I did not discover the news that Osama bin Laden had been killed in a raid by US Navy SEALS through CNN.com, MSNBC.com, Foxnews.com, or any other major news source. I read it on Facebook. This was an interesting experience since I didn’t begin thinking about the subject by reading the details, but rather by observing the reactions of others.
It was odd.
First, I must echo these words that I read on Twitter from @Homelessheretic: “Sorry friends. I’m just not holy/spiritual enough to feel anything other than relief that they put 2 in that SOB’s head. Not gonna lie.” There was a brief moment when I felt some odd mixture of joy and relief. It was like when you watch a movie (e.g. Taken) where “redemptive violence” seems to taste so good.
Second, I began reading the Facebook comments and Tweets by those like Chad Presley who Tweeted (from @OptimisticChad): “The death of a vile person, no matter how evil, should cause us to lament their wasted lives, not celebrate as if they bore not God’s image.” Others noted Ezekiel 18:23 where God asks, “Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord GOD, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?” (NASB) YHWH God answers, “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and live.” Also Proverbs 24:17, “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles”.
I realized that Jesus’ messianic campaign here only showed that death produces more death. Yes, bin Laden will no longer terrorize, but this is not the end of terrorism. In fact, the CIA and other security agencies have warned that supporters of bin Laden may seek revenge. There could be more death due to more retaliation. This is the cycle of violence.
Third, I remembered that the eternal destiny of every human matters. As much as I affirm with Rob Bell that Love Wins, I don’t think this dismisses eternal judgment/wrath. This means every life has value and it is never, ever “good”, in the true sense of the word, when someone dies as odds with the true God.
Fourth, this made it even more obvious that Jesus’ words, while being ignored, remain true: “He who lives by the sword dies by it.” Osama bin Laden lived a life of violence and such was his ending. Oddly enough, it was May 1st, 1945, that the world heard the announcement that Adolf Hitler was dead (read TIME article here). Evil men who use violent means to gain control in this world must often take their own medicine at the end.
Fifth, I watched the reactions of those at Ground Zero in New York City and outside the White House in Washington, D.C. There were celebrations reminiscent of a World Series or Stanley Cup championship. On one side, I judged them for their excessive response to the death of another human. It seemed to me that this reaction was no better than those of some Muslims when they heard our World Trade Center towers had fallen to the ground killing a few thousand. On the other side, I realized that for many this was closure to a decade of bad memories and fearful emotions. I remembered the words of the Psalmist (137.8-9) writing about the Babylonians toward the end of their exile, “O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us—he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” Also, John of Patmos whose writings envision a Jesus who does use redemptive violence, like Joshua, son of Nun, who was used by YHWH God to purge the land of evil people. It seems to be a basic human reaction to breath a sigh of relief, even to let forth a shout of joy, when someone who was an oppressor has been driven into the grave.
Now I jot these notes and I know only that there is a tension. Yes, I feel a sense of relief that an evil man has been killed and that he will no longer torment others. Yet I am challenged by the Apostle Paul who wrote, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Rom. 12.17-21)
__________
Other reactions:
– Bobby Grow, “A Christian Reflection on the Killing of Usama bin Laden”
– Joe Carter, “Anthropos, Enemy, and Bin Laden”
– Rodney Thomas, “Enemy Love and Usama bin Laden’s Death”
– Christopher Morgan, “Grieving, Rejoicing that Osama bin Laden is Dead”
– Brandon Johnson, “Grieving for Bin Laden: Why the Death of a Terrorist is a Cosmic Tragedy”
– Sarah Bessy, “In Which Osama bin Laden is Dead”
– Kurt Willems, “Mourning the Death of Osama bin Laden…and the Loss of Every Other Life”
– Nathan Black, “Osama bin Laden Dead; Christians Debate Response”
– Doug Chaplin, “Some Initial Musings on the Death of Bin Laden”
– Michael J. Gorman, “Some Thoughts on the Death of Osama bin Laden”
– Katie of WIT, “Was It Worth It?” and “Does God Bless the USA?”
For more links go here.
the archives near Emmaus 
Excellent post Brian, sums up well the tensions inherent in this moment. Personally I’m still not sure what I feel.
I’m linking this at bltitus.com … I wondered as I drove to work this morning about your views on this issue.
I appreciate you linking to Scripture about how God may respond to the loss, though I think you might be misapplying Paul’s comments to this situation.
At either rate, I agree. Even though I breathe a sigh of relief, I acknowledge that we’re probably not any safer. And further, this doesn’t solve the bigger problems that lead to terrorism.
Amen!
It is a rare moment when I agree with you on every point in a blog post. I thought I would take the opportunity to let you know.
Good post.
I am having a hard time with this news. Half of me is relieved because justice was served for thousands and thousands of people, not just within our own country but across the world. The other half of me is causing a tension between right and wrong in Scripture. Is the death of a man something to be celebrated? No matter how evil or vile, I am sure God would want that person alive in order for that person to have a chance of repentance (in my opinion). Is God saddened by the death of one of his creations? I think so, but he was also saddened by the actions of his creation in taking the lives of others for years. While it is a victory for the entire world, I am having a hard time coming to grips with any possible positive outcomes of this from a spiritual/Biblical stance.
Not to mention, my wife is freaking out because she is flying to Portland on Thursday (she’s a worrier). Will this solve anything? Absolutely not. If anything, we just made Al-Qaeda even more pissed and confident of their jihadist mission and ideal. I also do not think that the celebrations are tasteful. We have become one of them in the sense of celebrating a man’s death. Whenever I would see the terrorist celebrating the death of an American or an individual, I would be disgusted at how tasteless and evil they were. We have become what we despised–celebrators of death.
Sure I think there is victory in this from a worldly, governmental, defense view. But on the other hand, I think it is rather difficult to find the positives from a Christocentric view, as well as future peace with that region of the world.
@Mason: Thank you!
@Brad: Thank you for sharing this post. Of course, I don’t think I misapplied the Apostle. That being said, I do recognize he did not address what it means to be a Christian when you are now part of the government who wields the sword. I tend to think Paul would have been more like our Mennoite friends in his approach to church/state if he were here today.
@whatever: Do you tend to disagree with me? 😉
@Ryan: It is quite the emotional tension, isn’t it?
Great post Brian! You and I are totally dealing with the same issues about this. Listening to NPR’s coverage this morning was a weird experience. It is certainly hard to judge those that are rejoicing in his death. Especially those who have lost a loved one due to his group. However all I have been thinking about is how to justify my own feelings about this. I tried to use the imprecation Psalms but all I get is that we are to leave the punishment to God, so no clear answer there. I suppose the tension should be there. Someone has died, but that person is to some the very embodiment of evil. It is complicated.
Great thoughts, Brian. I love the honesty throughout the post.
@Josh: Very complicated.
@Daniel: Thank you!
I too have mixed feelings and questions about it all.
Sometimes God’s judgment is meted out through nations and states (Is 10 – even if that State is wicked and worthy of judgment itself). I think it’s often a false dilemma to appeal to God judging vs. the instrument of that judgment. It seems that the dilemma is between immediate and mediate judgment (either God’s or man’s); when both can be the case. I do think Rom. 13 comes into play here, and how we think about “Just War”, or not, in these specific instances. I also think that this isn’t so much of an instance of “rejoicing,” but realizing that we still live in the “now” and the “not-yet” of the kingdom; and thus things like this are always provisional and messy — and we think through darkly colored glasses. In other words, maybe the emotion is more one of being thankful that justice has been meted out (by the “sword” in this instance).
On a practical note, I don’t think any person in this thread would have a problem with defending their house-hold from an intruder entering into their house (threatening your families’ life); even if it called for it, to kill that intruder (which would be a terrible situation to be faced with). I don’t see the “principle” for justifying that (at a micro-level), any different than the “principle” appealed to (at a macro-level) in the “taking out” of Osama Bin Laden. Obviously I’m no pacifist (I’m more situational on this issue though).
@Bobby: I don’t know if I would ground the tension in the “already, but not yet” of the biblical authors. It seems that none of them saw violence as a legitimate option even as they held to this eschatology. Likewise, I can’t think of a single Christian writer before Emperor Constantine’s rise who would talk about anything remotely like ‘just war’. We know there were some Christians who were in the military, but overall it was frowned upon by most.
If anything the tension arises out of our necessary situation. The Parousia has been “delayed” and Christianity has lasted long enough for some of us to become part of the sword wielding government. It is not a situation foreseen by the early church and therefore we have no strict guidelines for how we should have responded. Hence, we have debated this subject back and forth since Augustine.
As to the final point, yes, I would defend my home from an intruder, but I wouldn’t seek to kill the person. One major difference between this self-defense and that of war is that the goal is rarely to merely disarm in order to protect. The goal is to kill.
Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor:
“Welcome to hell, bin Laden. It is unusual to celebrate a death but today Americans and decent people the world over cheer the news that madman, murderer and terrorist [U]sama Bin Laden is dead.”
Really?
@Ryan: Huckabee’s statement makes me think that if anyone doesn’t believe in hell it is not Rob Bell, it is someone who could say this.
I just don’t understand how that kind of mentality can be celebrated…and even coming from a former Pastor! What a sad day on multiple accounts.
@Brian,
What do you see as the difference between the “now and not-yet,” and the delay between the first coming and second coming of Christ? Just War, as any other ethical construct is surely a development of post-Apostolic reflection by the church; that doesn’t lessen or magnify its soundness or not (only the principles, dogmatic/exegetical can serve as the norms by which we adjudicate their veracity — thus the debate). But my point was no different than yours. We live in a broken state, and we live in a fallen yet “redeemed” world; thus the tension, and Christian reflection and articulation of both theology and ethic (both trying to discern and lay bare the inner-logic that Scripture presupposes in its occasional address). But I disagree with you on “violence,” and that word itself needs to be carefully considered and defined (i.e. it has rhetorical connotations that might not be helpful in trying to discern certain things in re. to ethical consideration); yet, for example, we have both Paul (Rom 13) and Peter (I Pet 2 as I recall) speaking about the power that has been given to the State by God (which includes the “sword” which evokes rather “violent” images of accomplishing “justice” another word needing careful nuancing). True, much of this is descriptive and not prescriptive, but not so with Paul in Rom. 13. I’d like to see how you understand that passage, Brian, relative to your belief that none of the Scripture writers speak about “violence” for accomplishing God’s justice in the world (even if that’s not ideal, but redemptive [think cross too]). Btw, Jesus didn’t seem to “frown” upon military involvement by Christians; what/who are you referring to in that reference?
Your final point. That sounds quite ideal and theoretical for you to say. If someone enters your home seeking to “kill” you and your family, do you honestly think that you’ll have the wherewithal to respond with measured and less-than-leathal force? That could be your “intent,” but what does that mean; is “intent” what makes an action or inaction ethical? I find your sentiment to be nice, but unrealistic.
@Ryan: He is more an American politician than a Christian pastor. It seems to me that it was a good decision to abandon his former vocation.
@Bobby: I don’t think either Paul nor Peter would have ever envisioned “them” (Rome) as being “us” (the church). In Rom.13.1-10 the instruction is given in light of the realization that we Christians represent the “new humanity” (5.12-21). Therefore, what do we do with Rome, who represents the old humanity? For Paul he embraces the “already, but not yet” not by saying we should excuse and participate in violence, but rather that we should let “them” have “their” day.
In other words Paul never foresaw the day when Christians would suddenly occupy both roles. This is why I acknowledge that the subject is a complex one to address. I do think that Paul, and Peter, would have maintained that we Christians are never “them” and that it is our role to live the Kingdom peacefully in this age as we await our King.
So it is not that God doesn’t accomplish his justice through violence (his sovereignty over the nations addresses this), but we are not to participate in it. We are to be a witness to the Kingdom in exile. The Kingdom whose King is in heaven.
While my final statement may have been “ideal” I still maintain that it is correct. We Christians should not seek to kill. I think that is the plainest way to say it. If we kill in self-defense we must repent; we should never self-justify.
It definitely warrants considering how we conceive of the “kingdom” of God in this discussion; and how that bears upon our answers to these ethical questions. Is there one ethic for the Church and one for the “World,” or is there two distinct ethical construals; one that competes with the other? Maybe there’s just “one kingdom of God in Christ” (so Barth’s understanding), wherein the “sacred” prophetically speaks into the “secular” realm of the kingdom. So a Christian ethic would be to proclaim life, righteousness, and judgment into the secular; and always to calling the secular (Rom 13) back to the ethic of life provided by Christ. Of course this still doesn’t answer these issues in specifics, but might provide a sketch or suggestion for some of the broader informing issues under consideration.
We cross-commented; our points dovetail I think (on kingdom), but I think we need to be careful on saying what Paul and Peter may have envisioned in this re. .
I agree in principle with you on the Christian’s goal never being to kill, but I need to reflect further on your suggestion that that is always “sin” for the Christian (I’m thinking about my view on Capital Punishment at this point).
You sound quite pacifist, Brian; I’m not as much, but I’m not also not committed to pacifist principles as well. I find pacifism to over-realize eschatology at points.
@Bobby: Yes, we should be careful in saying what Paul and Peter may have said. The most we have is what they did say. And it seems to me that for both there was a solid conclusion that living the Kingdom of God demanded “peace with everyone as much as it is possible”. Paul acknowledges our frailty, but that is a far leap from something like enrolling in the military (which almost guarantees violent interaction with other humans).
I don’t see it as over-realized. I don’t think the apostolic church did either. I think it was just a way of life that they assumed to be what was expected of them as Christians. So yes, in some sense I am quite pacifistic.
@Brian,
I realize that that’s what “you” think about what “you” assume about the early church; but to me that’s where this whole thing is quite “foggy.” Much of this on either side becomes one of speaking from “silence,” and thus “inference” is the cipher. You presuppose certain things about “peace” and “being at peace” that I don’t think necessarily require a paradigmatic understanding (as you seem to suppose). Who’s to say that Paul didn’t think that living at peace with everyone also presupposes “defending that peace?” And who’s to say that Paul believes that military (even being a police-man/woman) service is out-of bounds for the Christian (he doesn’t say either way — so “silence” — he doesn’t tell people who are Christians to quit being a Roman Centurion, nor does he tell them to become one). All that I’m saying, what we both have acknowledged already, is that all of this kind of 21st century articulation on Christian ethics is based upon a priori commitments to certain kinds of hermeneutical constructs and “analogies” in order to come to our various and even at points disparate ethical constructs. I would hate to think that what I believe isn’t what Paul, Peter, and Jesus believe 😉 .
Is there a principle of “non-violence” embedded within the Christian perspective? Absolutely! Does that then automatically negate a viable possibility for Christians to be in the military or police-force? No! The bigger question is what being at “peace with everyone as much as it is possible” means? I don’t think it necessarily means being a pacifist . . . so we disagree then.
@Bobby: I wouldn’t want to disagree with Jesus, Peter, Paul, et al., either. While there is wiggly room (or “fog”) to some extent (yes, John and Jesus do not tell Roman military men to leave their post) there is much in favor of seeing “peace” as including non-violence and very little in the way of seeing the early church as being supportive of violence. We can only do the best with what we have and I just don’t see military service, and an open commitment to putting myself in a position where I’d be committed to kill another human, as a legitimate option for a Christian. I respect those who disagree with me.
In many ways it is the flip side of how I view women pastoral work. Yes, there are straightforward text that seem to condemn it, but the general ethos of Scripture at various points make me conclude that those prohibitions are situational.
Similarly, many see the prohibitions against Christians being violent as having particular qualifications. I don’t find those qualifications to be very strong. But as Paul said, we are all accountable to the Master, so I accept that others may not share my conviction.
Well said, Brian.
@Brian,
This is a rather “situational” situation we are discussing (and that includes socio-cultural conditions i.e. c1st juxtaposed with c21st for Christians), and as such I think this discussion can swing either way (I wouldn’t even discount personal predispositions as having heavy impact on our informing and thus exegetical decisions at various points). Like I said, I agree that “life” is the ethic of Christ and Scripture; but how we relate that to violence/non gets dicey in my estimation (e.g. the genre of Apocalyptic is quite violent etc.). I think the principle of “life” should shape how we interpret “peace” in Scripture, and thus I believe the preservation of “innocent life” trumps the preservation of “guilty life” (to speak in juridical terms). And so to get back to OBL, I think it okay to for him to be “taken out” (so restorative justice vs. blood thirsty retributive justice) in order to impact the preservation of “innocent life,” and thus provide greater shalom for this world.
Honestly, I don’t really like to have this discussion; I prefer to just talk about things like predestination election/reprobation and the atonement. 😉
I am happy to live with an attitude of latitude when it comes to these kinds of issues amongst the household of faith; that’s not to say I don’t have a particular view, and that I won’t voice that . . . what fun would that be 😉 .
Shalom, Brian.
Btw, Brian, it seems to me that your position, (reductio) to be most consistent, would require that you take a Christian anarchist position (I know of some prominent Christian bloggers who inhabit our sphere who hold to this for this very reason, consistency); otherwise the fact that you pay taxes, or some such, makes you complicit in supporting an ethic that you don’t hold; and thus complicit in the violence that said gvt. (ours) perpetrates in the world at large.
@Bobby: It is a contentious issue indeed and yes, it does “get dicey”. I don’t deny these things. It is hard to make black-and-whites statements on say Christian participation in the police force (where killing could happen, though far less likely) than is about local governance rather than some form of international governance. We could discuss WWII, Hitler, Bonhoeffer, et al.
That being said, I don’t think complications result in a “Well, its complicated, so let’s swing as far away from the ethos of the early church as possible.” That is kind of how I see modern Just War Theory. Just War Theory in the time of Augustine may have some logic. In today’s “preemptive strike” world it doesn’t even seem possible.
As to taxes, well, no I don’t see that as inconsistent. Jesus and Paul both said to pay taxes. They said that Caesar should have what is his. I can’t control what Caesar does with his own money, but I can decide not to swear an oath to obey him, especially when it means I would have to take someone’s life.
@James: Thanks!
Brian – you articulated my contention in your response. So, now, we agree.
On this. 😉
@Brad: I’m glad to see we could find peace. 🙂
@Brian,
Yet, you’re using a “false parallel” as a standard–i.e. the “early church” and “the present church”–and that just cannot do, unless of course you’re now willing to deny the particularist hermeneutic you appealed to in re. to women in ministry etc. You’re also assuming something about the “early church” that neither one of us is privy to (at best some quite extra-biblical).
Yes, I don’t like the idea of “preemptive strike,” and I agree with you! As do many political Libertarians (which I’m not, per se).
Good point on the taxes. But I think “ethically” that doesn’t really deal with that concern quite enough (since that was a matter of giving to Caesar what belonged to him “his money.” In our Republic the money belongs to “us” under our Constitution and is not Caesar’s etc.). I could string this out further, but why? 🙂
Ethical questions like philosophical ones never seem to end 🙂 .
@Bobby: No, they don’t end. That is why I am less dogmatic than many I know. Yet I find that if I must lean one way it makes better sense of the data that we have available, and the overall message of Christ, to avoid violence at all cost if possible.
While theoretically, as a Republic, it would seem that there is a difference, it seems that practically there is very little. We don’t have much say in our nation’s military decisions. Yes, we can vote people out of office, but our system as a whole seems to be merely a rotating door for the same types of people.
I missed your point on the “false parallel”.
Oh, that there’d be a greater separation of a nation’s flag from Christ’s universal cross.
@James: That is an ideal we should all pursue, whether or not we affirm some form of pacifism or just war theory. We should always be critical of when our Christian identity is no longer distinct from our national.
@Brian,
My point on “false-parallel,” at least between the early Church and the post-Constantinian is just that; the latter (and us) are post-Const. In other words, the early Church didn’t (apparently) have the ecclesiopolitical capacity that we experience (in the American/Western church) today. So to say that the early church was pacifist, by and large, does not necessarily commentate on how we in our situation as the church “ought” to operate. In other words, it could be argued that they were by-and-large, pacifist . . . which still needs to be argued, because of their position within the Graeco-Roman state. It seems post hoc to argue from them to us in universal ways, unless of course there is something universal in the text of Scripture that can be appealed to in persuasive ways. But why “peace” is given precedence over “life” in this discussion does not make sense; we must first have “life” prior to “peace” (so an “order of being”).
Anyway, we are on the path for the never-ending discussion, Brian 🙂 . peace.
Brian, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
.
I have a deep appreciation for our President and the US NAVY SEALS on an excellent job!!!
There were, however, a few phrases in the President’s speech that made me uncomfortable:
“his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity”
“we can say . . . Justice has been done”
“Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God . . .”
@Bobby: I acknowledge that the church didn’t face the same situation before Constantine that it did after. But this doesn’t lend me to think that just because Constantine came to power the church had to adjust the way it did. It seems that there was a departure from principles that had been commonplace for a few centuries already. For instance, Christians who were Roman citizens rarely served in the military, though some did. All Christians writers seemed to oppose it on two grounds: (1) you likely had to kill and (2) the allegiance to Caesar. While we could argue that the latter point is mute because there was now a “Christian emperor” who didn’t see himself as a deity, this doesn’t account for the first point.
So it does seem to me that Christians merely assumed until Constantine that to follow Christ meant, in part, to not kill other humans.
I know the common response is “What if someone tried to kill your wife?!” OK, that is a good question. But there is quite a leap from what if my wife was attacked as we innocently went about our business to committing oneself as government property under their command to kill others for the sake of the State’s interest. I see a lot of intentionality in the latter decision that is not present in the former.
@Jeff: Thank you! Yes, the President’s word were concerning on these points. Of course, whether or not he professes to be Christian or not (as many president’s do), we know their highest allegiance is to the principles of the United States and not to those of Christ. These sentences are expected.
Brian,
I agree Barak Obama was saying what presidents say,but he was giving us more than just permission to celebrate.
NT Wright includes politicans in his discussion of Evil And The Justice Of God. In fact the book starts out with George Bush’s reference to the “axis of evil” and Tony Blair announcing that the job of the politican is to “rid the world of evil.”
Wright warns us that there are “new doctrines of redemption which mirror or parady the Christian one.”
This seems more dangerous than a tweet or someone updating their facebook status. And may even be the cause of some dancing in the streets.
@Jeff: I’m in complete agreement that these statements are problematic and that they can have negative results. All I am saying is I would be amazed to see the day when a president was level headed enough not to create such liturgical statements in honor of our nationalistic spirit.
and I too would be amazed