As the world writes, tweets, posts, and comments on the killing of Osama Bin Laden, I am struck by the disparate responses in America, especially among Christians. To describe it succinctly (and albeit, reductionistically), there are two camps: (1) those who are celebrating the death of OBL proclaiming that justice has now been down, and (2) those who portray the American military operation as an act of imperialism and revenge. Both groups are vitriolic against the other: (1) critiques (2) for lacking compassion toward those who lost loved ones in 9/11. (2) critiques (1) for perpetuating the cycle of death, and thereby becoming implicated in the very things we hate in OBL.
Now, I think both positions have a point and more should be said of both groups. In (1), I am not including the half drunk college students who stormed the streets of D.C. the night of the announcement, as if OBL's death is akin to winning a basketball game (I hear students at WVU went out and burned coaches in the street when they received the news). Such kinds of celebrations are an embarrassment. Rather, (1) represents those who are trying to get closure from the devastating events that transpired nearly 10 years ago, who hope for a better world tomorrow, who firmly believe that good has triumphed over evil. And I think it is unfair to judge these people as celebrating the death of human life, rather, they are celebrating the possibility of peace, the possibility that their loved ones in the armed forces will soon return home, (for Muslim Americans) the possibility that they will no longer be viewed as a secret terrorist, and the possibility that the death of one will prevent the death and suffering of many others. For all of these reasons, celebration would seem appropriate, just as it was when WWII (or any war) was finally ended. There are plenty of prooftexts for this view: "When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers" (Prov 21:15); “I will sing to the LORD, for he is highly exalted. Both horse and driver he has hurled into the sea" (Ex. 15:1); "Deliver me, my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked" (Ps. 3:7).
Group (2) takes the road of pacifism, calling up MLK who reminds us, "Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence..." Thus, as JR Daniel Kirk describes it, by pursuing the death of OBL, we have implicated ourselves in an "economy of death." Thus, we as members of the Kingdom of God should not take part in such an economy. Brian McLaren writes similarly, "Joyfully celebrating the killing of a killer who joyfully celebrated killing carries an irony that I hope will not be lost on us. Are we learning anything, or simply spinning harder in the cycle of violence?" And once again, there are many prooftexts for this view: “Do not rejoice when your enemies fall, and do not let your heart be glad when they stumble” (Prov 24:17); "As I live, says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Eze. 33:11); "Do not repay anyone evil for evil....If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink" (Rom. 12:17, 20).
Now, I'm not going to attempt to navigate between explaining which of these texts we should agree with, or how they should be synthesized, or offer a hermeneutic that allows for violent war on a political level but pacifism on the personal level. Indeed, I'm not even sure we should be trying to apply Bible verses in such a way to the political sphere, as it implies that the war against terrorism is a holy war, a war against good and evil wherein we have proof that God is on our side (And I'm especially skeptical I can say how God feels or thinks--talking about emotions and God is a whole problem in and of itself!). Further, such questions simply don't interest me because I feel that they simply amount to manipulating the verses to conform to whatever political view one already has to begin with. Rather, I'm drawn to the question: what exactly is the difference between justice and revenge? Before offering a too hasty distinction, I want to begin a few months ago where the question was first problematized for me.
Last December, I watched the Coen Brothers' version of True Grit (both versions are equally worth watching). If you haven't seen the movie (or read the book), the story is of a 14 year-old girl who is on a mission to find the man who killed her father out in the wild west. The local governing authorities have to many problems of their own to go after the murderer and takes matters into her own hands. Intent on having the man hanged, she hires a U.S. Marshall and Texas Ranger and goes after the perpetrator herself (and winds up shooting and killing him herself as he was attempting to attack her). Is this justice? Is it revenge? Is violence OK in the name of self-defense? Merriam-Webster specifically describes revenge as "taking matters into one's own hands," so this would seem to fit the bill, and yet if the local authorities were sitting on their hands, what else could be done? Or should the girl just forgiven the man and hoped he came clean?
With this in mind, I asked my question to one of my friends who reflected on Facebook that revenge, not justice, had been served in the case of OBL. He replied, "Honestly, I think our entire justice system is nothing but revenge in situations where victims aren't compensated and community isn't restored. So I don't know. What I do know is that nothing is fundamentally different and so that's not justice." We both agreed that it is hardly the case that had OBL been given a "trial by jury" then the whole event would have been fair. A trial would have been a joke, a circus, and if anything, an opportunity for him to spout more propaganda and truly go down as a martyr for his cause.
Now, I think this two-fold definition of justice is quite good. To add to it, Dictionary.com, uses "righteousness," "conformity to law," and bringing someone to court as useful definitions of justice. But it could also simply be "the administering of deserved punishment or reward." If we stick with just this simple definition, the actions of the U.S. military would seem to fit the bill. As for the two-fold definition, I think that certainly, those who are celebrating do so because they believe restoration is going to happen on some level: particularly US relations with the rest of the world may be strengthened or the neighboring communities in Afghanistan and Pakistan that have been devastated because of Al Qaeda and the war can achieve a newfound peace.
But we are still led to ask whether violence really does ultimately lead to true justice, as in, true peace. Further, the two-fold definition of justice, while good, creates a tremendous difficulty: the fact is that it is impossible for the victims of OBL's terror to be compensated. Indeed, whenever the crime is murder (or rape or torture or psychological damage or...), one could say that it is impossible to truly compensate the victims, and thus, justice is forever deferred.
As much as I am a pacifist and personally believe in the power of love and forgiveness, I find it hypocritical to criticize all acts of war, violence, military operations, etc (some pacifists even condemn the work of police forces), as I am the beneficiary of those who risk their lives, whether that be policemen in my neighborhood or soldiers on the other side of the world. Yes, we can certainly ask whether particular actions are warranted (i.e., Should we have gone into Iraq in the first place?), but to condemn all actions that are violent in nature (technically, acts of non-violence have an aspect of violence to them anyway) would require me to refuse to reap the benefits of a neighborhood, economy, or national heritage that is the result of said violence.
Perhaps it is the case that all violence and all death should be mourned--even the death of the most vile people on earth. But at the same time, we must conclude that there are situations where negotiations, diplomacy, and non-violent actions fail, where war is the only response left (but perhaps doesn't deserve to be called a "solution") in order to curb the deaths and violence that occur in our world. This was the view of those ordinary citizens who took action on Flight 93 nearly ten year ago. It was also the view of German Lutheran pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who took part in an assassination attempt of Adolf Hitler while simultaneously believing it was a sin to murder, especially one who was in a place of authority (the attempt, obviously, failed, and Bonhoeffer was later put to death by the Nazis). And I want to believe it is the view guiding NATO's current actions in Libya and the death of OBL.
All that said, perhaps the events that have conspired are the closest to justice we'll ever get. There is no pure altruism, no possible way for us to tease out a clear demarcation between an action done in the name of justice and one done in the name of revenge. Thus, in the end, a comment made by someone to Brian McLaren's seems to best summarize my thoughts: "Perhaps everyone is right. Perhaps the death of Osama Bin Laden has made this world more safe. I do not believe, however, that his death has made this world more beautiful."
Solitude Pre Listen!
4 years ago