“He has issues with his wife, and he has issues with his kids, financial issues, you know, the kids aren’t listening, the kids aren’t doing this and that. It comes down to (the fact) he’s a father and he’s a person.”
So said 21-year-old Abdurahman Khadr about Osama Bin Ladin in a Canadian documentary produced 2004 about a family close to the Bin Ladens. Abdurhaman’s own father, Ahmed Said Khadr, was an accused al Qaeda financier who was killed in a gun battle with Pakistani police in 2003. (Ahmed wasn’t a model father either: He wanted his sons to follow him into the family business by becoming suicide bombers.)
The Khadrs, who lived in the Bin Laden family compound in the Afghan town of Jalalabad for several years, describe Osama as a man who loved volleyball, sport shooting, and riding horses.
“[Osama] had promised [his children] that he would get them a horse if they memorized the Koran. They were so anxious to finish memorizing it so that they could get a horse, which shows you that they’re normal children too,” said Abdurahman.
Thinking back on such comments reminds me of Hannah Arendt’s Eichman in Jerusalem, a book about the trial of Nazi leader Adolph Eichmann. As she witnessed the trial of one of the key organizers of the Holocaust, Arendt was surprised to find that Eichmann was such an ordinary man. Her imagination had led her to expect a demon. Instead she found a middle-aged bureaucrat who explained genocide in terms of production quotas and efficiency standards. Her observations led her to the concept of “the banality of evil.”
We naturally recoil at such commonplace observations about “monsters” like Eichmann and Bin Laden. There is something discomforting about hearing them described as normal people with wives and children. The more heinous the actions of our enemies, the more likely we are to forget that they are more like us than we care to admit. They are not just enemy but anthropos—a human being.
We have a tendency to want to think of our enemies as sub-human vermin, as being so distant from ourselves that they are almost a different species. But as much as Bin Laden and his ilk may justify their dehumanizing of Americans, we can never fall under the same delusion. It would be a Pyrrhic victory to save civilization only to lose our humanity
We must never hesitate to defend our country, our culture, our future, and our lives against those who seek to destroy us. No one should shed a tear for Bin Laden, for he received the justice due to one who shed innocent blood.
Yet our relief at his death must be tempered by a Christian view of humanity. We must never forget that the evil comes not from the actions of “subhuman vermin” but from the heart of a fallen, sacred yet degraded, human being. If we are to preserve our own humanity we must not forget that our enemy differs from us in degree, not in kind. Like us, they are human, all too human.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:44 am
Bin Laden got precisely what he deserved. The Obama Administration, is to be congratulated for an important achievement.
May 2nd, 2011 | 2:18 am
Nice analogy and good point.
May 2nd, 2011 | 2:44 am
[...] Carter has an important reminder on First Things magazine’s editorial blog: There is something discomforting about hearing [...]
May 2nd, 2011 | 3:11 am
[...] Landsleute und uns alle an eine wichtige Wahrheit, die wir nie vergesen dürfen. Er schreibt im Redaktions-Blog der Zeitschrift: “Er hat Probleme mit seiner Frau, und er hat Probleme mit seinen Kindern, [...]
May 2nd, 2011 | 3:14 am
Thank you, Joe, for an important reminder. I have linked to it on my English blog, and translated it in its entirety for my German blog at http://www.doulos.at.
May 2nd, 2011 | 7:37 am
[...] less impressive, responses are provided by Joe Carter at First Things and Jeremy Lott at [...]
May 2nd, 2011 | 7:38 am
Psa 58:6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
Psa 58:7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
Psa 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
Psa 58:9 Before your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living, and in his wrath.
Psa 58:10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
Psa 58:11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.
May 2nd, 2011 | 8:23 am
I do recognize bin Laden’s humanity and yet I still celebrate his demise as a victory of justice because of the gravity of his crimes. That is how great an evil he was–so great that his humanity and his creation in the image of God do not spare him from his just desserts.
Someone once wrote that to murder an innocent is to kill God in effigy. Bin Laden did this to over 3000 souls and plotted more. He got what was coming to him and we can all be glad of it without qualification.
May 2nd, 2011 | 9:01 am
Joe, thanks for writing this. Esp. the last 2 paragraphs. We cannot lose sight of our humanity.
May 2nd, 2011 | 9:18 am
I appreciate what Joe is trying to do here. It is crucial not to dehumanize anyone, from Nazis to terrorists to abortion doctors to (evidently for many First Things readers) Democrats. But I’m afraid we’ll never have a “Christian view of humanity” once we’ve said “We must never hesitate to defend our country, our culture, our future, and our lives against those who seek to destroy us.” For a Christian view of humanity receives its fullest articulation from the life, death, and resurrection of Christ—the one who suffered at the hands of his enemies for the sake of their salvation. The “we” in Joe’s “We must never hesitate . . .” is not the Christian “we” but the American “we.” And the American “we” will never be capable of a genuine catholicity and therefore a genuine humanity. Only the Body of Christ, redeemed by the blood of the one who did hesitate to defend, can represent such a genuine human “we.”
May 2nd, 2011 | 9:18 am
“No one should shed a tear for Bin Laden, for he received the justice due to one who shed innocent blood.”
Hasn’t any woman who has had an abortion also shed innocent blood?
May 2nd, 2011 | 10:17 am
As to David Gray’s post, let me simply say “Amen.”
May 2nd, 2011 | 10:20 am
I highly recommend the movie “Downfall,” built around the true story of Hitler’s secretary, Traudl Junge. It’s eye-opening in showing Hitler’s humanity: he was kind to his secretary and other servants, loved children and dogs. It makes his crimes truly monstrous, in that they were committed, not by a madman, but by a man in full possession of his humanity and moral faculties.
May 2nd, 2011 | 10:23 am
Charlie Collier
You mistake the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man. The American “we” you refer to is the God-sanctioned government that has a duty to protect its citizens, just as you, as an individual, have the duty to protect others if it is within your power to do so.
If you saw a person being attacked and in threat of death, and the only way you could stop it was by killing the perpetrator, would you do so?
May 2nd, 2011 | 10:25 am
David and Gregory,
“Do not rejoice when your enemy falls,
and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles,
lest the Lord see it and be displeased, and turn away his anger from him.” – Proverbs 24:17-18
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” – Matthew 5:44-48
May 2nd, 2011 | 10:30 am
Psalms 137: 8-9
Fair Babylon, you destroyer, happy those who pay you back the evil you have done us!
Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.
May 2nd, 2011 | 10:41 am
Joe,
More mistaken attempts to anthropamorphize the state. The state has a God ordained duty to bear the sword. Bin Laden was not my personal enemy. Nearly half of my military career was spent while we hunted Bin Laden. Bringing about his death, when I was in that role, was my God ordained duty. But I didn’t pursue these duties because he was my personal enemy.
The Bible commends God’s people for rejoicing in his righteous judgement and explains why. God uses means and the US armed forces, pursuing their God ordained duty, were the means by which this idolater and murderer was brought to justice. Rejoicing in God’s justice is appropriate. Attempting to liquidate my personal enemies is an entirely different matter.
You need to learn to find ways of accepting the authority of the verses you quote without gutting the authority of the verses I quoted. And no Marcionites allowed.
May 2nd, 2011 | 10:47 am
It’s so much easier to call people like Bin Laden and Hitler monsters, because it gives a comfortable separation between us and them. “Only a monster could be so barbaric,” we say, trying to protect ourselves from a terrifying reality: they’re humans, like us, born to a mother and father, with hearts and brains and twenty-three sets of chromosomes.
Because to call them human indicts us all. We, then, could be capable of such horrors as well. (I emphasize “could,” as their actions certainly do separate them from the average person.) It’s a sign that humanity is fallen and in desperate need of a savior.
With that said, I’m glad that justice has prevailed and Bin Laden has met his maker (who is no doubt very unhappy with him), I’m thankful for the bravery of those Navy SEALs, and I pray that we can one day eradicate Islamofascism from the earth (though the cynic in me says that that may be a tall order).
May 2nd, 2011 | 10:49 am
David Gray More mistaken attempts to anthropamorphize the state.
I am not the one anthropomorphizing the state. Bin Laden was behind the killing of thousands of Americans, many on U.S. soil. He was not some abstract enemy of the federal government. He was an enemy of the American people. He was my enemy.
Nearly half of my military career was spent while we hunted Bin Laden. Bringing about his death, when I was in that role, was my God ordained duty.
Mine too. And if I had been assigned to the team that was hunting him I would have put a bullet in him without flinching. But what I would not have done was quote the Psalms in regards to his death.
The Bible commends God’s people for rejoicing in his righteous judgement and explains why.
No, the Bible does not command that at least not for Christians.
You need to learn to find ways of accepting the authority of the verses you quote without gutting the authority of the verses I quoted.
The verses you quoted were from the theocratic state of Israel. Are you saying that we should subscribe to the theocratic laws of that state?
May 2nd, 2011 | 10:51 am
>But what I would not have done was quote the Psalms in regards to his death.
Why not?
>The verses you quoted were from the theocratic state of Israel. Are you saying that we should subscribe to the theocratic laws of that state?
You talk about the Old Testament like a Marcionite. There was a time when Evanglicals would not have done that.
May 2nd, 2011 | 10:56 am
David Gray You talk about the Old Testament like a Marcionite. There was a time when Evanglicals would not have done that.
You didn’t answer my question. Are you saying that we should subscribe to the theocratic laws of that state? If not, does that make you a “Mariconite?”
May 2nd, 2011 | 10:57 am
>You didn’t answer my question.
That is because I deny the premise on which your question was based. As would Luther or Calvin.
May 2nd, 2011 | 10:59 am
Because to call them human indicts us all. We, then, could be capable of such horrors as well. (I emphasize “could,” as their actions certainly do separate them from the average person.) It’s a sign that humanity is fallen and in desperate need of a savior.
I very much agree with Steve and others here, and add my thanks to Joe for this blog entry. I remember that after a horrible murder here in 2009 our rector made a point of saying from the pulpit that he too, like all of the rest of us, was capable of such a heinous act.
May 2nd, 2011 | 11:02 am
“I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.”
- Ecclesiastes 9:11-12
May 2nd, 2011 | 11:04 am
Joe,
Why is it legitimate for you to quote the Psalms in defense of your argument but not legitimate for David Gray to quote them in defense of his?
It seems to me that so many are refusing to recognize that it is entirely possible for us to both rejoice that the government has justly wielded the sword God put in its hands while at the same time, praying God also have mercy on the soul of Osama Bin Laden.
Why does it have to be one or the other?
May 2nd, 2011 | 11:17 am
David Gray That is because I deny the premise on which your question was based. As would Luther or Calvin.
I confess that I don’t understand your comments at all. You start off quoting the Psalms about the death of Israel’s enemies. Then you say that Bin Laden was not your “personal” enemy but an enemy of the state.
What exactly are you trying to say? If the Psalms are applicable, then are you identifying the U.S. Government with the Biblical state of Israel?
Kamilla Why is it legitimate for you to quote the Psalms in defense of your argument but not legitimate for David Gray to quote them in defense of his?
I didn’t quote the Psalms, I quoted Proverbs. Proverbs is a books of wisdom literature that is applicable for all time. Whether the imprecatory Psalms of Israel apply to the U.S.’s war on Al Queda is a bit more questionable.
It seems to me that so many are refusing to recognize that it is entirely possible for us to both rejoice that the government has justly wielded the sword God put in its hands while at the same time, praying God also have mercy on the soul of Osama Bin Laden.
It depends on what we are “rejoicing” about. If we are rejoicing the death of another human being, then we are probably not living up to Christ’s example. If we are merely rejoicing that justice was done, then there is no problem. But take a look around the Internet this morning and you’ll see a lot of examples of the first. I’ve even heard people say that Christian teaching about our enemies really doesn’t apply to people like Bin Laden, as if there was an exemption clause for people we really don’t like.
May 2nd, 2011 | 11:21 am
I’m sorry Joe, but it is precisely because bin Laden was a man and not a beast that I take pleasure in the state meting out a well-deserved death. bin Laden was a moral agent. He knew what he was doing. If he could love his children, then he could also hate his enemies.
Frankly, I’m appalled that after all the death and loss this man has caused to untold tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, you don’t believe we should celebrate his death. His organization may continue its evil, but he no longer can and for that I am grateful to God and to the Navy Seals who dispensed His justice.
And if bin Laden is in hell, he is there through the justice of God and I take pleasure in whatever justice God metes out. If he repented and is in the presence of our Lord, then praise God; if he did not and is eternally separated from Him, then praise God. In either case, God’s love, mercy, grace and justice have been perfectly applied.
May 2nd, 2011 | 11:24 am
Nice post.
May 2nd, 2011 | 11:33 am
Arendt’s phrase, “the banality of evil,” reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis: “The greatest evil…is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars…”
May 2nd, 2011 | 11:40 am
“What exactly are you trying to say? If the Psalms are applicable, then are you identifying the U.S. Government with the Biblical state of Israel?”
The equation is not “the U.S.” and “Israel” but “a state in which God’s people lived then” and “a state in which God’s people live today.” Why would there be a difference between how God’s people ought to regard enemies who constituted a corporate threat then, as opposed to now? The distinction between the chosen Israel and modern nations is significant in many important ways, but it is not significant to absolutely every question. And I don’t see a reason why it would significant to this one, since God is still God, enemies are still enemies, and the gospel has always been true, even before it was fully revealed.
At any rate, I agree with Gregory K. Laughlin. It is very important to humanize, rather than dehumanize, our enemies. But that does not actually work very much in our enemies’ favor, as only humans are capable of profound, intentional evil and subject to justice. It just means that we’re keeping a biblical perspective on matters.
May 2nd, 2011 | 11:45 am
Luther would say (as he says, for example, in his commentary on the Book of Romans) that the only reason we have to rejoice, in any matter, is because the will of God is done. In which case, we wouldn’t be rejoicing over the death of a human being, but in the fact that He executes His will.
Nevertheless, I can’t help being reminded of Jesus’ admonition to the Jews in Luke 13: “Those men on whom the tower of Siloam fell, think you that they were greater sinners than any in Judea? I tell you, no; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
When the Lord descends in glory and judgment (whether now in the Spirit, or in person at the end of time), He doesn’t just come to destroy the monstrously evil, such as Hitler and Eichmann and Bin Laden and the Beast and False Prophet. The Scriptures remind us, repeatedly, that all will be sifted. “For it is time for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it first begin with us, what shall be the end of those who obey not the gospel of God? But if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear” (1 Pet. 4:17-18)? “But who may abide the day of His coming? And who shall stand when He appeareth? For He is like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s soap; and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer an acceptable offering in righteousness” (Mal. 3:2-3). When He comes in judgment, He will purify the Church. This is an act of incredible mercy; for, if He left us to our own devices, if He left us in self-satisfaction, in the pride of our own righteousness, He would only be prolonging the day of refinement; and the burning, when it came, would be that much more intense. Better to go through it now, than later. Every time an evil man is killed, it’s like a reminder to us, as His bride, to examine our hearts, that “when He shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before Him at His coming” (1 Jn. 2:28). It’s exciting that justice was done; but, in the words of Hamlet, “Use every man after his desserts, and who shall ‘scape whipping?” We can all be eternally thankful that God, in the greatness of His mercy, has removed our guilt, and literally MADE us the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 1:30). But, finally, going back to Luther, it is not those who reckon themselves righteous who are esteemed righteous before God, but those who by faith believe themselves to be unrighteous, so that Christ is everything in them. We are sinners all; none of us deserves any better than what Bin Laden got; but the infinite kindness of God has brought us pardon and freedom and new life.
May 2nd, 2011 | 11:46 am
Pentamom The equation is not “the U.S.” and “Israel” but “a state in which God’s people lived then” and “a state in which God’s people live today.” Why would there be a difference between how God’s people ought to regard enemies who constituted a corporate threat then, as opposed to now?
There are few states on earth where God’s people do not live today. That being the case, is it right for Palestinian Christians to rejoice at the death of an Israeli soldier?
and the gospel has always been true, even before it was fully revealed.
That is true. But we also have progressive revelation. We can’t merely elide over what Jesus said to pick earlier words we prefer.
May 2nd, 2011 | 11:48 am
This is something I began processing prior to the news regarding Bin Laden’s death, but it is fitting to continue to process it light of this event.
It seems to me that Christians cannot say that God’s Kingdom is in anyway established and extended through violent means, even when violence is being used to put down oppression and injustice. The Kingdom is extended in a manner consonant with God’s offering himself on the cross. Certainly it is paradoxical, but God, on the cross, in his sovereign vulnerability, laid an axe to the root problem of sin, and this the pattern of ministry for all those who seek to be agents of God’s redeeming work. On the other hand, it seems that Christians can pick up the sword (so to speak) to restrain evil, but the sword can never actually redeem people from evil, which is the heart of the Gospel.
So, we can rejoice that evil has been restrained through Bin Laden’s death, but we must not confuse this with a victory for Christians as Christians. And we should use this time to contemplate “the banality of evil” as Mr. Carter aptly drew our attention to. This also reminds me of Solzhennitsyn’s words that the line between good and evil runs through the heart of every man. This is akin to Mr. Carter’s words about degree and kind regarding evil and human agency.
May 2nd, 2011 | 12:34 pm
[...] articles on this same subject, one by Fr. Jim Martin, S.J. in America, and one by a blogger named Joe Carter at First Things. Prayers [...]
May 2nd, 2011 | 12:36 pm
“There are few states on earth where God’s people do not live today. That being the case, is it right for Palestinian Christians to rejoice at the death of an Israeli soldier?”
I suppose if that Israeli soldier was the brains and leadership behind the deaths of thousands of people all over the world, it might be. That is, if the removal of that soldier from the world was actually likely to make a net improvement in the world, I would probably say, yes, it would be.
Just as long as we’re comparing apples to apples.
May 2nd, 2011 | 12:37 pm
“That is true. But we also have progressive revelation. We can’t merely elide over what Jesus said to pick earlier words we prefer.”
And that’s also true. But we also cannot let Jesus’ words in any way make God’s earlier words either false or immoral in their import.
May 2nd, 2011 | 12:41 pm
A pastor friend of mine posted Ezekiel 18:23 this morning, and I’ve added the previous two verses.
21But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
23Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
I thought about these verses when the Khmer Rouge death camp commander’s trial begin, and the news came that he had converted to Christianity (although there were questions about that.) How much better for Osama bin Laden if he had renounced his crimes while he lived and sought forgiveness for them, and how hard indeed for Christians to forgive if he had done so.
May 2nd, 2011 | 12:43 pm
BTW, there is a distinction — I don’t think we should be happy “that Osama is roasting in Hell” or anything like that.
But if the Israelites could righteously dance around and sing because the Egyptians who were chasing them were 100% effectively prevented from chasing them anymore, and the nature of good and evil hasn’t changed, then I think we can be happy that “Osama is no longer going to present any sort of a problem.”
And yes, yes, of course, of course, that doesn’t mean all problems related to terrorism are solved, but I think we can still regard it as a net positive and therefore be happy about it.
So I do agree that we can be somewhat concerned if there is a kind of “bloodlust” component to people’s happiness, but I just don’t think that biblically, you can make a consistent case that something that involves the death of a dangerously wicked person can never be something to celebrate.
May 2nd, 2011 | 12:46 pm
Pentamom Just as long as we’re comparing apples to apples.
The verses in Psalms aren’t limited to leaders who were responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. It is referring merely to “enemies.”
We can’t say that the verses are applicable in all situations and then exclude the applications that we don’t agree with.
But we also cannot let Jesus’ words in any way make God’s earlier words either false or immoral in their import.
There is a huge difference between “false or immoral” and “not applicable in the current context.” I never said that the Psalms were immoral, only that we cannot assume that what was okay for Israel is okay for us.
May 2nd, 2011 | 12:51 pm
Joe, I simply don’t understand how if Jesus says X is wrong for Christians, it could have been anything other than a sin for people who happened to live before He said it, or for other people. “Not being a Christian” doesn’t entitle you to do things God hates. Good and evil doesn’t change. What Jesus loves and hates about people’s attitudes and actions don’t change.
I think the only possible way you can process the rightness of some people (whoever they were) to rejoice in God’s defeat of the wicked and the wrongess of other people (whoever they are) doing it is to look at circumstances (corporate vs. personal) rather than time, because time cannot possibly bear on ethics given by an eternal God whose loves and hates do not change. Circumstances, however, can dictate what is actually going on when the people do the thing, which can determine its actual meaning.
May 2nd, 2011 | 12:54 pm
>The verses in Psalms aren’t limited to leaders who were responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. It is referring merely to “enemies.”
Actually, especially if we’re using quotation marks, the word is “wicked.” The word enemies doesn’t appear at all in the quotation from Psalms that I used. You do seem committed to a erroneous disassociation between the New and Old Testaments. Embrace the Reformation and see the continuity.
May 2nd, 2011 | 12:54 pm
God help me, but I can’t but think “good riddance and rot in hell, Osama”.
If it’s a sin, I’ll confess it under the rubric of “imperfect contrition” (being sorry that it risks my soul’s damnation, though not sorry for having done it). And that’s all the thought that need be given this demon spawned evil-doer.
May the souls of all those he killed rest in peace. And if his followers don’t repent and reject evil deeds, may they soon meet Osama in the depths of hell.
May 2nd, 2011 | 12:59 pm
pentamom Joe, I simply don’t understand how if Jesus says X is wrong for Christians, it could have been anything other than a sin for people who happened to live before He said it, or for other people.
Again, I never said anything about it being a sin for the Israelites to write the Psalms in the way they did.
What Jesus loves and hates about people’s attitudes and actions don’t change.
There are six times in the Gospels where Jesus says “you have heard it said” and then adds to a rule from the law given to Moses. Why did he do that if he was fine with us living according to the standards of the Israelites?
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:05 pm
None of the laws of Moses were overturned or changed by Jesus’ words; he was pointing out that a mere minimal application was not the spirit of the thing.
“An eye for an eye” is still a just civil punishment. We just shouldn’t be seeking vengeance for all our personal hurts.
Looking lustfully at someone shouldn’t be grounds for a civil divorce, but “I was just looking” does not get a husband morally off the hook. And so forth.
And yes, Christians shouldn’t want to dance on Osama bin Laden’s grave and fantasize about how much it hurt and how fun it would have been to be the shooter and how miserable he is in Hell now. But can we can be really, really happy that he personally isn’t going to be a problem for any innocent men, women or children anywhere in the world anymore, and that an effective use of military power brought about that result.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:06 pm
David Gray Actually, especially if we’re using quotation marks, the word is “wicked.” The word enemies doesn’t appear at all in the quotation from Psalms that I used.
You’re right. I was looking at the wrong Psalm. I should have said that the verses refer to all of us. (Unless you think that some of us aren’t wicked.)
You do seem committed to a erroneous disassociation between the New and Old Testaments. Embrace the Reformation and see the continuity.
Are you a Christian Reconstructionist?
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:11 pm
pentamom None of the laws of Moses were overturned or changed by Jesus’ words;
So should the state stone to death adulterers and homosexuals?
And yes, Christians shouldn’t want to dance on Osama bin Laden’s grave and fantasize about how much it hurt and how fun it would have been to be the shooter and how miserable he is in Hell now. But can we can be really, really happy that he personally isn’t going to be a problem for any innocent men, women or children anywhere in the world anymore, and that an effective use of military power brought about that result.
Yes, that is what I said in my post.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:11 pm
“Again, I never said anything about it being a sin for the Israelites to write the Psalms in the way they did. ”
Okay, maybe I”m misunderstanding something. I know you didn’t say that, but from my reading, the inescapable logical upshot of what you’re saying is that if Joe and pentamom, 21st century Christians, were time-machine transported back to the shores of the Red Sea, we’d be sinning if we joined in the dance, because we’d be rejoicing over the death of somebody’s enemies, which is a sin — I’m not sure why, but that seems to form the basis of your response to David Gray. In some ways, things matter that they’re Israel and we’re not. In whether it is good or bad for a given person to be happy over a given death and destruction, I can’t see how it matters in a morally consistent universe.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:12 pm
“Yes, that is what I said in my post.”
Then it escapes me what your objection to David Gray’s posting of the psalms is. I think that’s where we’re not connecting.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:16 pm
“So should the state stone to death adulterers and homosexuals?”
I was referring to the fact that Jesus didn’t overturn any of Moses’ words *in the Sermon on the Mount.* There may or may not be other reasons why applying certain OT laws in certain ways is incorrect, but the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t work as a prooftext for the idea that Jesus just discards *the moral principles behind* Mosaic laws and replaces them with new *moral principles*, because Jesus never actually says that it’s wrong to take an eye for an eye, just that that in itself is not a *comprehensive* moral principle for dealing with offenses. The policeman is not to hate the thief as he arrests him, which is what was escaping people before Jesus clarified the application of the existing law of “love your neighbor”; he is still allowed to arrest him and expose him to prosecution that requires restitution.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:18 pm
pentamom that if Joe and pentamom, 21st century Christians, were time-machine transported back to the shores of the Red Sea, we’d be sinning if we joined in the dance, because we’d be rejoicing over the death of somebody’s enemies, which is a sin
Let’s set aside the loaded word “sin” and consider the lesser category of “prudent behavior.” If we were transported back to that age, I could take an extra wife and a slave that I conquered in battle. Would it be a sin? I don’t know. But it would certainly be imprudent of me based on what God had revealed since then.
There is nothing wrong with a infant child breastfeeding. But if the child is fifteen and still nursing then something is definitely wrong. The same goes for historical behaviors. What was allowed in the past based on an incomplete understanding of God’s will is not necessarily what we should be doing.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:18 pm
>You’re right. I was looking at the wrong Psalm. I should have said that the verses refer to all of us. (Unless you think that some of us aren’t wicked.)
No, but some of us are repentant. And most of us don’t have 3000+ innocent deaths on our hands.
>Are you a Christian Reconstructionist?
No, I’m a Protestant, comfortable with Luther and Calvin. Embrace the Reformation.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:21 pm
And Joe, if everybody is the wicked in that Psalm I referenced who are the righteous that the Psalm talks about? Do you not know, have you not heard, that the repentant receive the righteousness of Christ and are differentiated from the unrepentant? Even that is the gift of God that men may not boast but it doesn’t mean you can draw equivalence between the two.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:21 pm
David Gray No, I’m a Protestant, comfortable with Luther and Calvin. Embrace the Reformation.
I myself am a Calvinist. You’re argument would be a lot more effective if you’d actually made one rather than repeating that goofy catchphrase.
You seem to think that the OT behavior is suitable for modern times. Yet you never explain why.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:21 pm
Overall, it’s probably just as well that this plain man with mostrously murderous designs has been eliminated.
Troubling, however, insofar it is seen as vengeance rather than an act of just war.
Troubling also, when I look into my own heart and recognize kinship with the slain terrorist.
The article is a good reminder on the day after Divine Mercy Sunday. I need God’s mercy, freely given and certainly not earned, and so does the murderer, lately killed. God rest his soul.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:26 pm
>I myself am a Calvinist. You’re argument would be a lot more effective if you’d actually made one rather than repeating that goofy catchphrase.
Calvin would box your ears in his mercy. Presumably if you embrace the teaching of the Institutes you recognize Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper and baptize your infants. Where you get the idea that the Psalms are not for people of God, post-resurrection? It certainly isn’t from Calvin or the Reformed understanding of Scripture. Why is it that the Reformed so whole heartedly embrace the singing of all of the Psalms in worship?
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:30 pm
“that if Joe and pentamom, 21st century Christians, were time-machine transported back to the shores of the Red Sea, we’d be sinning if we joined in the dance, because we’d be rejoicing over the death of somebody’s enemies, which is a sin.”
I can’t help feeling this is an erroneous comparison. The exodus from Egypt was and is an unparalleled historical event rooted in the reality of God’s covenant relationship with Israel. America is not the Chosen People, and bin Laden, as evil as he was, is not Pharaoh.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:35 pm
David Calvin would box your ears in his mercy. . . .Where you get the idea that the Psalms are not for people of God, post-resurrection?
For all your bluster, you don’t really seem to have much understanding of Calvin. Earlier you said, “The Bible commends God’s people for rejoicing in his righteous judgement and explains why.” But that is not what Calvin taught. He believed the imprecatory Psalms are typological and refer to those to who are ultimately reprobate.
Perhaps you were merely thinking you have the ability to discern who is ultimately reprobate and who is not. In that case, I think it is your ears that would be getting boxed.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:36 pm
“…When I look into my own heart and recognize kinship with the slain terrorist” . . . . Troubling yes; seek help immediately.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:43 pm
>He believed the imprecatory Psalms are typological and refer to those to who are ultimately reprobate.
But that isn’t what you asserted earlier when you talked of the discontinuity of the Psalms.
If you think that there is discontinuity between what I said and what Calvin taught, even as phrased by you, you are understanding what is happening here.
Are you honestly prepared to assert that Bin Laden was not among the reprobate?
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:43 pm
Make that “you are not understanding what is happening here.”
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:45 pm
Boze, the Israelites didn’t have an inside track that they were experiencing a one-time unique event in which all the rules of normal righteousness and charity were turned off, did they?
We’re talking about sins of the heart, here. If it requires a specific sin to in the heart of A for him to rejoice over the death of enemy X, I simply don’t fathom how it doesn’t require sin in the heart of B for him to rejoice over the death of enemy Y. Morally, it’s the same, even if it holds a different (and definitely I admit that it is different) place in redemptive history.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:47 pm
“When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.” Revelation 6:9-11 (ESV).
Odd, no chastisement of the martyrs mentioned for their having asked their Sovereign Lord when He would judge and avenge their blood. Maybe it is not so cut a dry that the saints (and these are triumphant saints who are in the very presence of the Lord) may not desire and cry out for vengeance.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:47 pm
Joe, if you’re looking at it as prudence, that does cast a different light on it. I still disagree, but I don’t see the big categorical problem anymore.
But I do have to say that directly quoting Jesus is not often used to show that someone is acting imprudently as opposed to sinfully, so I think my reaction can be excused. ;-)
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:49 pm
This quotation from a thorough Calvinist, Geerhardus Vos gets it right:
“Instead of being influenced by the sickly sentimentalism of the present day, Christian people should realize that the glory of God demands the destruction of evil…[therefore] instead of being ashamed of the imprecatory Psalms, and attempting to apologize for them and explain them away, Christian people should glory in them and not hesitate to use them in the public and private exercises of the worship of God.”
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:52 pm
Or Calvin himself says that the righteous should:
“anxiously desire the conversion of their enemies, and evince much patience under injury, with a view to reclaim them to the way of salvation: but when wilful obstinacy has at last brought round the hour of retribution, it is only natural that they should rejoice to see it inflicted, as proving the interest which God feels in their personal safety”
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:52 pm
I don’t really understand this debate. People are happy that this guy got what he deserved. Or as Texans say “he needed killing.”
I don’t see the need for handwringing over being happy he was killed. To say he deserves it is the same as saying it would be an injustice not to kill him. He’s a moral agent, he chose his path and he earned his violent death. What’s not to be happy about?
In some ways, I think the thought of killing Osama with a serene and somber demeaner, devoid of any passion for the pursuit of justice or happinesss at a job well done – is even creepier than dancing on the man’s grave.
If God decides to have mercy on Osama, I’ll be glad about that, since I trust in His wisdom and justice. But give me a break, God doesn’t require us to pretend we are sad about the death of the wicked and I’m not going to lie to God and say a false prayer that God have mercy on this man. I will say – God knows best and may His will be done.
Death certainly is not the worst thing that can happen to someone, but rather wilfully committing sins that separate us from God. So we should be sorry that his actions were so sinful, but happy that death has put an end to his avid pursuit of evil.
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:53 pm
And on Psalm 58:9 Calvin says:
“It might appear at first sight that the feeling here attributed to the righteous is far from being consistent with the mercy which ought to characterise them; but we must remember, as I have often observed elsewhere, that the affection which David means to impute to them is one of a pure and well-regulated kind; and in this case there is nothing absurd in supposing that believers, under the influence and guidance of the Holy Ghost, should rejoice in witnessing the execution of divine judgments.”
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:54 pm
Joe,
You do know that Hannah Arendt later repudiated her use of the term “the banality of evil” in regard to Eichmann, who, it turns out, was anything but ordinary or banal, but something of a lethal genius in the field of human extermination, a man who, rather than just following orders, went to extremes to fulfill those orders in the most efficient way possible.
As regarding the propriety of cheering the news of Osama bin Laden’s demise, and speculation of his current residence, I wish to specify the following:
1. That there is a hell is necessary and inevitable component of Christian belief; no hell, no free will.
2. Whether hell is presently occupied or will be occupied at the end of days is something not revealed to us, and on which we should not speculate.
3. Whether Osama bin Laden deserves to be in hell is beyond doubt–but then, almost all of us belong there, too. Whether we end up there is entirely dependent on our willingness to repent, which determines how we will perceive the divine light–as the warming glow of love, or as the burning fire of retribution. It’s the same Light, either way. We make our own hell.
4. Whether we can cheer the death of Osama is beyond dispute. Every night at Vespers, we who follow the Byzantine Orthodox rite begin by chanting Psalm 103 (104), which includes the following verse:
May sinners vanish from the earth,
And may the wicked be no more,
Bless the Lord, O my soul!
But, as this is Pascha, the verses of Psalm 67 (68) are especially pertinent, as we sing them at every liturgy from now until Ascension:
Let God arise,
And let his enemies be scattered,
And let those who hate Him
Flee from before his face.
As smoke vanishes,
So let them vanish,
As wax melts before the fire.
So let the wicked perish
Before the face of God
And let the righteous be glad.
I am not sad that Osama bin Laden is dead, nor will I fail to give all glory to God, in whom is the victory.
Save Thy people, O Lord,
And bless Thine inheritance.
Grant victory to our country
Over the enemy,
And protect Thy people by Thy Cross.
–Troparion of the Holy Cross
May 2nd, 2011 | 2:03 pm
Bin Laden has been killed by US special forces. I am glad that he is dead, and I am glad that they did it. However, I will not celebrate his death, as I do not celebrate the death of any man. I offer an “Outstanding work, gentlemen” to the US special forces, and a prayer for the soul of Mr. Bin Laden.
That’s all I have to say about that.
May 2nd, 2011 | 2:25 pm
[...] I get time, I’ll post more of my thoughts on this tomorrow. Until then, here is a post I really appreciated from Joe Carter at First Things. While I would have some slight differences with him, I really agree with his main point. Share [...]
May 2nd, 2011 | 5:42 pm
Would it not be that the best avenging of their blood that the martyrs that would have wished for would have been conversion of sinners , which was the mission of their Lord , to free us all from the rule of our enemy , from of old !
Thus , seems the psalms and all prayers set against the enemy would be for conversion of sinners ; when we do not see enough of that , do we need not remind us that we too have in some sense failed !
May He continue to have mercy on us and all in our lives that we turn to Him , in trust , to drive out powers of hatreds and fears from many hearts !
May 2nd, 2011 | 5:57 pm
Mr. Carter,
Thank your for your post and subsequent insights.
May 2nd, 2011 | 6:32 pm
In His mercy , 5/1/11 was Mercy Sunday and there would have been many praying for the dying …
Thus , if in the awesome mystery of His mercy , he made it atleast to purgatory ( even if he has to stay there for a while ! ) , may his prayers now aid those whom he recruited into the enemy kingdom and thus , in turn avert more of the workings of the enemy !
May 2nd, 2011 | 8:42 pm
I would like to stipulate that I would have been completely overjoyed at the conversion and repentance of Osama Bin Laden. Who better than he could have done more good for peace and true glory to God than had he come out and reputiated his many, many, many murders?
In fact, since 9/11 I have continued to pray for the conversion of all the misguided Muslim terrorists who have come to act on the perverse notion that God is pleased at the slaughter of innocents.
I’ve also added that should they refuse to repent, may they be thwarted and stopped from their wicked ways. It’s a prayer I think we will need to renew with more fervor in the coming dangerous days.
May 2nd, 2011 | 8:59 pm
Well, if we are going to prefer Proverbs over the Psalms (I was unaware of a hierarchy), how about this one:
When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices,
and when the wicked perish there are shouts of gladness.
Proverbs 11:10 (ESV)
May 2nd, 2011 | 10:04 pm
Suppose, fellow Christians, that you come to the end of your life and find yourself at the gates of Heaven. For some reason, things are moving slow, and so you have a brief opportunity to look around a bit. Imagine further that the gates themselves are not entirely opaque, but that it is possible to see in. And somehow, in that great throng of people around the throne of Grace, you see the face of Osama bin Laden. He’s repeatedly prostrating himself before your Savior, worshiping with all his might. Intermittently, he leans over and high-fives a slight German man who’s wearing a familiar, if ghastly, mustache.
What, at this point, is your reaction? Are you psyched at the greatness of Christ’s saving work on the cross? Of the fact that every sin, even those which so shocked you on earth, is washed away like lint in a flood for the benefit of everyone, anyone, who calls out to Jesus for salvation? Are you humbled to remember that in the most essential way, you and these two men are exactly the same? That you and they needed identical doses of the same medicine?
Or are you a little bit salty over the whole thing? Did you think yourself somehow different from them? Did you think that the gospel was the exclusive provenance of people like yourself: people with the same habits and allegiances? Did you think that the Great Commission pertained solely to your schoolmates, and that the command to love your enemies was primarily relevant to snotty neighbors, rather than “inhuman monsters?”
Can, you, in fact, tolerate being in the same Heaven with these guys? Or do you feel that you deserve it more than they? Were you imagining some gradation, by which you might distinguish yourself? Did you think your good works might count for a little something? Or that their bad deeds might still create a small barrier between them and God? It’s something to think about.
May 3rd, 2011 | 7:30 am
>Suppose, fellow Christians
These sort of questions explain a good deal of the sterility of modernish Christianity.
God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and it is all grace and all good. But I tend to believe him when he describes how he will do it. It has nothing to do with my preferences.
May 3rd, 2011 | 9:55 am
Of course, we should all rejoice if we find Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler in heaven because that will mean that He granted to them His grace. Will you rejoice when He serves justice to the wicked?
“After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, crying out,
‘Hallelujah!
Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
for his judgments are true and just;
for he has judged the great prostitute
who corrupted the earth with her immorality,
and has avenged on her the blood of his servants.’
Once more they cried out,
‘Hallelujah!
The smoke from her goes up forever and ever.’”
Revelation 19:1-3 (ESV)
The same Scriptures that teach we are not to hate, but to love our enemies also teach that the saints will rejoice and praise God when He delivers just judgment on the wicked. Somehow we must reconcile the two. We are not Marcionites who may throw out the verses that don’t suit our own vision of who God should be; we are orthodox Christians who must come to understand and praise who God is. We must not hate our enemies, yet it is good and proper to celebrate when justice visits the wicked. Both are clearly presented in Scripture. It is our obligation to figure out how to reconcile both and not to pick and choose which verses we accept and which we reject.
I believe God delivered His temporal judgment on Osama bin Laden by the hands of the Navy SEALS. I am thankful to Him for doing so and rejoice. Whatever eternal judgment He chooses to deliver is between Him and bin Laden. Whatever He does will be a perfect application of His grace, mercy, love and justice and I will rejoice in that as well.
May 3rd, 2011 | 10:01 am
“God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and it is all grace and all good. But I tend to believe him when he describes how he will do it. It has nothing to do with my preferences.”
Amen, David. When I hear drivel about not “dehumanizing” our enemies or describing monsters as monsters, I can only think of Uncle Billy Sherman saying, “Tell such to the Marines, but not to me, who have seen such things”.
In World War II, Dwight David Eisenhower was seriously concerned that the American GI would not have the capacity to hate the Germans intensely enough to allow them to do their job–which was, of course, killing Germans more efficiently than Germans could kill Americans. And to a large extent he was right–Americans kind of liked Germans (well, not those SS guys, but the ordinary soldiers were OK), in fact liked them a lot more than our “allies” the French. German civilians were a lot more like Americans–clean, industrious, polite.
It was not until we began capturing concentration camps that the attitude began to change. Ike was just coming out the gate after visiting one camp, when he saw a young GI, ashen-faced after having tossed his breakfast on the ground. “Hate ‘em enough now?”, Ike asked. The GI just nodded.
Sometimes the enemy is inhuman. Sometimes men can be monsters. Inability or unwillingness to recognize this simple truth disarms the righteous in the face of evil.
May 3rd, 2011 | 10:06 am
Stuart Sometimes the enemy is inhuman. Sometimes men can be monsters.
Psychiatrist Jonathan Shay, author of Achilles In Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character, found that dehumanizing the enemy during the Vietnam war caused psychological damage to American troops:
The book is on the Marine Corps professional reading list and the view is widely shared in the Corps. But what do the Marines know compared to the armchair general Stuart Koehl, right?
May 3rd, 2011 | 10:17 am
>In the words of one of our patients, a war against subhuman vermin “has no honor.”
We’ve never waged war against “subhuman vermin.” But we have waged war against fallen humans whose evil is such that exposure to its deeds could make one physically sick. Ask the men at Malmedy how they would describe the men of the Waffen SS.
May 3rd, 2011 | 10:25 am
>The book is on the Marine Corps professional reading list and the view is widely shared in the Corps.
I’ve not looked at the Marine Corps reading list but I remember what used to be on the Air Force Chief of Staff reading list. Some of it was excellent and some of it was modernist dreck.
May 3rd, 2011 | 11:29 am
I don’t get the idea that you have to/should dehumanize your enemies in order to get angry enough at them to do what’s necessary.
Who here gets more riled up against a rat than they do against a person who hurts someone they love? HUMAN evil is what makes people mad, not stupid animals doing what they do by nature.
It seems to me that maintaining the humanity of your enemies (reality) is not only truer, but more effective, than pretending they’re inhuman. When does fantasy ever serve better than reality?
May 3rd, 2011 | 12:37 pm
[...] response to celebrate the death of any human being, even one so given over to the face of evil.” Joe Carter reminds us that “our relief at his death must be tempered by a Christian view of humanity. We [...]
May 3rd, 2011 | 10:54 pm
[...] celebrations were both (a) liberals and (b) Christians, including some conservative Christians like Joe Carter at First Things. Many (though not Joe) likened these celebrations to the celebrations one could [...]
May 4th, 2011 | 4:35 pm
[...] Joe Carter urges sobriety not out of sympathy for the deceased (‘No one should shed a tear for bin Laden, for he received the justice due to one who shed innocent blood.‘) but as a matter of guarding our hearts against the temptations of vindictiveness and wrath: Yet our relief at his death must be tempered by a Christian view of humanity. We must never forget that the evil comes…from the heart of a fallen, sacred yet degraded, human being. If we are to preserve our own humanity we must not forget that our enemy differs from us in degree, not in kind. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact