The Congress Of Asian Theologians And The Events Of September 11, 2001: A Reflection

by Geoffrey Lilburne
Australian

1.     The most recent meeting of the Congress of Asian Theologians was held in Yogyakarta in August 2001. Less than a month later, Islamic extremists successfully carried out a devastating attack on key symbols of United States global pre-eminence, the towers of the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. No one at the third meeting of the Congress would have anticipated these dramatic events, despite the fact that the focus of the Congress was upon the relationships and dialogue among the great faiths of Asia. The theme of our deliberations was "Visioning New Life Among the Religions of Asia." Naturally enough, the Congress of Asian Theologians had been plotting its course within its own perception of pertinent theological issues for public life in Asia and, as is often the case with theological and academic bodies, a fundamentally optimistic outlook on the future. The apocalyptic events of September 11, however, cast a pall over the received optimism of that view and raised a series of questions which theologians can no longer avoid. Is violence inevitable as religious world-views clash? Can dialogue really make a difference? Can western globalized capitalism, with its patina of Christendom, find a place for pan-Islamic aspirations? What is the role of the Christian church in the prevailing nationalisms of our day?

It is not as if the whole matter of the global nature of contemporary life was outside the scope of our work. At the second meeting of the Congress, in August 1999, particular attention had been focused on the matter of globalization. The negative impact of this powerful economic trajectory was meticulously noted and angles of Christian analysis were pursued. It was clear that the social and economic impact of globalization differed in the various countries of our region. Where poverty and privilege were entrenched in the social landscape, globalization by itself did nothing to bring relief. If anything, it was seen to harden the lines of social and economic division. Yet where social development patterns were more dynamic, globalization was seen by some to have had a positive impact on living conditions of many people. While strategies of resistance and adaptation were discussed, the Congress avoided taking an explicit anti- or pro-globalization stance. Perhaps it was too easy for CATS to reflect the view of privileged first world academics and to put the "best spin" on the economic forces shaping life in Asia.

The best possible scenario also prevailed in our discussions two years later on interfaith realities. Dr Wesley Ariarajah offered some of the best North Atlantic reflection on the issues confronting those churches and institutions serious about living in dialogical relations with people of other faiths. Voices of other faiths were heard, and these to some extent followed the World Council of Churches global agenda and to some extent reflected their own cultural preoccupations. In hindsight, it was unfortunate that there was not more focus on the cultural distinctiveness of the intrinsic concerns of different faith communities. It was unfortunate, too, that the voice of Islam we heard spoke of a North American reality and perspective. Had we reflected for a while from a southern perspective, or ventured to view the globalizing world from the prism of Islamic aspirations, we might have been better prepared for the events of September 11.

Already the sense of threat and outrage felt by my many Islamic movements at the growing hegemony of capitalist consumption and its attendant life-style had registered on many sensitive readers of our times. The explicit link between the "Mac-world" of transnational corporations and the resisting response of some Islamic states had already been drawn. In relation to the themes of CATS 2 and CATS 3 it is now possible to suggest that the sense of fundamental threat with which devout Muslims often respond to the homogenization of modernism and the triumph of the globalized economy should have registered more strongly on our radar screens. The fact is they didn't, and we were as ill prepared as the rest of the world to cope with the tragic events of September 11 and the dreadful but predictable responses which followed.

The location of our meeting was by no means incidental to this theme. While Yogyakarta offered a place of peace and hospitality for the third Congress, other parts of the island nation of Indonesia were wracked with religious and communal violence. Delegates from Ambon told of the impact on the Laska Jihad on their daily lives, their difficulty in simply attending the Congress, and the great hardship and violence facing their communities in their absence. In its closing day, the Congress responded to their plight with a carefully worded call for greater attention on the past of the Churches, for prayer and work for peace and justice. Avoiding sectarian language, the statement concluded:

The Churches of Asia can no longer be deaf to their voices and blind to their plight. Muslim or Christian, these people share our common humanity, each of them bear the face of God. Together we appeal to all our churches, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, to search for ways of being present even more in the lives of our sisters and brothers in Maluku and other conflict-stricken areas, to use their influence to hasten the end to violence, and to help usher in conditions where peace and full humanity can flourish in inclusive communities in Indonesia.[1]

While this statement was adopted without dissent by the Congress, it was difficult to know precisely how to relate the theme of our deliberations to the ongoing conflict in Indonesia. Apart from matters of sensitivity to our host nation, it was hard to relate paradigms of interfaith dialogue to the social convulsion of current military conflict. For whatever reason, we tended to regard what was happening in Ambon and parts of Sulawesi as embarrassing exceptions to the global impetus towards tolerant, peaceful dialogue between members of different faith communities. There are questions here about theological methodology which CATS will need to face.

It is noteworthy that our deliberations did not focus at all intensively on the local situations of our host country where matters of interfaith relations had become matters of great urgency. Although we sought in various ways to experience a cultural exposure, if not immersion, we did not think it necessary or appropriate to delve too deeply into the rough side of communal politics as experienced by communities within our host country. Yet again, had we followed this more difficult course, perhaps we might have been better prepared to comprehend the events of September 11. While some of these considerations can be agenda for future deliberations, the issue of how we relate to the real struggle of local people as we engage in theological reflection must become a closer preoccupation of ongoing reflection at our gatherings.

2.     The Christian Conference of Asia was not slow to respond to the attack of September 11. On October 4, the General Secretary, Dr Ahn Jae Woong, issued an open letter to President Bush. Expressing grief and solidarity with the victims, the letter condemned the attack as a "crime against humanity" and called for careful, even prayerful, consideration of the nature of the response to these events. Drawing on the experience of members' churches and the collective memory of the ecumenical church, Dr Ahn pointed out that the cost of a violent response would be the escalation of the cycle of violence. Where war, however motivated, is turned into a religious war, further complications are added.

As thoughtful respondents from all around the world have urged, Dr Ahn suggested that effort must now be made by the United States in advance of any military retaliation to understand the "real roots of the problem." Drawing on Asian experience, the letter points to the root of violence as usually lying in "a deep anger or rage resulting from a deep sense of threat or exclusion as well as long exposure to violence itself." The connection which US statecraft seems reluctant to draw between the events of New York and the frustrated longing of the Palestinian people is indicated as one of the point which would bear closer examination by the American President.

The Christian Conference of Asia dissociates itself from the call for military action, and raises the concern about communal violence which the US calls for support from other governments is likely to incite. The upswing of Israeli violence towards the power structure of the fledgling Palestinian state since President Bush's action bears out the accuracy of Dr Ahn's concern, as do other examples of communal violence in parts of Asia. The appropriateness of the doctrine of proportionate response is questioned in dealings with such a ravaged nation as Afghanistan. Human rights of victims in the US must be weighed against the human rights of those poor people of Afghanistan and other Asian countries, if the US decided to deploy its vastly superior military might.

CCA suggests that there may be another way for the United States to define its power-not in the ready terms of military muscle but in terms of how it lives out "the hard way of genuine peace with justice." Here Dr Ahn's letter comes to its sharpest convergence with current US political doctrine, as it begins to define an alternate global vision. It argues that peace and justice move us beyond purely national viewpoints and can only be realistically grasped as a "common security" and a "mutual understanding and goodwill to all." Simply the urgent point is stated:

If we are to hold this one world together, we need to work for a "common security and universal prosperity" for all-ensured by the meeting of people's most basic needs for food and land; for respect of their civil and political rights and their basic human aspirations.[2]

The General Secretary is clearly aware for whom he speaks. He mentions the 18 countries and 221 members Churches and National Council of Churches which are represented by the Christian Conference of Asia. From this perspective, a vision is offered of the kind of globalization these Christian Churches would propose. Here the CCA viewpoint poses the sharpest challenge to US thinking, as will become clear as we shift our attention to a significant speech of President George W. Bush of the United States of America.

3.     In his 2002 State of the Union address, US President George W. Bush immediately drew the United States' sense of national crisis into a global framework. The opening statement juxtaposed Washington's view of national and international threat.

As we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers.

Once this note was struck, it resounded throughout the President's speech as time again he conflated United States' national interest with global concerns. While it is clear that he was speaking for a domestic constituency, this important speech contained chilling reminders that when the US President says "we", no one in the rest of the world can not feel implicated or threatened.

At one level this can be read as a realistic grasp of the global nature of United States economic system and the ineffectiveness of national boundaries in containing threats to security. Yet throughout the speech there is no acknowledgement that the interests of the members of the global community might at times differ from those of the United States. Indeed, there is a threatening tone to the speech, which suggests that any nation who reads the situation in a different way, might find itself subject to unilateral United States intervention. Bush is able to confidently disregard any questioning of US policy to both call and threaten the rest of the world to join in the US war against terrorism.

My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully… But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it; if they do not act America will.3

The picture here is of a unilateral globalism in which the United States speaks from a position of command. The message of the engagement of US military might to send to these terrorists is this, "you will not escape the justice of this nation."

Our cause is just, and it continues.

While justice is defined in terms of this nation and "our cause", it is seen to be a global cause, which summons the US to a global task, whether in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Bosnia, or Somalia. Interestingly no mention is made of the US's most significant involvement, its almost unqualified support for the state of Israel. Regimes which sponsor terrorism will be the targets of United States' military action. President Bush now lists North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as forming part of "an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." While it is clear that national protection is the primary goal of the United States, that policy must have a global arena.

Our first priority must always be the security of our nation, and that will be reflected in the budget I send to Congress. My budget supports three great goals for America; we will win this war; we'll protect our homeland; and we will revive our economy.

As President Bush then outlines his domestic program, there is little attention to the relationship between the need for global partners and the impact of US domestic policies on the rest of the world. Economic security for the American people, it seems, is to be pursued whatever the cost for other nations. Yet in the private arena, the President sees a place for global altruism.

…America needs citizens to extend the compassion of our country to every part of the world. So we will renew the promise of the Peace Corps, double is volunteers over the next five years-applause-and ask it to join a new effort to encourage development and education and opportunity in the Islamic world. (Applause.)

One wonders at the logic and compatibility of a public policy of massive retaliation against Muslim movements and countries and a private watch cry of compassion in the Islamic world. Perhaps the apparent contradiction between public and private responsibility is the way this administration seeks to reconcile the idealism of the United States people with the imperatives of its global vision. In any case, the President wishes his nation to see this as a moment of opportunity to express their rich idealism.

This time of adversity offers a unique moment of opportunity-a moment we must seize to change our culture. Through the gathering momentum of millions of acts of service and decency and kindness, I know we can overcome evil with greater good. And we have a great opportunity during this time of war to lead the world toward the values that will bring lasting peace.

America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere.

This marriage of zeal and idealism is not likely to reassure countries which have experienced past United States intervention, fuelled by similar mixtures of apparently well meaning enthusiasm. Members of the Christian Conference of Asia may view with concern the President's statements regarding the delicate situation in Korea. The deployment of United States troop in the Philippines raises concerns for many in our region. Clearly these are dangerous and ambiguous situations which will require careful monitoring in the months ahead.

4.     One of the clich�s that emerged in debates after the attack of September 11 is "the world has changed." But in what ways? Certainly there is a greater sense of vulnerability, but might the terrible events actually precipitate a new way of understanding our global reality? Certain religious responses to the terrorist attacks have pointed in this direction.

The statement of the U.S. religious community, "Deny them Their Victory: A Religious Response to Terrorism", issued within days of the attack, saw most clearly that from a US point of view; the world would be viewed differently from this point on.

Our American illusion of invulnerability has been shattered. From now on, we will look at the world in a different way, and this attack on our life as a nation will become a test of our national character. Let us make the right choices in this crisis-to pray, act and unite against the bitter fruits of division, hatred, and violence. Let us rededicate ourselves to global peace, human dignity, and the eradication of injustice that breeds rage and vengeance.

The old illusion of invulnerability has gone. Gone too is the notion that the United States can retreat into a kind of self absorbed isolationism. But given the pre-eminence of the United States military machine, new versions of US invulnerability will have a powerful appeal to the population, as is well illustrated by President Bush's State of the Union address and the response it drew in Congress and the wider public.

Yet the viability of a military response was soon questioned in Christian reaction to the launch of US military action in Afghanistan. Within days, the United Church of Christ issued a powerful prayer of lament.

While we recognize that the rule of law must be enforced, we have grave reservations about a large scale military response to terrorism by our government and its allies. In recent years military campaigns in countless places have destroyed lives and threatened a whole generation of children while leaving in place oppressive regimes. Short term solutions have sown the seeds of future catastrophe as we ally ourselves with the enemies of our enemy, only to discover that we have fed and armed those who would terrorize the innocent.[4]

Other Christian commentators have pointed to the fact that military response only plays into the hands of terrorists, by confirming their victim status and reinforcing the hated image of the United States as a military oppressor.[5] James Wall recently commented in the Christian Century that both Israel and the United States have opted for self defeating military solutions. He writes:

George Bush and Ariel Sharon are working from the same play book, and for the moment, they are winning their wars against terrorism. But their strategy will ultimately fail…Violence breeds violence. It does not provide security.

Drawing attention to the recent destruction of Palestinian homes in Gaza by Israeli military, Wall draws the connection between this kind of policy and the perpetuation of terrorism:

And somewhere in a tent in Gaza, an eight year-old Palestinian boy remembers seeing his family home bulldozed in the middle of the night. In just a few short years that boy could be trained in the fine art(s of terrorism). Thanks a lot, General Myers (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).[6]

In each of these expressions there is a new awareness of the interdependence of global politics. This awareness points for Christians to a new sense of global responsibility, and in turn suggests a richer and more nuanced view of the global reality. The United Church of Christ prayer of lament continues:

Meanwhile, we have distanced ourselves from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, have ignored civil wars in Africa, have done little to address the poverty and hunger that is the primary terror for most in the world, and have supplied countless regimes with abundant weaponry.

Here is a mature globalism, which is not afraid to enquire into the causes of terrorism and to acknowledge complicity in the establishment and maintenance of those conditions. It ends with a confession and a plea for divine mercy.

…we must confess that we have contributed to the poverty, the militarism, and the regional instability that provide hospitable environments and comfortable havens for those who resort to violence. Christ have mercy.

This kind of globalism seems to eschew the unilateral view of the Republican Right of the United States political spectrum and to articulate a rich kind of multilateralism. Such a multilateral view of the emerging global reality is inherent in the structures of the Christian Conference of Asia and, indeed, the World Council of Churches. Indeed, such a vision may owe more to ecclesiology than it does to political science, finding its foundation in understandings of a global church rather than a nation state. It is surely time for us to make this vision more explicit and to articulate it more fully in the light of the greatly increased degree of threat under which our global reality now stands.

In plotting its future direction, the Congress of Asian Theologians will want to take these considerations on board. In planning for the Fourth Congress, to be held in Thailand in August 2003, the Continuing Committee has resolved to take up a theme which acknowledges the shattering of earlier visions of the global community and addresses the need to rebuild. While the emphasis upon living "among the faiths of Asia" must be continued, that is, the Congress must continue to grapple with the issues of our multi-faith reality, we must take care to avoid discussion which proceeds at too abstract a level. Rather than focus on overarching intellectual constructs which locate the various religions in theoretical relationship, it is time to focus attention of the kinds of pedagogy of encounter which will enable actual grass roots communities to engage with the people who share their community but practice a different religious faith.7

This thematic concern will need to find appropriate methodological expression. As part of an increased engagement with the best methodological insights of contemporary contextual theology, greater attention will need to be given to the actual communities among whom we work and carry on our theological reflection. It is hoped that in upcoming meetings of the Congress of Asian Theologians, greater engagement with the reality and the issues of the host communities can enrich our theological reflection. Such insights should inform the process and the program of our upcoming meetings. In this way, we will be able to carry forward the very rich foundations which earlier CATS gatherings have laid, and enter into the risks and challenges of a changed and changing world.

CATS 4 "Rebuilding Community: Asians Seeking New Pedagogies of Encounter". August 2003, Chang Mai Thailand.