Bin Laden's Death and Our Response

This week has seen the announcement of the death of terrorist mastermind and al-Qaida head Osama bin Laden at the hand of American commandos at his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. While details about the raid have been changing since the late-Sunday night announcement by President Obama, the consistently reported facts have been that Navy Seals dropped in by helicopter into the compound, putting down all resistance, and killing the terror chief with shots to the head and chest when he refused to surrender. His body was photographed at the scene and then taken to a U.S. army base in Afghanistan before being transported to the U.S.S. Carl Vinson, an aircraft carrier, for burial in the Arabian Sea.

In immediate response, large crowds gathered in Washington, DC, and in New York City, both cities that bore the brunt of the September 11, 2001, attacks by bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorists. Students from nearby universities gathered in front of the White House on Sunday night to celebrate the death of America's number-one enemy. A similar gathering of predominantly young people took place at Ground Zero, where the World Trade Center towers once stood. There, the crowd recited the Pledge of Allegiance and sang "The Star-Spangled Banner." One man climbed a light pole and popped open a bottle of champagne to celebrate, while another waved an American flag. Bagpipers played "Amazing Grace" to the emotional bystanders, who immediately responded by chanting, "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"

For their part, reporters and pundits have been dancing a fine line in their coverage of this story. While it is obvious that they are pleased that bin Laden is no longer a threat to America and her people here and around the world, many of them seem unsure how to react. Do they appear gleeful and proud of their country and armed forces? Or, not wanting to appear too jingoistic and offensive to Muslims, do they take a matter-of-fact approach, staid and serious? Most have opted for the latter.

Ordinary citizens have also expressed some confusion over the matter, especially those who are more religious. They know that Jesus teaches, "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you" (Matthew 5:44). How are Christians supposed to react to news of this nature? Should we cheer and pump our fists into the air, saying, "Yeah! Got him!" or should we express sympathy for the "victim"—or somewhere in between? What is the godly approach?

Scripture presents a variety of examples of reactions to the fall of enemies without a great deal of commentary to guide us in our own responses. For instance, in pursuing the Israelites across the Red Sea, thousands of Egyptian soldiers died when the walls of water crashed down upon them. Exodus 14:30 reports, "So the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore," and the following chapter chronicles the jubilation of the Israelites as they sang and danced in victory.

Another example can be found in the story of the reign of King Jehoshaphat of Judah in II Chronicles 20. Reports came to him that a huge army of Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites were marching on Judah. In faith, the king gathered his army and positioned them where the allied column would most likely strike, but in the morning, when they went forward to meet the enemy, they found a corpse-strewn battlefield. The troops of Ammon and Moab had attacked the Edomites among them, and the two sides had destroyed each other! II Chronicles 20:27-28 reports, "Then they returned, every man of Judah and Jerusalem, with Jehoshaphat in front of them, to go back to Jerusalem with joy, for the LORD had made them rejoice over their enemies. So they came to Jerusalem, with stringed instruments and harps and trumpets, to the house of the LORD."

It should be noted that in each of these cases God was responsible for the deaths of their enemies. He was the one who had given them victory, and their praises, celebrations, music, and dancing were directed toward Him. They were not glorying in themselves or even in their nation or their armed forces, but in God and His deliverance of them from their enemies. This is a crucial point in determining how we should react: Praise belongs to God.

A few verses specifically comment on rejoicing over a fallen enemy. Proverbs 24:17 is probably the clearest of them: "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles; lest the LORD see it, and it displease Him, and He turn away His wrath from him." What he describes is a kind of malignant pleasure over an enemy's misfortune. The proverb suggests that God may be more inclined to punish the callousness of His people than to continue meting out His wrath against their enemies.

Obadiah 1:12 provides similar warning in the example of the Edomites' perfidy when Judah fell to Nebuchadnezzar: "But you should not have gazed on [margin: gloated over] the day of your brother in the day of his captivity; nor should you have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; nor should you have spoken proudly in the day of distress." God sees this sort of gloating as particularly evil. A reading of Amos 1 confirms that God deals severely with those who treat their enemies cruelly.

In his defense of himself, Job cites the fact that he did not participate in any kind of dancing on an enemy's grave: "If I have rejoiced at the destruction of him who hated me, or lifted myself up when evil found him (indeed I have not allowed my mouth to sin by asking for a curse on his soul) . . ." (Job 31:29-30). To him at this point in his life, it was a mark of pride that he had not stooped to this level of evil jubilation. He saw it as a sinful act.

Finally, David's example at the death of his enemy, Saul, found in II Samuel 1, is quite poignant and instructive: He wept and composed "The Song of the Bow" in honor of Saul and his son Jonathan, commanding the song to be taught to the children of Judah. David had a famously tender heart—a characteristic that set him apart (I Samuel 16:7) and mirrored God's own heart (I Samuel 13:14)—and at the death of his enemy, he considered all of Saul's past wrongs as paid for in the justice of death.

Perhaps the sense of justice served is the balance we should aim for. Rather than rejoice that he is dead and curse him to the Lake of Fire, we should thank God that He has allowed justice to be done and beseech Him to deliver His people from further acts of wicked men. In this way, we will overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21).

Turmoil in Pakistan

Listen (RealAudio)

The world scene can change in an instant. With the assassination of former, two-time Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the geopolitical situation became more tense and uncertain thanit had been only seconds before her death. She was killed after the explosive force of an incendiary device strapped to a terrorist caused her to hit her head on a lever in the vehicle she was riding in. At least 28 others also died in the blast, and more than a hundred were injured. Nearly three dozen additional people have been killed in the ensuing unrest. Ironically, Bhutto was killed not far from where Pakistan's first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, was assassinated in October 1951 and where her own father, also a former Prime Minister, was hanged in 1979.

As the opposition leader in Pakistan, Bhutto had played an important role in challenging, balancing, and therefore moderating the government of Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, who came to power in 1999 via a military coup. In addition, her liberal Pakistan People's Party (PPP) provided an outlet for many Pakistanis who are unwilling to knuckle under to the rising tide of Muslim extremism sweeping that part of the world. The latest reports are that al Qaeda elements were behind the assassination, specifically Baitullah Mehsud, a wanted pro-Taliban militant leader based in the South Waziristan tribal region.

Obviously, Pakistan is geopolitically important for two primary reasons: 1) It shares a mountainous border with Afghanistan, where al Qaeda Prime (specifically, Osama bin Laden and his operations chief, Ayman al Zawahiri) is hiding; and 2) the Muslim country is part of the exclusive club of nations that possess nuclear weapons. Should Pakistan fall to radical elements—either the Taliban or its sympathizers in the military and/or the intelligence service—the Doomsday Clock would surely tick several minutes closer to midnight.

So far, Pakistan under Musharraf has remained a useful, though shaky ally of the U.S. throughout the War on Terror. While essentially a military dictator despite his recent resignation from the armed forces, Musharraf has been able to ride herd on the forces of religious extremism, military dominance, and secular liberalism that are the major ideologies of his fractured state. He has had to crack down on the most turbulent tribal areas, enforce loyalty from his own army, and negotiate with Bhutto and her faction. He is in the unenviable position of being everyone's enemy.

Pakistan is intrinsically unstable due to its hodge-podge nature: It is made up of at least five different major ethnic groups (Punjabis, Afghans, Kashmiris, Sindhis, and Balochis); a handful of separate Muslim ideologies; two major geographic regions (the mountain region and the Indus River Valley); and a strong secularist tendency, especially among the educated and urban populations. The army, which accepts enlistees from all of these groups, is for better or worse the prime instrument of stability, due to its power and discipline. With Bhutto's assassination releasing rioters into the streets, martial law and harsh military responses to flare-ups of fighting and looting are likely.

To further compound Pakistan's problems, the upcoming parliamentary elections may be postponed as well. One major party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, led by another former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, has already indicated it will not participate in them if they take place as scheduled on January 8. Bhutto's PPP, by far the largest opposition party, is now without a clear leader—in fact, it has never been without a Bhutto family member as its chairman. It may take weeks or months before a new leader is chosen, and even so, it may fracture into several smaller parties if it fails to reach a consensus on a new chief. Realistically, the Pakistani political scene will probably become even more chaotic.

This may actually work to Musharraf's benefit. With so much turmoil among the various political parties, candidates, and activists, he may emerge as the nation's only viable leader. Love him or hate him, Pakistanis may realize that, even though his regime has angered them in so many ways, he provides a measure of stability that is far preferable to the ravages of civil war. In other words, the devil that you know is better than the devil you don't know.

The United States, in its position as the leader of Western interests, would prefer Musharraf to maintain control and bring swift stability to his country. It has worked successfully with him in the past and knows which levers to push to get results. President Bush and his advisors know that al Qaeda wants nothing more than turmoil and confusion in Pakistan because it works best in such an environment. Through the Taliban, it could offer a stabilizing influence of a sort, particularly in the mountainous western regions of the nation, while procuring Pakistan's nuclear weapons for use in its cause through its supporters in the military and intelligence service. The U.S., then, will probably offer and provide intelligence and clandestine military support to the Musharraf government to help quell the disquiet as soon and as noiselessly as possible.

In a better world, the people of Pakistan would use the assassination of Benazir Bhutto to band together and expulse Muslim extremism from its culture. However, this is a world whose god is Satan the Devil (II Corinthians 4:4), whose hateful, destructive influence has deceived all humanity (Ephesians 2:2; Revelation 12:9). Thus, religious and political turmoil are part of the normal fabric of life—and will be until Jesus Christ returns to this earth to put an end to sectarianism and war by putting Satan away (Revelation 20:1-3) and ruling personally from Jerusalem (Revelation 20:4-6). Then, with Satan unable to broadcast his divisive attitudes, Christ will teach humanity His way of life that brings cooperation, peace, and unity (Isaiah 2:2-4). This glorious future of peace is why Jesus commands us in Matthew 6:10 to pray, "Your Kingdom come." Are we praying for it fervently enough?

Open Mouth, Reveal Heart

The news of the week—beyond the Cindy Sheehan hysteria down in Crawford, Texas—involved the latest verbal blunder of televangelist Pat Robertson. The 700 Club and Christian Broadcasting Network founder has felt the fury of the media before, particularly just after 9/11 when he and Jerry Falwell agreed that America’s tolerance of homosexuality, feminism, and abortion, among other sins, made her deserving of some divine punishment. This time, he forayed into American foreign policy, opining during Monday’s broadcast:

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if [Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.

It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and . . . this is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly.

We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

On Wednesday, Robertson defended his comments, saying:

I didn't say ‘assassination.’ I said our special forces should ‘take him out.’ And ‘take him out’ can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the [Associated Press], but that happens all the time.

His belated and rather limp justification does nothing to explain why a supposedly Christian minister would advocate removing foreign heads of state from power, either by assassination, kidnapping, or some other method. Another “Christian” leader, Marvin Olasky, editor of World Magazine, said in a recent interview in which Robertson’s comments were discussed, held that assassination was biblically justified in time of war. The only problem is that no one seems to be able to find the chapter and verse where such views are condoned.

This thinking has its roots in the “just war” doctrine, the brainchild of the Catholic theologian, Augustine, in the late fourth or early fifth century. In it, he posits that war is sometimes necessary and just, and that, in such just wars, Christians must comport themselves in a moral fashion. Not all “Christian” nations have subscribed to this teaching, but most give it lip-service to justify its military actions. Strangely, religious conservatives—especially in the last four years—have embraced it almost wholesale in support of the Bush administration’s pre-emptive war on Iraq. “Stand by Your Man” comes to mind.

Despite so many religious leaders’ endorsement, the “just war” doctrine is antithetical to Christianity. The sixth commandment absolutely forbids it. Jesus’ teaching in the four gospels and the apostles’ teaching in the rest of the New Testament clearly stand against it. What can be simpler than “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9), “You shall not murder” (verse 21), “. . . turn the other [cheek]” (verse 39), and “. . . love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you” (verse 44)? And these plain instructions are from only one chapter!

The apostles are similarly of one voice in this matter. Paul writes:

Repay no one evil for evil. . . . If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath: for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord [Deuteronomy 32:35]. Therefore “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head [Proverbs 25:21-22].” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:17-21)

He later says that “we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal” (II Corinthians 10:3-4), meaning Christians do not fight with physical arms but spiritual powers. James calls Christians who “fight and war” “adulterers and adulteresses” who make themselves enemies of God by applying the unrighteous methods of this world (James 4:1-4). Finally, John writes, “Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (I John 3:15).

Some may contend that these teachings do not apply because they are instructions to individuals—but are not nations merely large, organized groups of individuals? The principles apply just as well in a macrocosm as in a microcosm. Killing on a national scale is just as ungodly as killing on a personal one.

The Robertson fiasco only highlights a major problem in today’s Christianity, even among so-called fundamentalists: hypocrisy. The vast majority of supposedly Christian ministers and churches have traded the truth of the Bible—the Word of God—for unrighteous mammon, political gain, or popularity. Their unregenerate hearts are revealed by what comes from their mouths, “for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders . . .” (Matthew 15:18-19). Rather than walk the difficult path to eternal life, they have taken the broad way that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13-14), the way that is “right in [their] own eyes” (Judges 21:25), the “way that seems right to a man, . . . the way of death” (Proverbs 14:12). Jesus Christ will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (Matthew 7:23).

There is a great deal of wisdom in the old saw that religion and politics do not mix.