questions in terms of both of these countries. First, were our original invasions of these countries justified on biblical principles? Both countries had what clearly were evil regimes. The Taliban in Afghanistan oppressed women, persecuted Christians, and in other ways violated human rights—and actively gave aid and sanctuary to those who attacked the United States on 9/11. The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq earlier attacked its neighbor Kuwait and cruelly oppressed many of its own people, especially the Kurds in the north and the majority Shiite Muslims in the south. The world had reason to believe that it possessed weapons of mass destruction.

It is easier to justify the attack on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan than the attack on Iraq, because the Taliban were clearly harboring and giving assistance to the very organization that attacked us. In addition, the United States had broad international support for its attack on Afghanistan. Were these enough to judge that our attack had a just cause, right intentions, a high probability of success, and legitimate authority? Did it meet the other terms of just-war theory? I personally answer these questions with a yes, but others may disagree.

But what about Iraq? Here the ties to the 9/11 attacks were tenuous, even though the evils of the Saddam regime were clear enough. The potential for Iraq to be involved in future terrorist attacks was present and serious, especially given the general belief that it had weapons of mass destruction. Was this enough to create a “just cause”? Was the presence of oil—something not present in Afghanistan—perhaps a factor that helped lead us to war, thereby violating the “right intent”point of just-war theory? Equally sincere Christians can disagree on the conclusions they reach to such questions.

But our political and military leaders made a basic error in Iraq that a fuller understanding of Christian principles would have helped prevent. Our postwar policy seemingly was governed by a naïve optimism concerning human nature that has more to do with modern secularist assumptions than with biblical teachings. In Iraq especially, we went in and removed the existing regime, disbanded the armed forces, and did away with most of the civil authorities—and apparently expected that a peaceful, lawful society would spring up in their stead. The error was to assume—probably unself-consciously—that all evil was concentrated in the Saddam regime. Get rid of it, and peace and cooperation would flourish.

But we Christians know better—or at least should know better. Remove an existing government and criminal elements and a selfish pride in one’s own religious and ethnic group are more likely to flourish than peace and cooperation. Thousands of American troops and uncounted thousands of Iraqis have paid with their lives for the naïveté of our leaders. To go into Iraq and remove an existing regime—as evil as what it was—without effective plans to replace it with a more just order, violated just war’s fifth point, that of probable success. It says that for a war to be just, the good likely to be achieved by it must outweigh the destruction that is likely to be caused by the war.

The second question asks: what to do now? We removed Saddam with no workable plan for what was to come after, resulting in lawlessness and sectarian violence. One can argue that to pull out now, leaving a worse, bloodier situation than when we came is both wrong and against the long-term chances for a more peaceful world. But one can also argue there is not much we can do. Religious and ethnic jealousies can only be moderated by the Iraqis themselves. If peace and stability are to come, the various Iraqi factions must put aside revenge, forgiving past wrongs, and commit to working together. Economics also enter in. Iraq’s oil lies in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south, and none lies in the predominantly Sunni areas. If leaders of the Kurds and Shiites would step forward and agree to share their oil wealth with the Sunni areas, the ground could be laid for an end to the violence.

If, however, there are no Iraqi leaders willing to forgive past wrongs and to share equitably Iraq’s oil resources, there may not be much we can do to stop the violence. Withdrawal and an admission of past errors may then be the best option. We as a nation would be humbled, and many Iraqis would suffer due to our errors. But when we, either as individuals or as a nation, have made a grievous mistake that cannot be repaired, the best answer may be to admit the mistake, ask for forgiveness, and work to learn from one’s error.

Others will conclude that the situation in Iraq can yet be salvaged. And they will feel we owe it to the Iraqis to continue trying to do so. There indeed are many Iraqis who desire to create a democratic, peaceful government that unites all Iraqis. Are we now simply to abandon them? We need to stand in solidarity with the suffering Iraqis and help them overcome those who seek power by way of murder and mayhem.

When we as Christian citizens debate such issues, we need to be guided by a realistic understanding of sin in a broken world that is not as it is supposed to be, by a loving concern for our neighbors in Iraq, and by a full commitment to justice. We should be guided by biblical perspectives such as these, not by national self-interest and pride, political advantage, and access to natural resources.

The Patriot Act

On October 26, 2001—only forty-six days after 9/ 11—Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the USA Patriot Act. In 2006 Congress renewed the legislation, after amending some of its provisions. It has aroused much controversy. Some claim it is essential for catching terrorists and potential terrorists in our midst. They add that it does no more than grant the same powers to law enforcement authorities in their efforts to catch terrorists as they have always had in catching drug dealers and organized-crime figures. Others claim it dangerously concentrates power in the hands of law enforcement officials who could easily misuse their new powers. The privacy of every American, they argue, is being put at risk.

A reading of the actual USA Patriot Act or even of the many arguments made for and against it is guaranteed to give a headache to all but the most dedicated lawyers! What are concerned Christian citizens to do? They want their families and their fellow Americans to be safe from terrorist attacks. But they also realize the danger posed by unbridled governmental power. How can we understand even the broad scope of the Patriot Act and sort out claims from the counterclaims and reach a conscientious position?

A basic principle needs to be applied here: When power is concentrated in one person or one agency, with no independent limit or check on that power, it is very likely, sooner or later, to be abused. As I have emphasized at various points, God has established governments as his agents for a more just order in society. But in a broken, sinful world governments themselves are prone to become agents of injustice. That is why it is important to limit governmental powers;\when power is given to a governmental agency, provision ought to be made for others to know what it is doing and to be able to block or curb its use of that power.

The key question we should ask of the Patriot Act—as well as of other anti terrorist powers various government agencies have been given—is not simply whether new, sweeping powers have been given to certain intelligence-gathering and law-enforcement agencies; we should ask whether those new powers are accompanied by independent checks on those agencies. Are there other agencies that are looking over the shoulders of those exercising the new powers?

For the most part, the answer seems to be yes in the case of the Patriot Act. There is, for example, a federal court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), created specifically to oversee the work of agencies involved in foreign intelligence work. It must approve most wiretaps or other surveillance work of these agencies. And this court is independent, composed of eleven federal district court judges who are appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court for seven-year terms. In recent years it has in fact turned down numerous requests for surveillance activities.

But others have concluded that the checks on the powers of anti terrorism offices are insufficient. They expressed special concern over the Protect America Act of 2007 that limited certain oversight powers of the FISC. They have also argued there are certain types of surveillance activities no governmental agency should engage in, even if there are independent checks.

I have neither the need nor the wisdom to judge here who is correct in this ongoing debate. From a Christian perspective, I insist that the key need is for effective, independent checks on the authority of the law enforcement and surveillance agencies. That is the question we need to ask and for which we need to obtain answers. That is the best means to ensure against both the injustice of terrorists spreading death and destruction and the injustice of innocent civilians being subjected to police-state intrusions into their privacy.

Conclusion

If we Christians follow basic biblical principles relevant to the world of governments and public policies to the best our abilities, our way of thinking about, reacting to, and evaluating public policies will be radically altered. We will no longer be conformed to the pattern of this world and its way of thinking, but will be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom. 12:2). This does not mean that all of us will always agree on all issues. Far from it. Nowhere is that more true than in the case of the awesome issues of war and terrorism considered in this chapter. But this is not a reason for despair. God is sovereign;he is in control. He will use our transformed minds to accomplish his purposes. And no one can hope for anything better than this.