Jesus, Osama bin Laden, and Enemy Love, Part 1
Sunday evening, May 1, President Barack Obama announced to the world that Osama bin Laden had been found and killed. And what resulted in terms of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media conversations was nothing short of amazing. Responses varied from sheer joy at the thought of bin Laden now being in hell for all eternity to horror at the thought of rejoicing in anyone’s death. Christians fought proof-text against proof-text and emotions flooded the conversations.
Just 24 hours after that announcement and the ensuing events online, Ray and Steve recorded this two-part conversation about their own feelings and responses. Is there a right and wrong response for the follower of Jesus in situations such as this? Is it ok to feel discomfort at the murder of even a symbol of evil such as bin Laden? How does this all relate to the recent episodes on Ultimate Reconciliation?
Join us for perhaps our most sobering and “mellow” episodes to date, as we approach this very emotional, very sensitive topic while our own responses are still raw.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:07:12 — 61.5MB) | Embed
May 4th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
There are people in the military, and their spouses, who are talking about this very thing. Check out this blog and the comments that follow: http://thearmywifedude.blogspot.com/2011/05/bin-laden-is-dead-why-am-i-not.html
May 4th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
You guys rock! I haven’t listened to the podcast yet (am downloading as I write), but the last few days I had in mind to ask you guys to talk about exactly this topic, which has been disturbing me quite a bit… and voila, there it is. Can’t wait to listen to it this arvo while at work. Thanks heaps.
May 5th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Jerrine,
Interesting blog post. The problem I have with this person’s reasoning is that it has a very utilitarian feel to it. This person seems to be rejoicing, yet the reason he seems to give for being sober about it is that he is afraid of what retaliation might occur as a result of Osama bin Laden’s death. I appreciate his sentiment, yet I think it should go beyond simply practical concerns. We shouldn’t rejoice in bin Laden’s death not only because of the fear of revenge, but also because of love for our enemies. Thanks for the link.
Ulf,
Thanks for the kind words! I would love to know your take on this as a citizen of another country. How do you see this whole thing, and how do you see the United States and their role in the “war on terror”?
May 5th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
As always I appreciate your perspective to help me think outside of the box even though I can’t say I totally agree with you on this one.
Raborn, your out of hand dismal of the analogy of what would you do if a person was about to do harm to your family smelt a lot like a straw man. Yes, I understand your point of the analogy can take on the tone of a thousand qualifications, but the protection of our families and loved ones is still a real concern that we need to take time to consider. True, most of us in America do not have to face this but the potential for this to happen definitely does exist. Just listen to the news on almost any given night.
Steve, I appreciate your honest answer. I honestly can’t say that I read the same thing in the scriptures. Yes Jesus says to turn the other cheek, but I can’t say that I also read into that that I should turn my child’s or wife’s cheek. I think there is definitely a difference between personal retaliation and protection of another.
Romans 13 identifies that there is an entity of a state that has been ordered by God to carry out the punishment of evil. Granted it doesn’t give much more detail of this state, but we can definitely say that this entity called a state is made up of individuals. Otherwise who exactly is performing this punishment. So these individuals seem to have a personal mandate to turn the other cheek and a state responsibility to punish evil. Essentially having to wear two hats in different scenarios. So these seemingly two opposing mindsets for this individual need to be reconciled in some fashion. And I don’t see taking the strict stance of a pacifist as being a fulfillment for a person in this role.
If I heard your comments correctly you seem to quickly dismiss this passage because Jesus did not directly say that? I’m sorry I can’t so easily tear the Bible apart like that.
Also, I for one am appreciative for those who have sworn a duty to the protection of others including our police, intelligence agencies, and military. I think it is intellectually dishonest and a shame for someone to say that they are opposed to violence of any kind while they are partaking of the peace brought about by those making the sacrifice to maintain that peace.
There are people in this world bent on doing evil and harm to others and who need to be stopped. I am curious if you think that Hitler and the Nazis should not have been stopped, should they have been allowed to continue their murderous rampage? What about the hijackers aboard flight 93, should those brave Americans have just sat back and allowed the hijackers to take even more lives?
I agree with you gentlemen that we definitely need to follow the full counsel of scripture, and not just pull out our favorite segments. But I question whether the Jesus you are portraying is the full picture of God?
Respectfully,
Jeff
May 6th, 2011 at 5:17 am
Well, to be honest, seeing pictures of people celebrating BinLaden’s death, really grieved me deeply. And it wasn’t some rational thought of mine, condemning these people. It was just something inside of me crying out: “Can’t you see!? You’re suffering from the same sickness as your enemy!”
Have they never seen StarWars!? Anakin’s struggle with the dark side?
Isn’t it clear that you can’t overcome evil with evil?
I know it’s a tough issue, and maybe it’s not all that clear cut. And the question that Jeff raised:
“I am curious if you think that Hitler and the Nazis should not have been stopped, should they have been allowed to continue their murderous rampage?”
is very legitimate, and there is no easy answer.
I can just speak for myself, and I would say that I’d rather be a Dietrich Bonhoeffer than one of the guys who tried to assassinate Hitler.
Well done guys. What a tough subject to tackle.
I’m a German over here in Australia, spending time with guys who have a lot of evil stuff in them, and my experience is that it can only be overcome by love, heaps and heaps of love… and I don’t think I’m a hippie 😉
May 6th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Jeff, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I don’t mind you pushing back on some of our thoughts at all. (Although I have to say that of all the topics we touch on in our podcast, including challenging “orthodox” views about Jesus, the Bible, etc., the only topic that ever gets significant pushback from listeners is pacifism! I find that quite interesting! Anyway, back to my comment…)
I understand what you’re saying about not turning someone else’s cheek, but that’s not at all what I was advocating. If my wife chooses a different approach, that’s her choice.
Let me push back in return, though, because this is a topic that continually gets similar responses from a variety of people (not just in relation to the podcast, but when I’ve had this conversation with others before). So many want to offer caveats to Jesus saying “turn the other cheek”, which makes me ask the question: What did Jesus mean when he said to turn the other cheek? To what situations does that apply, and how do we know? I won’t speak for Ray (I won’t turn his cheek for him! hehe), but this is why the hypothetical “situational ethics” questions frustrate me. What did Jesus say, and what did he mean by it? If he meant there to be exceptions to his instructions, why didn’t he mention that? How does his own behavior reflect his view of what he taught? I’d love for you to help me understand your view of this topic.
As to Romans 13, there is one major thing in my view that you overlooked. Before I get to that, though, I didn’t in any way mean to imply that we throw out or dismiss passages that Jesus didn’t personally speak. I think you misunderstood what we were talking about when we talk about viewing Scripture through the lens of Jesus. Jesus becomes the filter through which we read all of Scripture. If something doesn’t seem to line with the teaching of Jesus, I would question the thing that doesn’t line up before I question whether or not Jesus actually meant what he said. Likewise, if a passage does seem contrary to the view of the Father as revealed in Jesus, then I question my interpretation of that passage, not Jesus Christ himself.
Now, the thing that I think you’re overlooking in your approach to Romans 13 is that I never, ever expect unbelievers to live by the teaching of Jesus. So, as far as government taking action, there are PLENTY who do not call themselves Christan who can handle that action. My point was that I find it difficult to understand how a Christian can (although I mentioned in the podcast that I allow for the freedom of each individual believer to make that judgment for themselves).
I don’t accept the notion that one can “wear two hats”. If one is a citizen of the kingdom of heaven, they cannot (in my opinion) do something as a citizen of a physical country (such as the US) that would counter their faith values and their citizenship of the kingdom of heaven. As Jesus said, one cannot serve two masters.
This comment is way too long already, so I’ll stop there. I look forward to more respectful dialog with you. Thank you for being respectful in your disagreement. That’s all I could ask for 🙂
steve 🙂
May 6th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Jeff, actually, there were a couple other points you made that deserve a response, so I will submit another comment here:
I think it is intellectually dishonest and a shame for someone to say that they are opposed to violence of any kind while they are partaking of the peace brought about by those making the sacrifice to maintain that peace.
To be brutally honest, this feels like a bit of a cheap shot. I did not have a choice as to which country I was born in. And frankly, moving to another country is 1) not entirely possible for me at the moment, 2) not necessarily something I even desire, and 3) not the answer to the “dilemma” you think this my position presents. It has nothing to do with intellectual honesty or shamelessness. Living in America is not contingent upon acceptance of everything that our government does, is it? Are you really suggesting that I have no right to live in this country because I disagree with the military action we are taking all around the globe? Is that really what you meant to communicate?
I am grateful that many have given their lives to provide and secure freedom because I honor their conviction. But that doesn’t mean that I have to agree with their position. And I reject the notion that peace can only be obtained through the use of military force. In fact, I’m not sure that peace gained in such a way is really genuine peace at all.
The bigger question, though, is whether or not I even look to my government, military, police or others for my protection and safety. I do not. My protection and the object of my faith for such protection is my Father. I do not place my trust in the military, the police force, nor the government.
Now, as to the Hitler question: Again, just as with the hypothetical “someone is breaking into your home” scenario, there is a false dichotomy presented. You appear to assume that there are only two options: 1) We actively fight against our enemies and kill them in order for there to be peace, or 2) Evil runs rampant an unchecked.
I believe that with God, there are more than just those two choices. Who knows what effect turning the other cheek would have on our enemies?!?! Who knows whether or not a soft answer really will turn away wrath?!?! Who knows…we don’t give ourselves the opportunity to find out. No, we’re just told that we have to fight back. We have to defend good and right things by actively fighting to defeat the perceived enemies of said good and right things.
I find it hard to believe that the murder of Osama bin Laden will bring about any resolution in the wars that are being raged. And I don’t think it will necessarily stop the taking of innocent lives. It may have stopped that one man from planning any more attacks, but I’d be surprised if he was the only part of that organization that was doing any planning.
So, did Hitler need to be stopped? I don’t doubt it for a second. But was military force the only way to stop him? We’ll never know, but I don’t think we should so quickly assume that it is/was.
In part 2 of this podcast discussion, we’ll remind you of a couple situations where loving “dangerous people” actually did bring about peace. I hope you’ll listen to that when it’s available and give this some more thought.
steve 🙂
May 7th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Steve,
I appreciate your response. Before I respond to your comments I wanted to take a moment to apologize for any disrespectful or personal attacks my words took on, that is definitely not my intent. I think we both have the same goal of how to apply the Words of God, holding high specifically the words of Jesus, to our daily walk. I am coming more to the realization that for me to be able to do so I need to be more open and respectful in my discussions. Listening and then respectfully pushing back and debating. Through this respectful refining of thought I think we all can get closer to what is the Truth. And honestly for me that means learning how to do so. For too many years I was encouraged to just accept and defend and I did so. I am starting to push back and question that line of thinking.
I appreciate the open conversation here and the freedom to respectfully do so.
Jeff
May 7th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Steve,
I like how you phrased your approach of viewing all scripture through the lens of Jesus, clarifying other passages by what He said instead of questioning Jesus’ words. Definitely an area that I need to incorporate more into my understanding of the Bible.
To your second post, I was not talking specifically about America, in fact, Paul had no idea what an America was when he wrote this. This passage has to refer to any state authority. Even an occupying body like Rome at the time when Paul wrote this passage. Which does present it’s own dilemmas of understanding the definition of the good the authority is then providing (vs4).
In response to your questions, “Living in America is not contingent upon acceptance of everything that our government does, is it? Are you really suggesting that I have no right to live in this country because I disagree with the military action we are taking all around the globe? Is that really what you meant to communicate?” I certainly hope not. I am honestly confused how that could have been communicated by my comments 1) I said nothing about having or not having rights to live anywhere. 2) I don’t think anyone in any country agrees with everything their governing body does 3) I was trying, and uneffectively it would seem, to address the general statement that all forms of violence are wrong with a general statement that we all enjoy some form of protection because of the power given to the state to punish evil. Otherwise we would live in some form of a world “run” by anarchy. Does this mean that they perfectly peform this duty? Absolutely No. Does this mean that they always need to address evil with some form of force? No. Does this mean that force is never called for? I think this is where we disagree, sometimes it does take force. Decisions are never an either/or, there are always options on the table. All I am saying is that the option of force should not be taken off the table, neither should it be the first option. This state, and those individuals who make it up, are then responsible to God for what options they put into play in this role that Rom 13 clearly states has been given to them by God. Let’s not forget the character of God presented in the Old Testament. While hard to swallow, He still called for punishment to be dealt out. This is the same God who says love your enemies and turn the other cheek. I am curious how you reconcile these two seemingly opposing views of God. I say “seemingly” because I believe: 1) as I stated, this is the same God. 2) while this seems to be a conflict to our thinking, it fits perfectly with the infinite God.
As to trust, I definitley agree on who to place our trust, my trust is definitely in God. Though I would still maintain that while my trust is in God, He still sometimes chooses to use the force by the state in some fashion.
Where I fundamentally disagree with you is on your interpretation of who God places in this role of the state. I certainly hope God doesn’t only place unbelievers in positions of the state. Does this put those believers in some possibly conflicting positions where they need to make hard choices, definitely. Which means that we need to pray for them all the more, believer and unbeliever in leadership, so that they can make the right decisions.
Wow these responses are definitely getting too long, I do not mean to hijack your forum like this. I hope I have at least been clear enough on my position, not to change your mind but to demonstrate from my reading there is another possible biblical position for the occasional use of force under the direction of the state. At the least, this exercise has helped me clarify my position and for that I thank you.
Jeff
May 8th, 2011 at 9:55 am
In response to your questions, “Living in America is not contingent upon acceptance of everything that our government does, is it? Are you really suggesting that I have no right to live in this country because I disagree with the military action we are taking all around the globe? Is that really what you meant to communicate?” I certainly hope not. I am honestly confused how that could have been communicated by my comments
Well, I was going on the part about it being “intellectually dishonest and a shame” for someone to eschew violence while enjoying the benefits of “peace” that is brought about by the use of force (i.e., military, police, etc.). I don’t want to appear to be intellectually dishonest or shameful, so I was curious what my alternative is. It sounded like I have to accept a certain level of violence if I am to live here where, indeed, force and violence are used to maintain “peace”.
I use the word peace in quotes for the very reason that I do not believe that force brings about true peace. The only end result of force is one person forcing the other to comply. This is completely counter to the way in which Jesus calls us to act toward one another.
You are correct that we probably disagree on that point, and that’s ok. At least you know I’m not going to beat you up for disagreeing with me 😉 hehe
Let’s not forget the character of God presented in the Old Testament. While hard to swallow, He still called for punishment to be dealt out. This is the same God who says love your enemies and turn the other cheek. I am curious how you reconcile these two seemingly opposing views of God.
This is, indeed, one of the biggest difficulties I find in my approach to scripture. I definitely don’t have the answer to the dilemma that the presentation of God in the Old Testament presents. But here’s where I’m at for the time being: Jesus said, “You have heard it said ‘an eye for an eye’, but I say to you ‘love your enemies'”. I find this statement significant because Jesus doesn’t even seem to indicate that the statement “eye for an eye” came directly from God. In fact, he talks about it as if it were some completely other source. Yet we know it was part of the OT law.
So, what IF (and this is completely theoretical and “out there”, admittedly), what IF part of the need for a human revelation of the Father (i.e., Jesus) was because man had so terribly misunderstood God prior to that time?? We do know that the Father originally wanted ALL of Israel to come to the mountain and meet with him and they refused and sent Moses as their mediator. So, we know that already, things were not exactly the way God wanted them to be. But what if the Old Testament really does reflect man’s serious misunderstanding of the Father, especially when influenced so strongly by the concepts of deities of other people groups?
It’s just a theory, but I really do wonder what other explanations work? It’s very hard for me to just say that the OT God and the NT God are the same because we have completely contradictory statements. It’s not even something that, in my opinion, can just be “accepted by faith” as many say with regard to scriptural contradictions. You cannot simultaneously demand an eye for an eye and love your enemies.
Either way, regardless of what was or wasn’t true in OT times, we have the revelation of the Father through Jesus, and we are obligated to live in that revelation.
You don’t have to feel like you are hijacking anything here. You are completely welcome to leave these lengthy responses and to engage in this dialog! In fact, we desire this! I’m glad you have spoken so honestly, even while disagreeing with us.
May 9th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Jeff,
Thank you for taking the time to offer such thoughtful responses! Your comments (of any length) are always welcome here. I’m sorry that I am coming so late to the party, but I wanted to offer some of my thoughts in response to some of your comments. Steve has already stated many of my own thoughts, but I want to try to explain and clarify a few points.
Raborn, your out of hand dismal of the analogy of what would you do if a person was about to do harm to your family smelt a lot like a straw man. Yes, I understand your point of the analogy can take on the tone of a thousand qualifications, but the protection of our families and loved ones is still a real concern that we need to take time to consider. True, most of us in America do not have to face this but the potential for this to happen definitely does exist.
I appreciate where you are coming from here, Jeff, but let me try to explain. The reason I went down the path of talking about the ridiculous nature of hypotheticals is because I knew what Steve was getting ready to say. I knew that he was going to give somewhat of a concrete answer and so I felt like he would complete what was lacking in my own statements. My point was not to try and dismiss the question altogether. Rather, my point was to show how the person presenting the hypothetical situation “stacks the deck” in their favor. What I wish I would have brought out more in this part of the episode is how the questioner tends to rule God out of the equation. So many times this question is presented by a believer who suddenly becomes a “functional atheist”. What I mean is that he/she leaves no room for supernatural wisdom, guidance, or intervention. As I went on to say in the episode, I believe that God presents us with something beyond the either/or of these hypothetical situations; a third way, if you will. Jesus gave counsel to His disciples about defending themselves:
“When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”
While I realize that this can be construed or confined to only apply to actual religious persecution, I think the principle is the same: when you are in a tough spot that brings forth the normal human fight or flight reaction, trust the Holy Spirit to give you a better way through the situation.
Now, I want to be careful not to mislead you here. I do believe that God always provides a third way, but even if my life is really at stake at the hands of an intruder I still believe that I am to remain obedient to the teaching of Jesus regarding non-violence. Even then God presents a third way, resurrection.
I do not hold to or practice the teachings of Jesus because of their utilitarian or practical value. I believe that Jesus’ words and teachings are the wisest in the universe. However, I do not hold to Jesus’ teaching about enemy love because I think it brings about the most practical or beneficial outcome(though I believe it often will-see below). At the end of the day I hold to the teachings of Jesus out of obedience to Him as my Lord, regardless of any benefit I might receive in this life.
With that said, I do want to point to examples of non-violence that have made a huge difference in recent history. Gandi is a great example of someone who practiced pacifism without being passive. Because of his revolution of non-violent resistance to the British government, India became a free nation and was able to overcome British dominance. Gandi’s non-violent resistance awakened the conscience of the world to the plight of the Indian people and the injustice that they were suffering.
Another such example in our own country is Martin Luther King, Jr. While the Black Panthers advocated violent revolution, King (inspired by Gandi) chose to resist the hateful racisim of the South with love. This example of obedience to the teachings of Jesus led to his death. Yet, on the night before his death, he spoke of a time he envisioned when African-American people would gain the equality for which he fought. Here are some words from the end of his speech in Memphis the night before his assasination:
Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop.
And I don’t mind.
Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!
And so I’m happy, tonight.
I’m not worried about anything.
I’m not fearing any man!
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!!
These words so inspire me. This moves me out of the realm of ethereal ideas into real, concrete enemy love.
As to your thoughts on Romans 13, I believe that this passage is very misunderstood. While I don’t claim to have a complete handle on what Paul is saying here, I believe that we must interpret Romans 13 in light of Romans 12 (pretty simple principle, huh:) The last few verse of Romans 12 says:
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse…Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord. “BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:14-21
Now the thing to remember is that there are no chapter breaks in the Bible. So, after Romans 12:21 Paul immediately starts talking about governing authorities. I believe that Paul is juxtaposing the two identities; believers and governing authorities. Paul is basically saying to the believers in chapter 12 “here is what you are to do as believers”, and in chapter 13 “here is what the state is going to do”. I do not see any way that we can read into this passage that the governing authorities will actually be comprised of believers. As a matter of fact, I think that this would be completely foreign to the mind of a first-century believer. If I know my history, I don’t think any believer held a prominent government office until the time of Constantine–all the way in the fourth century! (though admittedly, I would need to fact-check this to be certain) One fact that is unavoidable is that, by-and-large, the early church held to pacifist convictions and actually practiced non-violent, enemy love.
As I said earlier though, Romans 13 is still somewhat troublesome for me. I mean here is Paul, a man who continually found himself in trouble with rulers and authorities, writing about submitting to the governing authorities. Could it be that his “submission” was to take whatever persecution the consequences of his ministry brought him?
I would imagine that many US citizens would find Romans 13 somewhat troubling. Anyone who believes in the divine establishment of this nation has to somehow account for the fact that the US was actually formed as the result of rebellion against the governing authorities of England, authorities which Romans 13 seems to endorse as “the minister of God”.
Okay. I think my comment is getting a little too long. Let me just say that this stance is not something that I hold flippantly, or without fear and trembling. Many of Jesus’ words make me very uncomfortable and, if given the chance, I would probably find a way to excuse myself from them. I just can’t find a way to do this and still honestly call Him Lord. I really respect your tone and your willingness to dialog about these topics, Jeff! I appreciate your effort to “wrestle” this topic out with us. The Lord knows we sure don’t have all the answers! Thanks 🙂