From CT:
On 9/11 I thought, For the most powerful, militarized nation in the world also to think of itself as an innocent victim is deadly. It was a rare prophetic moment for me, considering Presidents Bush and Obama have spent billions asking the military to rectify the crime of a small band of lawless individuals, destroying a couple of nations who had little to do with it, in the costliest, longest series of wars in the history of the United States.
The silence of most Christians and the giddy enthusiasm of a few, as well as the ubiquity of flags and patriotic extravaganzas in allegedly evangelical churches, says to me that American Christians may look back upon our response to 9/11 as our greatest Christological defeat. It was shattering to admit that we had lost the theological means to distinguish between the United States and the kingdom of God. The criminals who perpetrated 9/11 and the flag-waving boosters of our almost exclusively martial response were of one mind: that the nonviolent way of Jesus is stupid. All of us preachers share the shame; when our people felt very vulnerable, they reached for the flag, not the Cross.
September 11 has changed me. I’m going to preach as never before about Christ crucified as the answer to the question of what’s wrong with the world. I have also resolved to relentlessly reiterate from the pulpit that the worst day in history was not a Tuesday in New York, but a Friday in Jerusalem when a consortium of clergy and politicians colluded to run the world on our own terms by crucifying God’s own Son.
I was just reading this to my wife. I was struck by how different his response was than the other commentators he was placed alongside. I was also impressed with how prophetic his words sounded. CT had him respond to another question a few months ago & I hope they continue to put his words in the conversation on various issues. I appreciate his perspective.
Far and way the best thing I’ve read on the American church’s response to 9/11. Absolutely brilliant. So prophetic.
I only wish I had been a better pastor ten years ago.
How ironic that Willimon’s “worst day in history” led irreversibly to the greatest day in world history only several days later.
(previous note sent before finished…)
…meaning that if we focus on Christ crucified, it really WAS the worst day in history. But if we focus on Christ resurrected, it was the greatest. Crucifixion can be spoken of without resurrection (and in fact was) for every person ever subjected to it – with one exception. When we speak of Jesus, we should never speak of crucifixion without also speaking of resurrection.
Thought provoking.
“… that the nonviolent way of Jesus is stupid.”
IMO, that is American Christianity. Painful to read.
These are beautiful and tragically true words. As stated above, this is the best thing I’ve heard in 10 years about the Church in America and 9/11.
Willimon introduces so many powerful thoughts with so few words. I grieve the lost opportunity to discover what the church has become. What would have happened if we had sat down with moderate Muslims and sincerely asked “What have we become in Christian America to inspire such raw hatred?”
We were in Colorado & the professor at the U of Colorado who criticized the US policy was hammered, closely scrutinized and eventually fired for academic fraud. No one really seriously entertained asking the question “why are they so angry with us?”, it seemed.
Part of dying to ourselves, individually and corporately, requires that we face the truth of how others perceive our actions. I’m not sure that most of us in our churches or public discussions ever did that. So, if we have failed to “be crucified with Christ”, how can God raise us up with him? sigh…
I agree. In some research, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom includes over 6,000 American Service people lives, estimated 110,000 to 150,000 civilian lives, over 33,000 American wounded, and $1.5 trillion. In the parable of Matthew 18: 21-35 Jesus teaches the Kingdom principle of radical forgiveness.
This is also, perhaps, when we refuse to identify with the incarnation of Christ. If Christ and His Kingdom are ultimately out of our hands, and we are just spectators, then the things that we do on this earth lack meaning and relevance in eternity.
Not that this can actually be supported biblically. But it’s certainly acted out culturally.
Kudos to the good bishop!
Ann F-R, but of course, they hate us for our freedoms!
This issue is so big I have no idea how to even start to tackle it other than preach the gospel. Landmines everywhere.
Those of us who follow the Revised Common Lectionary have been given a nudge given the readings for tomorrow on judgement and forgiveness…
Will Willimon is such a clear thinker. His thoughts often feel like a (welcome) wack on the side of the head. Is there a term for the opposite of ditto?
I actually think Willimon, in this instance, is a bad historian who inflates figures to exaggerate the opposition.
W. didn’t adjust for inflation–WW2 was roughly 35% of the GDP, while Iraq and Afgh were roughly 5%. Let’s not even talk about loss of lives.
US involvement in Vietnam exceeds that of Iraq or Afghanistan thus far.
Moreover, there was and continues to be substantial criticism of US and Christian responses to 9/11. Though outside Willimon’s camp, these criticisms also come from just war adherents.
The church is not well served by this sort of “prophetic” rhetoric, and Willimon’s insightful preaching suffers in the process.
Despite having the same last name as first name, I like the way this guy talks. Though I agree with Rick that I’ve never completely understood the rhetoric that focuses on only either the horror or glory of the cross.
And I also do think that we shouldn’t necessarily hold human governments to kingdom standards, as that feels like attempting to establish God’s kingdom under human authority to me. But I think that I’ve made it clear on this blog before that, as citizens, we Christians MUST be radically opposed to the 1000s upon 1000s of innocent civilians that US military action has killed in the middle east in our horrendously destructive and expensive wars. That’s in flagrant violation of even the eye for an eye standard of revenge, which even Jesus taught meant much more deeply that we shouldn’t want revenge in the first place.
Wish you would have included the other comments in CT. Most of them were really good. The fact is, not everyone is going to react the same way. What’s wrong with that?
I preached on the forgiveness stories from the lectionary this morning using the alternate OT text from Genesis 50. There are always appropriate levels of military action but what we did as a country was over the top. The kingdom of Jesus calls us to break the cycle of 70×7 revenge described by Lamech in Geneis 4:23-2 with 70×7 forgiveness.
I’m sorry, but Willimon is just wrong. The New Testament makes perfectly clear that the obligations of governments and of individuals are two different things. Individual Christians are called to forgive. Governments exist largely to put a limit to the influence of crime and other forms of overt evil in the world. The evil of jihadism is clearly something that governments have to respond to with force. To fail to do that would be to shirk the responsibility that God has given them. It is certainly possible to question specific decisions that had been made in response to the attacks, but to insist that the primary obligation of governments is to forgive is to fundamentally misunderstand why they are necessary in a world of sinners.
The notion that 911 was perpetrated by a “lawless band of individuals” who are to be classified simply as “criminals” is, in my mind, false. This was an act orchestrated by an organized and sophisticated terrorist organization, often aided, funded and encouraged by certain nations. This was not an isolated attack, but was the most grievous of hundreds of such attacks that had been occurring for over two decades. The intent of these terrorist organizations is well known – to defeat the “great Satan” of western democracies, to establish a worldwide Islamic theocracy and to see the utter destruction of Israel in particular. The majority of all Muslims may not share these goals, but a significant number do. It may be legitimate to question the effectiveness or the method of our response, but it is false to characterize the attack of 911 the way he does.
alison,
Yesterday I had four links to 9/11 from various angles on my Meanderings, then just below this post I had Peter Leithart’s reflection, and then this one by Willimon. I plan on one more this week… but I can’t swipe all of the CT reflections and ignore so many others… I am bit surprised by the number of FB likes on this one and tweets on this one as compared to what happened to Leithart.
It is true that vengeance, unchecked militarism, and mindless violence is evil and un-Christian, as it were. Sadly, too many have take it to the other extreme. In the final analysis, I am thankful (yes, to God) that those who write these pieces are not the same ones charged with keeping me and my kids safe while we sleep.
Preston,
I’m not sure you are reading Willimon right: he’s an Anabaptist type who thinks the church’s obligations are not the same as the government’s, and he is arguing Christians too easily lined up with politics and power and not enough with the cross and love and peace and grace. He’s talking about how Christians as Christians respond.
I don’t think mentioning God in the aftermath of a tragedy = theocracy.
Rick in Il:
Couldn’t disagree with you more – I don’t see it as “Willimon’s ‘worst day in history.’” It IS the worst day in human history. Can’t imagine a worse day than when we attempted to do away with the Creator’s Son (who came to share our humanity) once and for all. It was, is, and will be the worst day in human history. It was a real, horrible painful death – awful – human beings torturing and killing another human – one who had done no wrong other than to speak the truth in love to power.
Don’t know which faith community shaped and is shaping you. The tradition from which I came emphasized the Resurrection and virtually ignored the Crucifixion – we were so anxious to get to Resurrection that we ignored Crucifixion – We did not acknowledge that there is no resurrection without crucifixion.
I do agree with you that we shouldn’t “fall in the ditch” on either side – ignore crucifixion OR resurrection – Good conversation here.
The following was asked of Luther:
What, then, of the Christian idealism, already discernable among the Anabaptists, who challenge the right of the state to use force for the repression of evil, and preach absolute non-resistance?
“This is what you should say to them in reply. It is perfectly true that Christians do not need law and sword for themselves, and are not subject thereto (i.e.because they are subject to the Holy Spirit). But before wanting to govern the world in accordance with the Gospel, busy yourself first of all with giving us a world there will be no longer anyone but true Christians. For the world, and the mass of mankind, are and remain refractory to the Spirit of Christ, even though all have been baptised and bear the name of Christian. The world’s nature resists all attempts to govern the world in accordance with Christian principles. One can’t govern a single country thus, or a group however small in numbers. To try to govern a country with the help of the Gospel would be as sensible as enclosing in the same farm yard, rabbits, lions, eagles, and sheep, and saying to them; the gates are open, the grass is abundant and you have nothing to fear from dogs or from blows of the cudgel. The sheep would be peaceful enough, and would accept such peaceable governance. But they would not live very long…”
“It is the statesman’s dilemma, and it is agonizingly real; we who are, or have been, or about to be, pacifists, are impaled upon its horns, just as he is.” J. S. Whale, 1956.
“We helped in creating this new weapon in order to prevent the enemies of mankind from achieving it ahead of us. In the mindset of the Nazis it means inconceivable destruction and the enslavement of the rest of the world.” Eistein, 1945.
Now the enemies of mankind have nuclear capabilities- and it ups the ante on postions of pacifism, defense, and statesmanship. It is agonizingly real, because if we don’t become real, events like those on 9/11 could pale in comparison. You can destroy all your weapons, or build so many that you could destroy the planet times over. But it comes down to statesmanship- and that is an art form which demands wisdom. Seward- the Secretary of State during the Civil War- and his wife Frances were abolitionists. His last words to his children were “Love one-another” His tombstone reads “He was faithful”.
One must consider the source here, as has been noted in a couple of the posts.
The writer is an Anabaptist and thus a total pacifist. No war or armed conflict is justifiable from his perspective.
Comments 20 and 21 make clear the responsibility of the state which is separate from that of the church.
It is not the responsibility of the state to invade nations which have not attacked us. It is not the responsibility of the state to occupy other countries and kill tens of thousands of innocent women and children.
It is the responsibility of the people to place leaders who do such things on trial as war criminals, and I put both Bush and Obama in that category. I care not about their motives or their patriotism.
Revealing discussion this is. What is Willimon’s basic point? Isn’t it that 9-11 is a reminder, more obvious than most, that the church in America is not doing its job? What job? Read John 17. Read John 4:18-19; 13:35; 14:27; Matt 25:31-46. Willimon expresses this observation using some terminology specific to his denominational background which may limit his thinking and perspective, but every comment on this post has done the same thing in different ways. But in spite of his limitations, he says he will resolve to do better to present the gospel to the world. He’s imperfect. Any commentator on this post who thinks they are an exception to imperfection raise their right mouse. And the response to saying the church needs to do better? Does everyone in unity say, “Yes, we resolve to do a better job of representing the love of Jesus and put our different gifts together as a body without arguing over who has the best opinion about the government or the best definition of ‘worst day’!” Not quite.
What does “worst,” “best” or “all time” mean anyway, since they are all words of human definition? Where has God asked our opinion for defining the crucifixion on a scale of “worst” to “best” day? Jesus was glorified by the Father for His obedience. Paul said our momentary troubles are not significant compared to the eternal glory (2 Cor. 4:17). As a contender for the “bad day” award, no one mentioned the first sin with Adam and Eve getting kicked out of the Garden and separated from God. The crucifixion was the answer, the resurrection was the victory, and Pentecost was the result. Let’s show the world the joy of the gospel.
Some years ago, I would have been right in there with this discussion, calculating data and disagreeing with Willimon’s numbers, arguing about pacifism and the role of government, arguing over the meaning of a word that isn’t relevant to anything. But 9-11 itself, the church’s emaciated response, and most of the 10-year anniversary discussions only confirm to me that the church that Jesus died for is back in the clubhouse having a donut fight instead of leading the attack in the spiritual realms against the gates of hell.
Read 1 Cor. 10:1-13. “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!” How many times in OT history did God use descendants of Ishmael to bring His people back on track? Think it can’t happen again? Talk about a new meaning of “bad day!”
Great piece! Very impressed CT published it.
Preston – The governments in the NT cannot bee compared to a government of the people, for the people, by the people where the majority of people claim to be following Jesus.
I’m not a pacifist, but I don’t believe we can get away with saying ‘”that’s the government” in this beautiful experiment in democracy. I was working with the Bush Admin after 9-11, and saw us refuse to ask these questions as a country. We sent the State department and diplomacy to the corner (where these questions were being asked), and we as a people, and as the church, got behind the military response almost exclusively.
I should have said in my address to Preston that I ‘don’t think’ we can compare the gov responsibilities of the 1st century to citizen/gov responsibilities in a liberal democracy.
This post is painting the church with a mighty large brush. There are many Christians that are very opposed to violence and retaliation and punitive measures by the government. Brother Willimon, please don’t forget us.
Though provoking piece and so well written. the truth is that here is Britain as well as in the USA we the church has lost a long time ago the theological capacity to distinguish between the State and the Kingdom of God.
While Willimon has certainly been influenced by Anabaptists, I don’t think it’s fair to him or to them to say that he *is* an Anabaptist. He’s a Methodist (a Bishop in the UMC), and there’s enough ammunition in his own tradition for this sort of critique. Just as I wouldn’t say that his former colleague at Duke, Stanley Hauerwas *is* an anabaptist–seeing as how he still identifies as a Methodist and attends an Episcopal Church–I wouldn’t say that about Willimon. Influence does not solely determine ecclesial identity.