Failure of Imagination

In conversation the other day, Marty used the term "failure of imagination" to describe people, particularly Christians, not having enough imagination to see their way out of various problems or how to respond to various issues. In the Youth Department we have an AP Sunday school class that is reading Hauerwas & Willimon's Resident Aliens. They had a very similar discussion about the church's failure to see other options than those in the world. For H&W the church is the center of our discipleship -- our way of life -- and thus our ethics. In our discussion, I used Marty's term and we were talking about various things. Then the question was raised by me, who supported the war in Afghanistan, "What is the proper response of the church to 9/11? Because I can't see any other response than attacking the Taliban & al-Qaeda. Is this a failure of imagination?" Willimon had earlier suggested that a possible Christian response to Libya (the book was written in the late-80's) would have been for the church to send 1,000 missionaries to help to transform the country. And the class debated whether non-violence can work in the face of the Taliban (Gandhi used it against the British who at least had a history of democracy & human rights and were eventually appalled at what they were doing).

So, I want to throw this out to the on-line community, particularly those in the Body of Christ who read this page. Help the class, we could imagine nothing. What could be the response of the church to 9/11? Notice I'm not asking the state's response, that's a separate set of issues. Help the class, I'll take your thoughts back to them.

Comments

[Jacob Zimmer]

I'll get back to you with an answer to your question, but first I have to say: AN AP SUNDAY SCHOOL CLASS!?!?! Sheesh, talk about elite intellectual snobbery!

[Jacob Zimmer]

I could spend hours writing pages answering your question, but for now I will recommend Just Peacemaking by Glen Stassen and Christian Peacemaking by Dan Buttry. Both authors offer not just theoretical ideas but true stories and examples of how "Transforming Initiatives" have worked to end conflicts without violence and war.

[marty]

See, as far as the "War On Terror" (which will surely have at least as much success as our wars on other abstract ideas... I want a war on orange... That dastardly color has been stealing the attention richly deserved by richer, cooler colors for years... I'd like to see them bring that war on poverty around Englewood, they'd know they been in a fight then) goes, I think bombing Afghanistan wasn't a failure of imagination nearly as much as it was an excess of imagination. This tiny country whose citizens have an average annual income of $500 did have a pretty nefarious government (not that we cared in 2000 or 1999 0r any of the years of oppression that preceded 9/11), but was it a government that was a threat to our safety? Not likely. However, Saudi Arabia (get ready for this tired yet ignored point of fact), who consitently funds terrorist organizations and the nation of patronage for something like 18 of the 9/11 terrorists and has a government very nearly as "oppressive" as that of the Taliban, has continued to experience the protection (and perhaps the admiration)of our government (I really wanted to say our Plutocracy) for fifty-plus years now.
Furthermore, there is a clear precedent for not taking violent military action against a state in response to it's funding of terrorist activities. You'll notice that the Brittish Government has never once dropped bombs on, nor sent footsoldiers into, the city of Boston- the source of the vast majority of funding of the IRA (a terrorist organization, no matter how right you or I may find their cause to be).
There's more I'd like to say to this issue. Lots more. But I'm thinking of moving this dialogue out onto the deck.

[Tim]

i'd love to live in a world where we never kill people, but alas i suppose it will be necessary from time to time. why can't we kill individuals? what's with all the bomb dropping? it's against the law to kill foreign leaders but not to drop bombs on apartment complexes that just happen to be near supposed miltary targets? does anyone get this logic?

habitat for humanity immediately sought to put together a joint building blitz in downtown OKC. they lobbied hard to get the local mosque to be involved, but it never happened. ministers reached out. guarded response. this is tough stuff.

the difficulty with your question scott, is that how can "the church" be univocal or have "a" response. some baptists (stay with me here) sent tons of food boxes to Iraq after we bombed the sh*t out of them. that's something, at least. how we get motivate to do the same before bombing folks is a mystery. but here's the thing. it does happen. it's been happening. Christian organizations have been sending food and medical supplies to impovrished nations for a long time. could we do more. no question. i'm not defending war or our benevolance record, i'm just pointing out there is already and active voice. be that as it may.

i wish we'd stop dropping bombs on innocent people.

[Scott Jones]

I still don't see much imagination for the church's response. Frankly, I don't have an idea either. Marty & I have now begun our debate on our website. And we've started with this same issue. So, comment here (please) and then go look there for a prolonged, in-depth discussion.

[Sarah]

Honestly, I think "the chruch's" response should be to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. Love and support should be the central function of the church, and loving and supporting those affected by war and violence is key. But "responding" to political warfare is dangerous territory. Maybe it just isn't the church's place to take a stand on it at all.

I also think the church needs to think twice about who they are sending to lead Christian "missions" in wartorn countries, anyway. Sending people to convert the muslims in Iraq right now to Christianity (oh, I know some people who are going to do this) just seems to me to be THE WORST idea ever. Evangelism is certainly NOT what anyone needs.

[Lucas]

"The church" is not (or at least shouldn't be, as far as I'm concerned) a marker to denote a collective political organization. It is a group of people who share the same basic concept of religion (the following of Christ and his teachings) and then shoot off in every possible direction. To ask what "the church" believes is asking what the unanimous mindset of millions of people is. It doesn't exist. I think a better question to ask is "How should I respond" and then seek to find your own peace in whatever answer you find. Maybe there is no right answer. But probably, there's just no universal "right" answer.

[marty]

I think the response of "the church is not a political entity" is specious at best. A government's decision to start killing people is clearly politically motivated. However, a Christian's duty to take a stand against the taking of sacred life is not political, it is a recognition of the gift of life that God has given to us and to all people (not just the European ones). And, sure, maybe the phrase "the church" is a bit broad in scope, but I think that a mind as big as some of the ones I've noticed are in the habit of perusing this page can comprehend the point.
I, for one, usually focus on political means of addressing these issues. But when it comes to feeding the poor, loving the people around you, and not killing others I think it's safe to say that the desire to fulfill these basic humanitarian mandates is not a political issue.

[Christen]

It is my opinion that the most effective action we can take both as a church, and as individuals is to pray. Pray for the soldiers on both sides, pray for the civilians who are caught in the middle of the entire mess, pray for the wisdom of our world leaders (and I have to add that with our country's current leader my faith is somewhat tested), and pray for the families and friends of the soldiers who are deployed, or might be at any time. On the home front, I think possibly churches could put together projects which would let soldiers and their families know that they are supported, cared for, and most especially, prayed for. Of course this is already being done in churches, schools, etc., but generally only by churches or schools who are directly involved, i.e. one of the members of their congregation, a parent of a student, or a teacher is deployed. I agreed very much with what Lucas posted as far as "the church" being a collective of so many different individuals, that it would be very hard if not problematic to try to set out on any type of specified mission. The only action we can take, and have full confidence in, both as individuals and as a church, is prayer.

[marty]

AS Al Capone said, "You can get farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word."

[Lucas]

Maybe the church is a political entity, but again, I wonder how that is possible when there is such a diversity of political thought within it's body. I agree that the taking of life is wrong, but that is just my interpretation of my own faith. Others may see warfare as a necessary evil that will ultimately serve the greater good. Still, others take neither side on the issue. So, yes, stand up and take a stand what YOU believe is God's truth. But the church as a whole should be unable to do that. I think that it should focus (as a whole) on feeding and clothing and curing, etc.

[marty]

But why would feeding, clothing, curing, &c be something with which the church should concerned but not the sanctity of life?

[Lucas]

I'm not saying that it shouldn't. I agree with you. But there are alot of people that don't. My point isn't that the war should be unimporatant, and that we should have no feelings whatsoever, but rather that we all have our own individual feelings on the subject and that as a collective body, it would be impossible to come to any kind of consensus. After all, you and I disagree with the religious right, who believe that there is no savior but Jesus, and the Dubya is his prophet. Many Christians stand with this political/"religious" group. I would assume that many of them believe that this war is necessary, and find no spiritual misgivings about the fact that many innocents are being killed. I personally find it disgusting, but I'm not everyone. Perhaps it could be said that the religious right is the political arm of the church, and they have decided to support Bush in this area. So should we stand up beside them? No, because we feel that it isn't right to sacrifice human life for political gain. But we will never get them to come to our side either. And THAT is why "the church" CAN'T "take a position," as far as I'm concerned.

[Carlos Stouffer]

Yes, the Christian Church's response to 9/11 was and is a failure of the imagination!

If the church had the courage to imagine the peace of Jesus, then it would had gone to the streets, pews, and pulpits, and that in turn would had taken the wind out of Bush's idea of war.