[1] "I'm a loving person, but I have a job to do," said the
President. His statement reminds one of the famous distinction
Luther made when he wrote about the Christian's calling. He said
that if an individual Christian went into the forest and was beset
by robbers, he might well not resist and even offer the robbers
more than they demanded. However, if a Christian who was a sheriff
went into the forest and was beset by robbers, it was his duty to
arrest the robbers, using deadly force if necessary.
[2] The sheriff inhabited an office with a set of duties, just
like the President does. And the ethic of the personal
realm-especially the Christian ethic of love-does not apply
directly to the duties he has as President. Other principles have
to guide him, principles that are more worldly, that allow for the
use of power and force in realizing them. In doing his job the
President must follow the principles of the just war tradition.
America has been grievously wronged in terrorist attacks. There may
be many just claims against America among Arab and Palestinian
people, but no grievance, no matter how serious, can morally
justify the direct attack on non-combatants by a group that is not
legitimately constituted and that has no aim to restore a just
peace.
[3] These just war principles allow for just retribution against
our enemies and for vigorous defense of our people. However, our
response to the horrible acts of September 11 must be deliberate,
proportionate, and carefully directed against the perpetrators, not
innocent noncombatants. As has been suggested by several statesmen,
it is time to make a concerted effort to pursue and disarm or
destroy all terrorist groups that have the capacity to threaten our
countries. The success of the terrorists of September 11 will give
great encouragement to all terrorists groups. Now is the time to
make preemptive, defensive moves against them. Failing that, we may
well be facing far larger catastrophes precipitated by biological
or chemical attacks, which may take far less ingenuity and
resources that those used on September 11.
[4] This Christian realism seems far more persuasive than the
sentimentality that is exhibited by so many religious individuals
and groups who commend the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount for
guidance in this situation. The ethic of love, forgiveness, and
non-violence is proposed as the proper religious path to follow.
But that is a confusion of what individual Christians might do and
what the government must do. If the government does not act with
firm retributive and defensive action, who will protect the sheep
from the wolves? On the other hand, Christian realism is just as
sharply distinguished from the blind bellicosity that would attack
all Muslims or would obliterate whole countries. Such a
crusade-ethic is just as far from sober Christian ethics as
sentimentalism.
[5] Sentimentalism in Christian ethics is aided and abetted by
the therapeutic culture in which we Americans are immersed. The
therapeutic impulses of our culture lead us to equate our own
feelings of shock and grief with those of persons who are directly
affected by the horrible events of September 11. There are no doubt
good reasons to counsel young children and those who have been
seriously wounded psychologically by the disaster. But too often we
focus on our therapeutic needs to be comforted than on the those
who need and deserve comfort much more than we. We should be less
focused on ourselves and more on those with truly gargantuan
needs.
[6] There is an important role for religious communities in this
difficult time. They are to place this tragedy into a transcendent
dimension that offers solace and hope to all, pray for the injured
and the families of the dead, pray for wise policies on the part of
our leaders, help bind the wounds of the injured and offer support
to their families, reflect critically on the role of our nation in
the world, remind ourselves and others that even our enemies are
creatures of God, and try to hold our nation accountable to the
principles of a just war.