[1] Silence. My important memory of September 11th was the
silence that fell over Canada in the wake of the horrific attacks.
It was not a quiet silence, but rather the very veneer of a people
who with their U.S. neighbors were silenced by the dark mystery of
evil, by a world they no longer recognized and by the shattering of
moral assumptions that structured their common life. In short, this
silence was a profoundly "ethical moment."
An Ethical Moment
[2] Use the term "ethical moment" not merely as a
description, but to capture the profound wrestling that happens out
of necessity when people struggle to resolve paradoxes and dilemmas
that 'old' answers no longer explain. Such moments are
opportunities for hope at the risk of despair. In such moments
people must summon their most ultimate beliefs and values and apply
them to their situation to enable new ways of thinking about their
life and the world to emerge. Professor Neil Postman of New York
University recently said, "Our country was being dulled . . . (now)
we need to change our way of thinking." September 11 - one need not
even describe it any more than this - was a global "ethical moment"
of momentous magnitude which challenges us to ask the right
questions.
[3] In reflecting on the events of the past few weeks, the level
of human suffering and anguish is unfathomable. Attempts at
reflection can easily add to the torment of those who have been
victims just as the explanations offered Job by his friends seemed
insensitive and only added to his suffering. Certainly, that is not
my intention here. But in the midst of the suffering, we do ask
each other, "What do you make of this?" This is after all the
ethical enterprise. So I offer a few thoughts as but one Christian,
one Lutheran and one Canadian friend.
[4] During these past few weeks, there have been at least three
important periods in this "ethical moment." The first most
noticeable during the early days, was a time for grieving. The
second most noticeable in the subsequent weeks, was a time of
anger. The third, yet now unfolding, is a time of doubt. These are
not exclusive of each other nor are they complete. "Everything has
changed" we are told and these remain somewhat un-chartered waters.
In addition to the full range of human experience, each period has
confronted us with concurrent ethical questions. More specifically,
these different challenges might also help explain how many
Canadians have reacted.
A Time for Grief
[5] Our hearts as global neighbors were broken by the countless
stories of unimaginable loss, stories of redemption, stories of
sacrifice, stories of heroism, stories of compounded tragedy, and
stories of reunion. Public opinion polls showed Canadians were
deeply upset by this tragedy (98% of women and % of
men).11
Canadians felt deep compassion for their U.S. neighbors. Most
people simply asked "How can we help?"
[6] Canadians responded overwhelmingly. Canadians opened their
doors to the thousands stranded at Canadian airports, lined up to
donate blood, went to help in the rescue efforts, donated money,
and sent thousands of letters, e-mails and phone calls expressing
concern and support.
[7] Prayer and moral deliberation was part of this process.
Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC)
invited congregations to a national day of prayer and remembrance
on September 16. ELCIC National Bishop Raymond Schultz, along with
other Canadian church leaders, sent a pastoral letter which was
discussed in many congregations. They wrote,
"The peace we seek will not be based upon conquering others,
forcing people into submission, hurting the innocent, or ignoring
the victims and people marginalized throughout the world. The peace
of Christ will take us into paths that lead to reconciliation with
God and reconciliation among people through the power of the Spirit
breaking in among us. It will be a path of justice, equity and
security for all."2
[8] In addition, the letter offered a concrete ethical framework
("Bring terrorists to justice", "Observe due process of law",
"Define limits of force," "Address deeper causes, "Acknowledge our
interdependence" and "Recover a justice and peace perspective") for
discussing how our leaders might respond to the crisis that these
events created. Many congregations used the letter to engage in a
process of moral deliberation.
[9] As in the U.S., the brutal bluntness of this tragedy
awakened in people an experience of human solidarity at its most
basic level. Many probably had not had such an experience before or
had forgotten this sensation in a world caught up with
self-interest. It also re-awakened many painful memories of loss
among older people who knew the horrors and destruction of war.
People were forced to think about these issues and consider how
their values needed to impact on their own lives in ways
materialism and the frenetic pace of life never seems to allow.
A Time for Anger
[10] The second period in this "ethical moment" was one of cautious
anger. Initially, Prime Minister Chrétien was very cautious
in his statements about Canadian support for what he called a
"campaign against terrorism." By late September, polls indicated
that between 73% to 76% of Canadians agreed to ". . . the full
support of the government's commitment of the Canadian military to
the war on terrorism."3
[11] In an open ecumenical appeal to the prime Minister and
members of Parliament on October 12, just prior to a formal debate
in the House of Commons on Canada's role, church representatives,
building on the earlier letters, called for a response not
motivated by retribution.
"All the elements of the struggle against terrorism - near term
measures to prevent additional attacks, the pursuit, capture and
trial of those accused of participating in or sharing
responsibility for the September 11 attacks, and long term measures
towards the reduction and eradication of terrorism - must be guided
by methods and processes that honour the laws, values and freedoms
that terrorism threatens. Canada must work to demilitarise the
international struggle against terrorism, and we must resist
pressures to curtail immigration, to reduce access to safe havens
for refugees, and to change national priorities to increase
military spending at the expense of social programs and development
assistance."
[12] Trading on Augustine and Ambrose, some columnists and
politicians in response reopened a historic debate by describing
this intervention as a "just war." David Pratt, a member of
Parliament and chairperson of the House of Common's Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, dismissed the
church's perspective as "naive" and said that Canada was supporting
a "just war." However, in the politicians' and columnists' analysis
their references to "just war" thinking were unfortunately
incomplete. They omitted certain criteria such as protection of
non-combatants. Concerning the criteria they did identify, their
recommendations to meet them were insufficient, failing to
appreciate the effort of such an approach to limit the use of force
and its destructive consequences. The use of the "just war"
thinking seemed more a rationalization of a direction already
decided than a consideration employed to choose an ethical mode of
action. The politicians and columnists failed to understand that
the churches' letters did not preclude the use of military force to
accompany the civil authority (a police action) to bring the
perpetrators to justice and to provide security against further
terrorists attacks.
[13] These statements by church leaders and representatives,
based upon thirty years of church conversation about militarism and
nuclear disarmament, reflected the intense and sobering discussion
that was taking place within and among churches and other faith
groups. The above letters which also rejected the massive use of
retributive military force, represented the consistent ecumenical
consensus - delicate to say the least - between pacifists who
rejected force and those who accepted the use of measured military
force as a regrettable necessity to protect people. I would dare
say it is also reflected in the historic Canadian reluctance to
resort to military solutions, evidenced by the consistent pride
Canadians have for their "peacekeeping" tradition, for which Prime
Minister Lester Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize.
A Time for Doubt
[14] The third period in this "ethical moment" was one of doubt.
Doubt is necessary for hope because it forces us to ask questions
of faith and its implications for the future. Recent public opinion
polls indicate Canadians are more equally divided between those who
say Canada should unequivocally support the United States (45%) and
those who believe that Canada should offer moral and humanitarian
support but move to address the "root causes of terrorism"
(%).4
[15] This divided response is also indicative of the divided
feelings Canadians have toward the U.S. and its ability to
transcend its own perceived national self-interests and
perspective. Canadians enjoy a very close relationship with the
U.S., benefit from close economic and cultural ties and like much
that is American, including the American people. Nevertheless, they
also know what it is like to live as "colony" in the shadow of
"empire" to paraphrase theologian Douglas John Hall.5 They have maintained a
healthy suspicion of U.S. government policies, the corporate
domination of their economy (often by U.S.-based companies) and
those threats to our national identity which largely go unnoticed
to average Americans. Even in the midst of this crisis for example,
the U.S. did not hesitate to impose a 12% tariff, in addition to an
earlier 19%, on Canadian softwood lumber which will throw an
estimated 15,000 out of work in British Columbia, an action which
some believe is an attempt to privatize publicly-owned Crown
forests. While no less appalled, Canadians do have some sensitivity
to the resentments and grievances of other nations. Many do feel
that the policies of the U.S. government with the complicity of
governments like Canada, have been a contributing factor. While
Canadian public leaders profess great support for the war, average
Canadians are skeptical and doubtful that singular U.S. decisions
and leadership will resolve this crisis and in the longer term be
able to build a lasting peace.
[16] Canadian doubts also extend to broader questions involving
economic globalization, the role of government, international
relations, and even the role of the faith communities. Economic
globalization in the booming 1990s with its promises of
"prosperity" has been the policy cornerstone of all levels of
government in Canada. Yet it has led to a growing divide between
rich and poor both in Canada and in the world. Ironically, the arms
trade is the most globalized of all sectors, fuelling some 39 armed
conflicts in 35 countries in 2001 and causing seven million deaths
in 1999, 70 percent of which were civilians.6 Citizens need to ask serious
ethical questions of governments which promote profits for arms
producers that exact such a human toll, nurture hatred, fuel
regional conflicts, prop up undemocratic and corrupt governments,
and provide a seedbed for terrorists.
[17] In a similar contradiction, Canadians have been told by
governments during much of the last two decades that we can not
afford to address the growing social misery of increasing
homelessness, child poverty and deplorable conditions for
aboriginal peoples in Canada. Nor could we be generous with the
poor in other countries, thereby justifying the fact that Canadian
Overseas Development Aid fell to a miserly 0.25 percent of GDP, far
below its promised 0.7 percent target. Nor was the government ready
to pursue the vigorous defense of human rights or environmental
sustainability in countries with gross and systematic records of
oppression. 7Yet following September 11,
the government readily committed over $1 billion to the war effort.
Corporate leaders who pressed for privatization, deregulation,
corporate tax cuts, and reductions to the social programs did not
hesitate to line up for public assistance while at the same time
abandoning thousands of workers to a much-weakened unemployment
insurance program. Globalization policies were already being
questioned before September 11. Canadians may well have more
substantial questions of political leaders who support such
policies of indifference in the future and who fail to advance
respect for human rights and the social well being of people.
[18] This crisis has also provided a renewed role for
governments. That people look to governments in times of crisis is
not new. Liberal Member of Parliament David Pratt, mentioned
earlier, pointed to this change in saying just recently that
"governments are no longer the provider of services but the
protector of people." 8Earlier this year, Maclean's,
a national magazine, raised a question on many people's minds,
"Does Ottawa Matter?" September 11 certainly has provided a defense
and security purpose for the federal government. Reflecting this,
the government moved quickly to pass severe security legislation
that threatens civil liberties. At the same time there is pressure
from the White House and some voices within Canada to harmonize
Canadian immigration policies to create a North American security
perimeter. This is coupled with two decades of expanded American
economic influence and ownership. As well, Canada's social security
system, including our public health care system has been under
attack. Canadians will need to ask "Does Canada matter?" And if so,
"What kind of Canada do we want and what kind of government do we
need to make it possible?"
[19] Doubt may lead us to hope for a new international body
politic with new international institutions. Responding to these
terrorists' attacks as an "act of war" is the way nation-states
have always responded, different today but not really new. Whereas
previously some have suggested that war is the failure of politics,
war has become politics in a destructive form, a politics that
short circuits and eclipses the possibility of choosing different
and more humane alternatives. While the UN has come under some
harsh criticism, it is often from those unprepared to acknowledge
its accomplishments and the vital work done by its many agencies.
The unanimous condemnation and genuine revulsion at the events of
September 11 offer the prospect of asking the political question in
a new way. It will require renewed political investment in the
United Nations forum, ratifying outstanding treaties and
conventions as well as negotiating new ones and following through
on the creation of additional international institutions such as
the proposed international court. As successful nations reinvent
themselves as national communities within an ever more connected
global community, we will need to ask what justice requires of us
in building an inclusive international politic and strengthening
international institutions that will safeguard people against the
tragedy of war and the evil of terrorism.
[20] Finally, this moment of doubt has raised questions about
the role of the churches and faith communities. Canadians are a
religious people, but just over 20 percent regularly participate in
a worshipping community. The attacks of September 11 forced many
people to examine issues of faith and belief in their personal
lives. But it also raised questions about the role of religious
institutions in the public arena. When 100,000 people gathered on
Parliament Hill on September 14 to remember the victims of this
tragedy, the absence of religious leaders on an overtly religious
occasion, in sharp contrast to the U.S. and U.K. observances,
pointed out to many the finality of the Canadian churches
disestablishment in public life. This may be a liberating and
hopeful sign for the church to more authentically be the bearer of
the Gospel, unencumbered by the temptations and trappings of civil
religion. The vigorous efforts by churches to listen to Jewish and
Muslim neighbors and the very public condemnation of racist actions
toward visible minorities during these particularly fearful times
for them, confirms that the way of solidarity may be the only
theologically faithful and viable direction for the future.
Christian communities will need to ask if we are prepared for this
challenge and if so, to rethink our social engagement with the
wider society.
A Time for Hope
[21] September 11 was a profound ethical moment of grief, anger and
doubt that forced us as Canadians and Americans to once again
confront the human question. Canadians do see the world and the
challenges somewhat differently than our U.S. neighbors. Recently I
met with U.S. colleagues. I was deeply impressed by the depth and
struggle of their ethical reflection on these monstrous events. I
was struck by the observation that we are much like two friends who
are the same but different. We owe it to each other to heartily
encourage in times of despair but also to honestly admonish each
other in times of challenge in order to be all that God intends us
to be. This is the humility that must accompany us in the silences
of these difficult days as events continue to frighten, shock and
concern us.
[22] This is a time when the ethical vocation is even more
urgent. It is hard to know hope unless you have encountered
despair. It is hard to see the light ahead unless you have passed
through the darkness. These are times when we must seek to get the
questions right even if the answers allude us so that as the
Apostle Paul reminds us, we might ". . . not be overcome by evil,
but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21)
© November
2001
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 1, Issue 3
1 See Environics Research Group public opinion poll
conducted between September 19 and October 12, 2001 .
2 The full text of all Church statements regarding
September 11 are available at the web site for Project Ploughshares
. Project Ploughshares is an ecumenical coalitions supported by the
Canadian churches including the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
Canada.
3 See Decima Research Group public opinion poll conducted
between September 18 and 22, 2001 .
4 See again the Environics and Decima results.
5 Douglas John Hall, "God and the Nations" (Augsburg
Fortress, 1995) Noted Canadian George Grant made a similar point in
his classic work "Lament for a Nation" (Toronto: McClelland and
Stewart, 1965) Hall published a similar work entitled "The Canada
Crisis" (Toronto: The Anglican Book Centre, 1980).
6 See Project Ploughshares.
7 There are some disturbing reports that the abuse of
human rights in places like Columbia are being exacerbated by the
events of September 11 as governments use the "war on terrorism" as
a cover for further repression or inaction against bringing
violators to justice. Human rights defense will become more
complicated.
8 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio 1 Program Cross
Country Checkup, October 29, 2001.