What If?
October 23rd, 2006 by Sonja

So, I’m still embroiled in the discussion over on Brother Maynard’s blog about Muslims and Christians and a proper response to terrorism.

It’s gotten me thinking, though.  Some of you probably smelled the smoke 😉 .

How might the world today be different if, after the 9/11 attacks, our Christ-professing President, and Christian leaders (Franklin Graham, James Dobson, Jimmy Swaggart, et al) had forgiven those who had attacked us?  What if they had lead this country in an example of forgiveness, grace and mercy following the example of the God they profess to follow?  Close your eyes for a minute or two and try to imagine the myriad of ways in which the world today might be a different place.

I’m not suggesting that this could have actually happened.  I’m just suggesting that it never will, until we begin to imagine how it might.

I wonder how many fewer terrorists there might be, because there would be less evil for Al Qaeda to point to.  Al Jazeera would be reporting on Christian good will, rather than Christian ill will.  I wonder what the ripple effects might have been.  Here, as well as abroad.  What are some of the effects that you can imagine?  Tell me about them in the comments … I’d love to know.


6 Responses  
  • ET writes:
    October 23rd, 200610:16 amat

    If they would have forgiven them? Who says they haven’t? You can forgive a rabid pitbull for attacking you but does that mean that you don’t put the dog down because it is a danger to itself and society?
    The world without restraint against evil…hmmm. How soon do you want to die for your faith.

           
  • aBhantiarna Solas writes:
    October 23rd, 200610:59 amat

    ET, you need to read the post more carefully.

           
  • aBhantiarna Solas writes:
    October 23rd, 200611:49 amat

    I was on my out the door to lunch with LightHusband and Children earlier … so now here’s the long answer.

    ET, by suggesting you need to read the post more carefully, I’m suggesting you read it without making assumptions. You have assumed that I meant to end with forgiveness. I suggested that we begin with forgiveness and imagine where that might take us next. That does not necessarily include a world without restraint against evil. That was your inference, not any statement which I made, nor anything which I implied.

    Secondly, I suggested that our leaders “lead” us in forgiveness. If they have forgiven the terrorists, they have done so in the quiet of their hearts. This is laudable, but it is not leading the country in such a step.

    Last, even I admitted that this was not a probable or likely solution at this point in history, but that in order for it to ever be possible, we must begin to be able to imagine what the world would be like if we could indeed forgive our enemies.

           
  • Liz writes:
    October 25th, 200611:27 amat

    I think that ET makes some valid points (although I do not agree with nor do I condone the way those points were expressed.) I think it is important to remember that anger and forgiveness are not completely incompatible. In fact, sometimes holding a person accountable for their mistakes is the most positive thing you could do for that person. For example, when Jesus became angry with the money changes and turned over their tables — perhaps that anger was (or at least could have been) a wake-up call for some that they needed to readdress their priorities and the way they were living. Perhaps, because of their personal situation, that’s the only way they could have actually received that message.

    In other cases, it’s clear that Christians are being called to meet that idealistic vision. The contradictions between the command to turn the other cheek and the act of turning over tables creates a lot of tension – for sure. It’s not easy to discern when it’s ok and right to be angry and act out on that anger and when one is called to turn your cheek over and over again. Perhaps it’s during the struggle with this tension that we find truth. In any case, I contend that if our leaders had started from a position of forgiveness there may have been very little perceivable differences between what actually did occur and what might have occurred. I’m sure there would have been some mention of the act of forgiving and maybe some discussion of the struggle to reach a place of forgiveness – but ultimately, the original speeches may have been just as centered on bringing the terrorists to justice and our need to protect ourselves.

    Sometime I struggle with idealism. It is well and good to imagine this perfect world where everyone is totally accepting and there is no anger. But I often find that kind of dreaming hurtful. It leads to thoughts of, “Why can’t I be like that – what’s wrong with me that I can’t forgive so easily?” For me, anyway, it leads to self-judgment and self recrimination. Sometimes, for my own mental health, I think it’s better to be more realistic in my expectations. I understand and agree with the assertion that we can not meet a goal if we don’t set it, envision it, and strive for it. But I guess, what I’m really wondering – is that the correct goal to set. Is that what we’re really being called to do?

           
  • Patrick writes:
    October 29th, 20063:45 pmat

    I’ve been thinking recently a little farther back. Imagine if during the middle centuries of the 1st millennium Christians had set aside doctrinal differences and continued to evangelize, helping to bring Christ to Mecca before Mohammad rose up with a related, but incomplete, doctrine.

    Imagine how world history would be different for the last thousand years if Christians had kept their eye on the prize, rather than their eyes on temporal power. Profoundly different.

           
  • P3T3RK3Y5 writes:
    October 29th, 20068:33 pmat

    i would submit jesus overturning the tables of the money changers is *the* most abused post-911-passage-of-scripture we have right now, used to justify violence against “the badguys”. please consider; since no one got kilt by Jesus – perhaps this act by Jesus-the-Jewish-Prophet – was no different than any other Jewish Prophetic act: that is, not about the act itself, but a symbolic action designed to make one say: “hmmm… now why the hell did he do that?”

    for those christians that still consider a response to evil, such as the recent Amish loving response to evil, as idealism – I am left nearly speechless. Perhaps we really are “turning the other cheek” in some kind of sick way with an additional three thousand of our own people sacrificed – and another ten times that many to boot, as a result of our armed response to evil.

           


»  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa