A Christian Response to the Death of Osama bin Laden
|
Rob Vaughan
|
5/4/2011
|
On Sunday, May 1st, 2011 President Barack Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden, leader of al-Qaeda, and an icon to Muslim extremists around the world. Within minutes, Americans erupted in celebration, celebration matched in its intensity and unity only by the despair and shock immediately following the attacks of September 11th, 2001 whose leader had just been assassinated by a team of Navy SEALS in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
The immediate sense that these events represent the final victory in the so called ‘War on Terror’ is understandably strong. Bin Laden is the face of that conflict to many across the world, on both sides of the conflict. Ultimately though, such feelings are false. There may have been a time when a strike against bin Laden would have brought his network down around him. That time has passed. At best, this represents merely a victory, and is certainly not the end of the ‘war.’ This is clearly understood in Afghanistan, which has born the overwhelming brunt of the conflict. Haroun Mir, deputy director of Afghanistan’s Centre for Research and Policy Studies sums it up succinctly “The assassination of bin Laden will not end our suffering, so al Qaeda will continue its terrorist attacks, the Taliban will continue their insurgency in Afghanistan…The death of Osama bin Laden will not itself lead to lasting peace in this country.”[1] Ahmad Wali Massood, a former ambassador to Great Britain remarked “By removing Osama bin Laden – that does not mean the structure has gone. Already the Taliban has established [something] almost similar to the al-Qaeda organization…If the US thinks its mission [against terrorism] is over…that’s mistaken. Probably that might be news for [US] public opinion, to announce a victorious end, but that doesn’t mean anything on our account.”[2]
These seem to only echo my feeling that while the celebrations across the US are real, ultimately it is just “sound and fury, signifying nothing”[3] over a hollow victory. Further, as much as there appears to be the appearance of unity of American opinion that the death of bin Laden is a good, the gleeful reaction to the news of another death is highly troubling. In addition to the celebrations in the streets Sunday night, many in the media struggle to see this death as anything other than a reason to celebrate. Comedians Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert acknowledged that somewhat troubling nature of this glee, but still wholeheartedly embraced it:
“I suppose I should be expressing some ambivalence [laughter] I suppose I should be expressing some ambivalence about the targeted killing of another human being and yet, uh, no. I just want details…”[4]
-Jon Stewart
“I am as giddy as a school girl who just shot bin Laden in the eye… Hey, Osama, no 3d movies for you in hell…
“I am just so happy, and I hope, I hope I am never this happy again over someone’s death, and I’m sure, I know, if I could see myself in a mirror I would be appalled by the look on my face [pulls out mirror, looks in it] nope, I like this, that’s a good look, I want to stay this way forever.”[5]
-Steven Colbert
Even the threat of reprisals, such as alleged plans to detonate a nuclear device in a major European city should bin Laden by captured or killed[6], could not bring down Stewart’s glee:
“Yes, we shouldn’t have killed him, now the terrorists are gonna want to attack us. But you know what, even when they do you know who won't see it? Bin Laden. Because we shot out his eyes and now he lives in a pineapple under the sea”[7]
-Jon Stewart
The emphasis on the specific fact that bin Laden was shot in the eye only serves to highlight that this is not satisfaction that there has been some sort of justice served, but glee at his death. And yes, Stewart and Colbert are both comedians living in New York, both heavily affected by the attacks, and both men whose jobs are to make people laugh, perhaps providing them with excuses for a lack of balance, however, they are both sufficiently in tune with their audience that one can reasonably assume they echo the feelings of a great many people, likely including nearly all of the college students in Washington D.C. who flocked to the White House lawn Sunday night, chanting U-S-A and singing the theme song from the comedy movie Team America.[8]
Despite the initial celebrations, a more complicated American response came to light over the next few days. On Monday, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke somberly:
“This is a day we shouldn’t forget that 3,000 people died…It’s a little hard to have a smile on our faces…Nothing will ever return our loved ones—but we are rebuilding from the ashes and the tears a monument to the American spirit…Today, let the spirits that are all around us know some peace and justice.”[9]
Al-Jazeera English, in a story appearing May 3rd, spoke to Eileen Zott, one of the many New Yorkers who lost family in the attacks said “I don’t know how I feel about this…I’m a Christian, and killing isn’t part of my beliefs. It doesn’t bring anyone back.[10]” Another woman quoted in the same article said “I’m glad he’s off the streets. I’m glad he can’t plan any more attacks…but I can’t celebrate this”[11]
The complicated mix of emotions resulting from the death of bin Laden mirrors a long tension within Christianity. In Romans 12:9 Paul tells the church to “Love what is genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good.” Just a few lines later, “hate what is evil” becomes more complicated, with verses 14-21:
“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly, do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ No, ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink’ for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Martin Luther responded to the tension of this, and other passages with his Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. The first is the Kingdom of God, and is the highest allegiance for the Christian[12]. True Christians belong to this kingdom, and are capable of living peaceably with one another[13]. For non-Christians, and presumably also false and nominal Christians, a second kingdom is needed, one which
“[subjects] them to the sword so that, even though they would like to, they are unable to practice their wickedness…In the same way a savage wild beast is bound with chains and ropes so that it cannot bite and tear is it would normally do, even though it would like to’ whereas a tame and gentle animal needs no restraint…”[14]
That bin Laden would fall into the category belonging to the kingdom of the world is, I hope, obvious. The question then becomes what to do about it. Luther answers that Christians may participate in governmental action, even as an executioner if it is necessary for the good of the temporal government.[15] The conflict between taking violent action on behalf of the temporal authority and Christian commands to non-violence is, for Luther resolved because, in acting on the authority of the temporal government
“you would be entering entirely into the service and work of others, which would be of advantage neither to yourself or your property or honor, but only to your neighbor and to others. You would be doing it not with the purpose of avenging yourself or returning evil for evil, but for the good of your neighbor and for the maintenance of the safety and peace of others. For yourself, you would abide by the gospel and govern yourself according to Christ’s word [Matt. 5:39-40], gladly turning the other cheek and letting the cloak go with the coat when the matter concerned you and your cause.”[16]
Luther would, I’m sure, have no problem with the killing of bin Laden as a just exercise of temporal authority over a dangerous man who had killed a great many people, and, left to his own devices would have killed a great many more. Clearly, even a Christian could be the one who pulled the trigger and not risk salvation, as the act was in state interest, so long as, inwardly, and when in consideration purely of self, that Christian acted in accordance with the Gospel and the kingdom of God.
Despite Luther’s likely acceptance of the legitimacy of killing Osama bin Laden, I think it unlikely that he would condone the celebrations that followed the announcement. The killing was legitimate to the extent that it was taken out as a means of protecting others from future attack, as a means of preventing further injustice, but vengeance, ‘returning evil for evil’ is still unacceptable, for both the individual and the temporal power.[17] The celebrations following the announcement of bin Laden’s death indicate a feeling that vengeance has been made, in addition to, or perhaps instead of justice being done.
Martin Luther King, Jr. would join his namesake in condemning celebration over death, but King’s doctrine of non-violence did not make an exception for temporal authority. The internal/external division present in Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms led to troubling results in the 400 years that separates the two. The separation of an internal, Christian ethic from an external, worldly ethic contributed to the use of the church to justify unjust actions of the state, including slavery, segregation and war.[18] It led to a church that forget its prophetic role, forgot “that it is neither the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.”[19] Regarding the idea that a Christian can conscientiously serve as the executioner of the state, King says: “Some who have been taken from their schools and careers and cast in the role of soldiers. We must provide them with the fresh bread of hope and imbue them with the conviction that God has the power to bring good out of evil.”[20] King does not assure them that their actions as soldiers are just practice of temporal power, permissible as they serve the greater good. Their conscription into the military is evil, as is much, if not most of what they are likely to have to do as soldiers. King instead assures them that, though they have been subjected to evil, and may do evil, God can still cause good from it.
The inspiration of this paper, and, indeed, my first thought upon hearing the news if bin Laden’s death was a quote from King. “Returning violence for violence multiples violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars…Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” In my work on this paper, I returned to what I thought was the source of that quote, only to discover I had slightly missed (though further research online indicates that what I have may be an authentic King quote, though I am not sure precisely from where. The real quote, at least as presented in Strength to Love is:
Returning hate for hate multiples hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. So when Jesus says ‘Love your enemies,’ he is setting forth a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition. Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies—or else? The chain reaction of evil—hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars—must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.”[21]
There are those who would counter King’s message, answering it with the apparent practicality of Luther’s two kingdoms for providing a way to security while living Christian love. This seems at first a compelling argument, but it fails on two levels. First, living a truly Christian life can not mean dividing oneself into public and private personas, dividing the world into public and private action. As Matthew declares that no one can serve the two masters of God and wealth,[22] neither can one serve both the state and God. Paul’s exhortation that the Roman church should be subject to the authorities is tempered by the implicit admonition that one should only be subject to the authorities so long as they do not require one not also be subject to God, where the two are in conflict, one must resist, not violently, but through the creative means of non-violence employed by Christ and employed by King and others in the Civil Rights movement, employed by Gandhi in India, and, more recently, employed by many young people across the Arab world. As King declares: “We have followed the so-called practical way for too long a time now, and it has led inexorably to deeper confusion and chaos. Time is now cluttered with the wreckage of communities which surrendered to hatred and violence. For the salvation of our nation and the salvation of mankind, we must follow another way.”[23]
I have struggled greatly with this thought over the past several days. I am convinced that King would not support the killing of bin Laden. I do not support the killing of bin Laden. My definition of the doctrine of Imago Dei[24] is clear that not some, but all humans are created in the image of God, that every killing, every death is offensive to God. In killing bin Laden, we have not brought the world closer to peace. Bin Laden will be replaced; al Qaeda will be replaced; the United States will be replaced by other instruments of hate until such time as love drives out hate.
[1] Jacqueline Head, “Death fails to bring hope to Afghans,” Al-Jazeera English,http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/05/20115214431590378.html (accessed May 2, 2011).
[2] Ibid
[3] Macbeth
[4] “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” May 2, 2011
[5] “The Colbert Report”, May 2, 2011
[6] Christopher Hope, Robert Winnett, Holy Watt and Heidi Blake, “WikiLeaks: Guantanamo Bay terrorist secrets revealed,” The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8471907/WikiLeaks-Guantanamo-Bay-terrorist-secrets-revealed.html (accessed May 3, 2011).)
[7] “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” Aired May 2, 2011
[8] Jenna Johnson, “Bin Laden Death Draws Student Crowd to White House,” The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/campus-overload/post/students_converge_at_white_house_after_bin_laden_killed/2011/05/02/AFqC2pYF_blog.html (accessed May 2, 2011).
[9] Sally Jenkins, “Resilient New York takes grim satisfaction in bin Laden's death,” The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/resilient-new-york-takes-grim-satisfaction-in-bin-ladens-death/2011/05/02/AFjc3McF_story.html (accessed May 3, 2011).
[10] Gregg Carlstrom, “New Yorkers' mixed reactions to Osama's death,” Al-Jazeera English, http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/20115352740772938.html (accessed May 3, 2011).
[11] Ibid
[12] J. Philip Wogaman, ed., Readings in Christian Ethics: A Historical Sourcebook, ed. J. Philip Wogaman and Douglas M. Strong (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 129.
[13] Ibid 129
[14] Ibid 129
[15] Ibid 131
[16] Ibid 131
[17] Ibid 131
[18] Martin Luther, Jr. King, Strength to Love (Philadelphia: Fortress Publishers, 1981), 63.
[19] Ibid 64
[20] Ibid 64
[21] Ibid 53
[22] Matthew 6:24 NRSV
[23] Ibid 56
[24] The Doctrine of Imago Dei is the system of beliefs surrounding the value of human life and well-being considering humanity to be made in the ‘image of God.’ We learn about this through Biblical references and our own shared experience with one another so that we may place proper value on both ourselves and others, and how to best relate to one another in recognition of the ways in which God is manifest in every human being.
