Stop the Hand-wringing and Start the Bell Ringing!
When it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth: and when the wicked perish, there is shouting. (Proverbs 11:10)
The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. (Psalm 58:10)
Since I first heard the news reports last night of the death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of US Navy Seals conducting a special forces operation under the nose of the Pakistani government, I've been rejoicing in the news and bewildered by the bizarre response of many Christians to this development. My Face Book page lit up with predictable joy, but also with comments condemning those celebrating the death of the Terrorist leader and architect of the 9-11 attacks (as well as others), together with other comments ranging from exhortations not to rejoice in the death of the wicked to instructions about loving our enemies and not pursuing a path marked by vengeance. It seems to me that such comments often arise only from theological confusion, often inflicted on congregations by hand-wringing, guilt-tripping preachers, or from being more informed by a bizarre sentimentality than Scripture.
"What? How can you say such a thing when we Christians are supposed to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, just as Jesus said?"
I'll come to that matter. But lets begin with a look at the big picture, and make sure we consider the whole range of Scripture rather than isolated verses here and there - something one might accuse me of doing if all I offered were the texts quoted at the beginning of this article.
First of all, whatever motives may be in the hearts of fallen people, the act of killing Osama bin Laden was an act of justice and mercy not revenge. It is crucial to recall the proper place of the civil magistrate in the execution of God's justice in a fallen world.
Here's what Scripture says about the necessary place for the sword-bearing civil authority in our fallen world:
"For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also (F)for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: (H)tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." - Romans 13:3-7
The civil authority 'bears the sword' as a servant of God to protect the innocent and punish evil doers. Private vengeance is thus criminal and not allowed to the Christian, while civil magistrates may - and indeed must - discharge the duty of 'avenging' when such action is called for.
Many Christians take Jesus words with regard to turning to the other cheek in a civil way rather than in a private way. Jesus was speaking of a personal persecution ethic - how we respond to the state or individual persecution for what we believe - rather than the duty of the state to punish wickedness and protect the innocent. The confusion over the civil and the private runs right through large sections of the Christian community. I may not as a private citizen take vengeance; I may not as an individual Christian respond to persecution for my Faith with violence or hatred, but rather with mercy, prayer, and a willingness to continue to embrace suffering - the way of the Cross in order that the sacrificial and merciful love of God may be seen by his enemies. On the other hand, I cannot as a private Christian citizen refuse to acknowledge our need for the state's proper place under God - bearing the sword to mete out just punishments on wrong-doers and serving to protect the citizenry from evil.
This can be clearly seen in the work of contemporary police officers and our system of courts. If a man violently assaults another man, woman, or child, the civil authority has a responsibility to apprehend him and bring him to justice, inflicting an appropriate punishment, and rescuing from attack others who might have suffered were such an assailant allowed to wander about freely. The person so attacked may well forgive the assailant, but the state must punish and restrain him to protect the innocent from further suffering. Thus an act of justice is also an act of mercy; justice for the offender, and mercy far and wide for those rescued from his hand. I have some personal experience in the need to forgive an assailant while praying for his arrest and detention so that others would not suffer as well.
In the realm of international relations and the actions of state or state sponsored terrorist organizations, civil authorities are still responsible to protect their citizens from the violent and punish those who wrongfully and criminally inflict on citizens suffering and death. They do not always do so with wisdom or restraint, and the same could be said for local law enforcement as well! Yet this does not diminish the demand that such actions be taken, however imperfectly in this sad, fallen world.
The capture and killing of Osama bin Laden was the correct response of a civil authority to a man and movement bent on destroying people around the world, and who had already murdered thousands. We should rejoice that the President had the willingness to give this order and the military the sword to carry it out. This is simply one more example of a Christian worldview informing the way we think of state actions, even when that state has forgotten the theology that is at the foundation of its very existence and the form it has taken.
No civil authority can execute eternal justice however. The wrath of the Lamb awaits the nations and all who refuse his rule. That is an eternal matter, and it is why even the executed are at death committed to the mercy of God. I cannot pronounce Osama bin Laden's eternal sentence of divine justice, nor can any state. All that can be said here and now is that because he carried out murders he was subject to the death penalty, rightly administered by the properly constituted authority. The rest we can leave with the wisdom of the Almighty.
It is in this sense that the Scriptures say that God does not delight in the death of the wicked - another verse often quoted by those who would temper or condemn the celebration of Osama's execution by Navy Seals. God doesn't rejoice in his death, so how can we? On the contrary, we must rejoice in his death because that is the will of God being carried out. We must also acknowledge that the everlasting judgement of the wicked is in God's hands alone; he does not rejoice in carrying it out, as he has already been 'pleased' to crush his Son as the sacrifice for all sins that secures eternal life. God does not wish for any to perish, just as the Apostle taught. This however is not the same thing as saying that God does not desire justice, whether now, as can be only partially and always imperfectly carried out, or in eternity when it will be wisely, perfectly, and fully brought to bear upon all.
Finally note the need for paying taxes, mentioned in Romans as well. The next time you pay your Federal Taxes, pause and give thanks for the privilege of writing that check, and offer thanks to God for the legitimate use of those funds. You think some of the uses are illegitimate? OK, and you might be correct. But while you have that debate, pay them with joy and pray for the soldiers who are putting themselves on the line so you and your family don't have to live in a war zone. The sword is being carried forward, and I for one am celebrating the fact that it was terrible and swift in its onslaught last night against Osama bin Laden. You're damn right I'm happy about it. Thanks be to God.
16 comments:
Thanks for this post, David! My thoughts thus far have been very focused on Christians' personal reactions to the situation, rather than the civic ramifications, so I'm glad that you articulated that for us here. I suppose that for my own part I am rejoicing as a member of a nation that has been protected through the triumph of justice, but mourning as a member of a fallen race of image-bearers that is desperately in need of God's mercy. The capacity for evil in the human heart is clearly seen in the life of Bin Laden, and that makes me all the more mindful of what Christ has done for us, and also jubilant that the same divine justice meted to him will not come upon us at the Last Day.
I'd also like to ask an honest question here: How do you think we can use this situation in the context of our witness to the Islamic world? This will almost certainly bring up notions of crusade, whether that reference is justified or not, and for good or ill the death of Bin Laden will throw Muslim-Christian relations into the spotlight. Is there some way that we can use this situation to present the Gospel? It's hard for me to imagine a way in which that would be possible, but I thought I'd see if you had any thoughts on the matter.
And on a purely political note, it's good to see something decisive and worthy come out of the Obama camp.
FINALLY! some common sense on the matter. thanks, dc.
David,
Thanks for your post. Parts of it were insightful and other parts troubling. Is America then the sword of Almighty God? How long have we been God’s arm of vengeance and justice in the world? Sounds a bit theocratic to me, considering America is a democratic republic. God is not an American. Don’t get me wrong! I am glad Osama is no longer with us. The world is safer without him and for millions his death is justice in every sense of the word. I agree with you that he deserved to die. I just think it’s dangerous for this country or any country to consider itself the sword of God. Are innocent civilians killed in American wars now God’s collateral damage? Are the men we water boarded for information in secret CIA interrogation camps facing questions asked on behalf of the Creator? Many times in history Christians have carried out crusades and atrocities in the name of Christ Jesus. As far as Paul’s perspective, I think he was almost certainly writing from the perspective of an ancient man who saw all political power as God-given power. God didn’t give Hitler and Nero power. They were just ruthless, tyrannical idiots. Just because some Old Testament people (who were from tribal social systems with ancient family feuds) danced in the streets after a bloody battle does not mean we, as Christians, have to or should. Not everything people in the Bible did was Godly or consistent with the character of God as revealed through Christ Jesus. What about Christ’s admonition to love and pray for our enemies? Surely not every challenging saying of Christ should be reduced to only applying to the individual. There are many accounts in Scripture for entire nations being held accountable for their collective sin. As an American I’m glad we got him. As a Christian I pray that God continues to work out God’s redemptive plan despite or maybe through this violent situation. I trust the church to be the instrument of that redemptive plan, not this state or any other. My belief in Christ has nothing to do with American nationalism. Separation of church and state are good for both. They are both stronger when neither is a crutch for the other. Your last words were “thanks be to God” which may be more properly used in a pastoral way when saying a prayer over Communion, at a Baptism, or on Easter morning when we celebrate a risen Savior. Thanking God for a bullet to the head of any human in my opinion cheapens the phrase in its more priestly functions. I welcome your thoughts…
Jonathan,
Thanks for your comments and excellent questions. In short, No - an emphatic No - America is not the sword. What I am saying, and I think saying very clearly, is that the civil magistrate is the properly constituted Biblical authority to mete out justice when such is needed. That is to say, the British government (for example) has that responsibility for its subjects, the French Government for its people, and so on. No nation can be the civil government of the world - though there have been obvious attempts at such hegemony. These meet with the fall that follows such pride. America as a nation has manifested such tendencies. I am making a distinction between what I as an individual may legitimately do and what only the civil authority may do; this is a distinction in private individual, church, and state that the Bible recognizes. I suspect we are in agreement on that.
So lets rejoice when the civil authority acts with wisdom in punishing the wicked, and mourn when they do not. The same can be said of individual actions.
Thanks again.
Did you have to put up that photo? I haven't seen the TV coverage (satellite dish needs adjustment), so I missed all the gruesome pix. So I haven't been de-sensitized.
Not so very clearly , you can argue that Jesus taught outside KofGod laws aswell as those for Xtians.Judas was the terrorist within the homeland of Jesus and his family.Jesus` dealings with him cut his heart and he went out and killed himself.Hitler killed himself - keep in mind Allied leaders battled over the idea and plans for his assination.In the political civil battle to seek the death of an Arab who has influenced many over the downfall of decadent western vile values many many people have suffered . I would argue the the suffering of a loss of a loved one to physical death is less than the suffering of a loss of a loved one selling themselves to the toffee apple flavours of a devilish core-rotten pain of a type of life!
There ia a lot in the teaching and habit of Jesus that is congruant with that.
Richard Bennett Norfolk England chard1@hotmail.co.uk
David,
Thanks for the second post as well. That clears up the questions and concerns I had about the first. After a second read, I think I may have partially misunderstood you initially. I do agree with your second post. Judging by it, I think you might also be a fan of John Locke (life, liberty, property). His II Treatises On Government (1689) is the foundation of many of the social contract philosophies we are discussing. I’m a pretty big Locke fan myself, and have thought for years that he should perhaps get more credit than Jefferson for our country’s understanding/system of government. His social contract theory clearly states that civil government’s responsibility is to protect and defend the rights of its people. These ideas of course are in scripture from a much more ancient perspective. The problem is that many governments in our world are not good stewards of the powers they hold.
Also, please tell my in-laws Keri and Duane Davis hey!
Also, for the record- You have inspired me to use the word "mete" as a regular addition to my vocabulary. I think I'll have to mete out some justice against all oposing 42 teams, and in 3-on-3 basketball with jr. high students. :-)
I think we should all celebrate that there is discussion, and so many of us taking pause, whether to celebrate that there is no further plotting and execution of such plots from Bin Laden and how that brings inner peace, or that murder, even when used for justice, should not be celebrated in the streets. I most definitely do not think this is just a debate amongst Christians.
No matter the rational, or interpretation of scripture, may we all think about the journey that has lead us to this thinking spot. I hope in this time of celebration or quiet moment, we remember and hold those effected by this war in our prayers.
Somewhere there is a relative of Bin laden that sits head in hands, he or she is ashamed, heartbroken, and questioning why God did not hear their prayers, and give light to a very dark path that their brother, Uncle, or Father Osama Bin Laden took.
Somewhere there is a mother in Iraq, still mourning the loss of her child after the bombings left them without clean water and she had to watch her child die slowly, a child seen as collateral damage, she is so confused, because while there are plenty of evil men in her town, Iraq was not hiding this particular evil man.
Somewhere in just about every town in America there is a Father so very proud of his baby, who at the ripe old age of 19 went to Iraq as a soldier, and without bullets helped Iraqi or Afghanistan schools continue teaching and carried burned and limbless children to medical attention. A soldier, and someones baby, so courageously gave his/her life without question.
While there are always so many reasons to Thank God, I do believe Evil breathed in deep all the way on this very thought provoking Journey to the justified death of Bin Laden.
Marion, let not your heart be troubled. That photo is fake. Gruesome yes, but not real. :)
A Mom - Brilliantly put. That deserves its own blog post. Evil is indeed very real, and you have given voice to the sadness and heartbreak it causes, and has caused during the last decade. Thank you for this.
Chris,
I picked it up from a British source, and took it down as soon as it was known to be fake. Im not sure I'll put up a real one, if its ever released. Its not necessary for me to see such pictures, but neither do I have objections to them.
A few thoughts ...
I think it's incorrect to assert that God is involved in governments and thus Christians have a duty to support them.
First, Paul says God “establishes” governments. The Greek here can simply imply that God uses governments as he finds them. In this case, Paul says, he uses them to punish wrong doers. But this doesn’t mean God approves of them. Throughout the Bible, God uses governments he clearly doesn’t approve of (e.g. Assyria in Isa. 10).
Secondly, Romans 13:1-7 must be read in conjunction with the verses that immediately precede it (Rom. 12:17-21). In these passages Paul tells Kingdom people they are to love and serve their enemies and never exact vengeance on them. Rather, we are to leave all judgment to God. Then, beginning in Romans 13, Paul tells us one of the ways God exacts vengeance on people: he uses governments. So God uses governments, as he finds them, to do the very thing he has just forbidden Kingdom people to do. The passage thus shows not that Christians have a responsibility to participate in government, but that we have an obligation not to participate when it does things we as Kingdom people are forbidden to do (like using violence against wrongdoers) or celebrating in their death.
You might be thinking: “Neither Jesus nor his disciples were thinking of enemies like Al-Qaeda. Surely he didn’t mean we’re supposed to love and do good to these sorts of enemies. ” But, as a matter fact, these were exactly the kind of enemies Jesus and his disciples would have had in mind. Jesus was talking to people who were not only threatened by vicious nationalistic enemies; they were already conquered by them.
Most first century Jews despised their Roman oppressors at least as much as most Americans despise Al-Qaeda – and they were under their oppressive rule. The Romans would sometimes put dozens – in a few cases we know of, thousands – of Jews to death (usually by crucifixion) just to flex their muscle. If you can imagine living in an America that was conquered and then subsequently ruled by Al-Qaeda, you can get some idea of what Jesus was asking of his disciples when he told them to “love their enemies” and to never retaliate against them.
Regarding justice ...
The Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman they had caught in the act of adultery (Jn 8:3-4). They wanted to see how this increasingly popular, would-be Messiah, might respond. Their motive, of course, was to entrap Jesus (vs. 6). The law explicitly commanded that adulterers had be stoned to death (Lev 20:20; Deut 22:22). If Jesus agreed with this and had the lady stoned, it would likely get him in trouble with Roman authorities, for they alone had the right to try and carry out capital punishment. If Jesus disagreed with this, however, it would set him in explicit opposition with the Torah and justify the Jewish court trying him as a false teacher.
Displaying his signature genius, Jesus found a way to affirm the Torah in principle while undermining it in practice. “Let anyone who is without sin cast the first stone,” he said (vs. 7). In agreement with the Torah, Jesus affirmed that sinners like this woman deserve to be executed. Yet, he added, only a sinless person would be justified in carrying out this sentence. Since none of the woman’s accusers were sinless, they ended up dropping their stones and walking away.
Since all people are sinners, it seems to me that Jesus’ teaching in this episode applies not just to this particular accused sinner and to this group of sinful accusers, but to all accused sinners and to all sinful accusers. And if you think it through consistently, this entails that none of the Old Testament’s commands to carry out capital punishment should ever be acted on! Indeed, for followers of Jesus, it entails that no command to carry out capital punishment should ever be obeyed, regardless of where it is found or who it comes from.
The command itself may be just, but unless you are without sin, you’re not justified putting it into practice.
Thanks for the opportunity to share and for opening up the conversation.
Previous thoughts pulled from works by Greg Boyd. Hope they're thought provoking.
Stephen, thanks. I suspect it would be better for Boyd to say that God uses Governments (often very, very wicked governments - Babylon, Assyria, Rome, etc) AND is involved in everything. Obviously he is 'involved' in different ways with different governments and different spheres. I disagree with Boyd's look at Romans 12 to 13; he must conclude then that Christians cannot be police officers, serve in the military, or hold public office. Perhaps he's right. Boyd has been helpful in pointing out some of the manifest wrong-headedness of confusing country and Kingdom or patriotism with gospel zeal. I applaud that work. My disagreements with him, however, starting with his doctrine of the knowledge of God, show up in the piece you cite, offering us a God who is 'above' and 'separate from' the affairs of this world - he is 'involved' but what does that actually mean?
I DO think Jesus has Osama and his ilk in view when he says "Love your enemies". If Osama was persecuting the Church - or me - for the Faith, my response would have to be love, forgiveness, and prayer rather than revenge. The duty of the civil authority AS the civil authority is different. If a Church is vandalized - say for being homophobic - they need to clean up the mess, and pray for the people who set the fire, sprayed the paint, or whatever. The police have the job of finding the offenders and making sure they don't do it again.
Here again, I'm afraid Boyd confuses personal persecution and our response to it with state actions against criminals and acts of war.
Super comments, and thanks for stopping in to share here. You are always welcome to do so.
Post a Comment