Introduction

In today's clip from the West Wing we see Bartlet deal with a very modern dilemma for the leaders of the nations. He has heard that an ambassador of a country in the Middle East is also a director of a terrorist cell. He has had proof that this man has been involved in a plot to blow up the Golden Gate bridge and other atrocities. Because he is an ambassador he cannot be arrested and tried; to complain to the leader of the country in question would damage American interests. So he resolves to have the man assassinated. On one level this seems reasonable - there is provision in American law for this to happen, it is very Old Testament - "an eye for an eye" and in some ways it could be seen as just. Yet Bartlet is a political liberal and a committed Christian. As we see his conscience is troubled and he knows that his actions are wrong.

Terror

I think it was Lenin who said the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise. Terrorists seek to bring about change by creating so much death, destruction and mayhem that either governments give into their demands or populations become so demoralised that they force the government to negotiate. In order to do this the acts of violence need to be horrific.

Those of us who lived through the 70s, 80s and 90s saw the effects of the IRA's campaign of terror in both the North of Ireland and mainland Britain. However the IRA had to deal with the backlash against them from opinion on all sides of the political debate. This led them, at first, to issue warnings to minimise loss of life (no one was killed in Manchester bomb thanks to a warning and prompt action from the police) and, later, to have a cease fire and negotiations which have led to the current political dispensation in the North of Ireland.

The terror unleashed by Lenin and his associates led to the Russian revolution and the communist take over shortly afterwards. The terrorism unleashed by al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups is more difficult to fathom as there don't seem to be clear demands. The communists wanted power and the dream of a better world. The IRA wanted a united Ireland - whether all the people wanted it or not - but the demands of our contemporary terrorists seems more difficult to work out. Certainly bin Laden wants an end to the State of Israel and an end to the US presence in Arabia; it's not clear, however, how acts of terrorism in London and New York help achieve these ends.

Responses

Bartlet's fictional response to the dilemma of what to do with a terrorist was to fight fire with fire. It is a logical response and not far removed from how the current US administration is dealing with them. Whilst many alleged terrorists are held in unspeakable conditions in Guantanamo bay, it seems that many others have been killed. For Christians, however, this response will always be a difficult one to contemplate. Violence begets violence. Ghandi commented on the Old Testament Law "an eye for an eye" and said that behaviour like that makes the whole world blind.

I think that a truly Christian response to terror involves two key elements: love and justice.

Love

Our reading reminds us that there is no fear in love. Terrorism succeeds when it engenders fear. The number of people travelling on the underground in London decreased significantly after the bombings last year - people found other ways into work. Many Americans won't travel abroad in the aftermath of 9/11 - and who can blame them. But if fear diminishes our lives then the forces of terror and darkness has won.

Throughout it's history the Christian Church has tried - often imperfectly - to witness to the power of love to overcome fear, prejudice and terror. In the midst of the crusades when Christians and Muslims were killing each other, St Francis of Assisi travelled to meet the Sultan in command of the Muslim armies to discuss theology. The Sultan was very impressed. Love is difficult; it takes time, it involves suffering. Ghandi changed his world through non-violence protests where love was a key value. It must be said that this form of action may not have been so successful against the Nazis as it was against the British, but India is a successful democracy now able to withstand many of the internal tensions we bequeathed them.

Justice

The other response, for me, is justice. We read last year of the Anglican priest whose daughter was killed in the July bombings and who can't bring herself to forgive the terrorists. Who can blame her? Her inability to forgive comes from a range of factors - partly I think she was trying to do this far to early in her journey of bereavement. However, in a striking interview she said that the fact that the bombers had killed themselves meant that they eluded justice. They couldn't be tried and punished. Seeing someone punished and brought to justice is an important part of the healing process.

Yet justice has to be fair. I wonder how any fair trial can happen to the detainees in Guantanamo Bay after their years of abusive treatment. How could any evidence be admissible or believable if it was extracted under torture? One of the issues of contention in the North of Ireland was the prisoner release programme which resulted in people imprisoned for terrorist offences being released. Those who had not yet been caught can apply to be convicted but will not serve any term of imprisonment. Whilst this initiative applies to both sides of the conflict, it doesn't really help victims of terror.

But justice is deeper than this. In order to truly defeat terrorists, the swamp must be drained. The excuses they use for their actions must also be addressed. I don't think for one moment that bin Laden is that interested in the plight of the Palestinian people - he is rich enough to do a lot to help them. I think he is interested in political change in Saudi Arabia. But if the world truly worked to create a just solution to the plight of the Palestinians which also was just to the Israelis then they couldn't use that excuse any more. Lenin and his associates came to power in Russia by promising a better world; when they lost an election they banned voting. If the Tsar had introduced reforms, relieved the poor, introduced a British style parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy so much of the history of the Twentieth Century would have been different. Lenin wanted power and didn't really bring about a better world for the Russian people, but if there had been a just society in Russia he wouldn't have been able to get as much support as he had.

Love and Justice are the only responses that will truly work. Both are costly; it means that we have to change our world to make it a just society so that injustice - the breeding ground of resentment, hatred, mistrust, fear and terror - is ended. It means that we learn to love, even in the face of terror. We learn to love even it the face of fear - as St John reminds us, perfect love drives out all fear.

Amen.

This sermon was first preached in the Metropolitan Community Church of Manchester. Click here for further information.