Prophetic Pragmatism
December 14, 2001
Andrew J. Loomis

“See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” --Matthew 10:16

My grandparent's generation of Americans can all remember exactly where they were on December 7, 1941, when they learned of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor sixty years ago. For my parent's generation, virtually everyone with whom I have ever spoken can remember the precise moment they first learned of the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. For the people of my generation, we will all be telling our grandchildren in forty years our clear recollections of the horror of September 11.

It has marked all of us differently. For some, there was a loss of innocence. My 9-year-old nephew puzzled about the coincidence of two airplanes actually hitting the Twin Towers at the same time. That is, until his mother explained the meaning of the word "terrorist." He winced and asked quizzically, "You mean someone actually did this on purpose?" For others, it was a day of reckoning. "It's only the beginning," remarked one observer behind me shaking his head, as we watched the events unfold on the television screen. His statement was one of the few muffled retorts I have heard, claims that the horrific events of that clear September morning were the long-awaited backlash for corrupted US foreign policies in the Middle East.

Common to all of us is our deep sense of mourning. We grieve for the victims and their families, for the destruction captured so graphically on our television sets, and for the state and the future of humanity.

Testing our Faith

I approach the complex chain of events as a foreign policy analyst, as well as a committed Christian and an active member of the Church of the Brethren. These identities must be reconciled as I attempt to operate in an environment in which people often look askance at the tradition of a historic peace church. To ensure that my voice is heard and to effectively contribute to the debate, I am challenged to think pragmatically, beyond the neat untested solutions that had served me well around my family's dinner table.

In many respects, these are lonely days for the nonviolent peacemakers among us. Public approval ratings for the war effort hover near 85 percent, giving cover for the Administration's aggressive pursuit of suspected terrorists both overseas and here at home. A patriot fever hangs thickly in the air. Most of the public has little patience for the few who are willing to articulate the rationale for nonviolence, for patience, and for restraint. As a result, the mass sense of insecurity birthed by the tragic events of September 11 is depriving us all of an important perspective in the public debate.

As a result, the Christian nonconformist bears a special burden: staying faithful to one's most cherished beliefs while maintaining relevance. Many of us do not struggle in professing our Christian values of peace and nonviolence. That often comes relatively easily. Many of us do struggle, I have seen, articulating a clear and pragmatic vision for an appropriate way forward in this post-September 11 era. I have heard some Christians argue that we are not called to be practical so long as we are faithful to the Word. I urgently disagree. I believe that the primary challenge is to hold together the peacemaking ethic with a clear strategic vision. The Christian peacemaking ethic can never really be devoid of pragmatism if it is to be sustained. I have directly observed situations in which the protestations of peacemakers, expressed in ways that were blind to local and contemporary realities, did more to enflame local passions than to tame them. In their most reckless form, these expressions do a disservice to the impact that a peace church can have, both on the ground and in the policymaking circles. Peacemaking efforts that are worthy of the name must be buoyed by a genuine commitment to the cessation of violence (to be sustained) and must be sufficiently strategic to deescalate the violence (to be effective).

The Nature of the Challenge

I work in Washington, DC, for an organization engaged around the world in efforts to enable people to work for a shared future by transcending ethnic, religious, and ideological differences. As part of my job, I observe US foreign policy closely, engage with public officials about efforts to prevent violent conflict overseas, and frequently sit at the center of the kind of policy debates that occur freely in the nation's capital. Today as I write, Washington is abuzz with the challenges of this new war on terrorism abroad: defeating the Taliban; finding Osama bin Laden; confronting Iraq; constructing an interim government for Afghanistan; holding together the international coalition; and averting a more complex humanitarian disaster with the first snow already falling in Kabul.

There is an identifiable evil in the tragic drama and the aftermath of September 11. The unifying message of all those who responded with horror to the events on display was the common visceral revulsion to violence. From Moscow, Beijing, and Havana-not to mention London, Tokyo, and Berlin-came a rallying cry of allegiance against the magnitude and gravity of the devastation.

Terrorist violence is a fundamental threat to the interests of peace worldwide. For now, the nations participating in the loose coalition against this threat have coalesced around two goals: apprehending the perpetrators of the violence in New York and Washington, and preventing future acts of terror.

The central question is how best to achieve simultaneously the prosecutorial and preventive goals. One thing is certain: A broad coordinated response is required if both goals are to be achieved. No one country can ferret out central figures of al Qaeda. No country can independently mastermind a fail-proof plan to eliminate future terrorism. Suspects must be tracked across borders, assets must be frozen, and extensive resources must be utilized in the effort. As a result, the United States is dependent on wide international cooperation and must promote policies that are consistent with the international system that it has labored so long to construct. This includes the protection of human rights, respect for the due process of the law, and strict limits on the use of force.

There is much talk today about the threat of other tools of terror-chemical sprays, lethal gas, anthrax, and radiological "dirty bombs." A third broad national alert was issued in early December in Washington. The nerves of the country's citizenry are frayed. Another terrorist attack in whatever form is clearly a valid threat. I believe, however, that a graver danger sits before us.

The terrorist numbers are relatively small, as are their supplies and capabilities. The primary threat of international terrorism rests in the dry tinder of broad Arab (and more broadly, Islamic) discontent. The US support for autocratic rulers in the region (Saudi Arabia and Egypt come to mind) and extensive military backing of Israel (perceived in much of the Middle East as the oppressor of the Palestinian people) has created the impression that the United States will pursue its own interests at the expense of the Arab people. By aligning their public claims with the long-standing grievances of the wider Middle Eastern public, al Qaeda leadership seeks to ignite widespread anti-American hostility-to light a match to the tinder. If the small number of armed terrorists, with their multitudinous reasons for launching a violent assault on the United States, is capable of inflaming the public masses, the violence will disastrously spread. The United States must engage the world now in a way that resonates with the values it professes. It is the only way to limit the effects of an extremist epidemic.

Included in this effort is the imperative of a massive humanitarian effort on the part of the United States. Making great strides in providing relief and development assistance in the immediate term is essential to protect nearly six million refugees, internally displaced, and otherwise disadvantaged Afghan people. Relief could save millions of lives over the next six months. Secondarily, relief will address the deep poverty of the region, conditions that breed extremist discontent.

These challenges demand immediate attention from an alternative voice, from people courageous enough to speak truth to power and sensible enough to be heard.

There is no other way but interethnic, co-civilizational coexistence on the planet. If we are to survive, intolerance must give way to tolerance. Otherwise, society will ultimately consume itself. To address this great global need, society is in short supply of committed, faithful, and practical individuals, filled with the love of God, equipped with creative energies, and prepared to contribute their savvy to the search for solutions.

Some agents in the Church are working hard to walk this delicate line. The Washington Office is a political and legislative resource and advocate for Church of the Brethren members. On Earth Peace Assembly is providing peace-related activities and ministry that are consistent with contemporary realities. The Brethren Witness Office works feverishly to educate the Church with the urgent needs of the planet and its people. Hundreds of members of the Church of the Brethren across the country are striving to connect their faith to the great problems of the day. Thankfully, many people in the Church of the Brethren have no difficulty daring to express their Christian beliefs. In the current environment, especially, the challenge is to dare to be sufficiently practical to gain admission into the discussion, to effectively challenge the status quo. Now, more than ever, the country-and the world-is desperate for prophetic pragmatism.


Back to Brethren Peace and Nonresistance Testimony