Tuesday, May 10, 2011

THE KILLING OF OSAMA BEN LADEN


I have a question. 



Do you believe Dietrich Bonhoeffer would have repented of... or celebrated over... his action of killing Hitler had it really been successful? You recall he was part of the planning of an assassination of Adolph Hitler, along with the members of the Abwehr, [The German Military Intelligence Office] and was arrested and ultimately executed for his part in the unsucessful plan. My question is an attempt to see if there is a valid reason ethically or morally for a Christian to ever celebrate the death of anyone no matter the seriousness or savagery of their actions.

The story of Bonhoeffer is fascinating. In the late Nineteen thirties Germany was under the control of Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party and war was imminent. A movement had arisen in Germany among some Christians called the "Confessing Church" and, though not large, the group was opposed to Hitler. Bonhoeffer was a part of that movement.  He was a German Lutheran pastor and theologian who had graduated summa cum laude from the University of Berlin in 1927 and had earned his doctorate in theology at the age of 21.  He had then come to America and studied some at the Union Seminary in New York but wasn't impressed with it and returned to Germany for his ministry.

In June of 1939 Bonhoeffer was invited by Union Seminary to return to New York to lecture. The situation in Germany was already intolerable however, and it was not an easy decision for him to make. He finally accepted and came to the States and was encouraged to remain, but quickly regretted his decision to come at all.  This is clearly seen in his letter to Reinhold Niebuhr on faculty at Union Seminary where he said, "I have come to the conclusion that I made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period in our national history with the people of Germany...I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with her people.."  So he returned to his homeland on the last scheduled steamer to cross the Atlantic to Germany prior to the war.  

Four years later he was executed, as I said, for his participation in the failed attempt on Hitler's assassination.

Bonhoeffer himself, apparently, did not think killing Hitler was an altogether righteous thing to do. There is some question among historians about how much Bonhoeffer actually participated, but he obviously thought of himself as a participant, and struggled with some sense of guilt over it.  He did not justify whatever part he played as evidenced by what he wrote when he said this, "When a man takes guilt upon himself [Referring to his part in the plot] in responsibility, he imputes his guilt to himself and no one else. he answers for it. Before other men he may be justified by dire necessity; before himself he is acquitted by his conscience, but before God he can only hope for grace."  So Bonhoeffer did not think of the planned attempt on Hitler's life as a "righteous" thing at all, but he did view it as a "right" thing. He saw a difference in the two. He believed them to be two separate things and I'm thinking he may have been right.

In simple terms, Bonhoeffer saw a difference between something as "just" and something that could be said to be "Justified." His view of the difference would be based on the idea that while fallen creation demands sometimes a person doing the "lesser of two evils," one could never honestly equate any human action as a "righteous action" unless it was from pure love or the character of God. [It is that which would also qualify any anger as a righteous anger.]  Bonhoeffer believed that since our actions as human beings can never have that as the basis for them, we are fallen creatures after all and are not God, we may, therefore, perform only justifiable actions, but not just ones. 

This could potentially leave us as Christians with a sense of relief or satisfaction or even joy at something accomplished justifiably, like the carrying out of a punishment decided upon by a jury or the personal protection of our loved ones or our nation when at war.  The joy we experienced at the ending of the second world war would be in this category. But this is also why we often struggle and disagree with one another when attempting to define a "Justifiable war."  This struggle is because we are never completely sure of our justification for an action.

So it could even be that the justifiable death, as Bonhoeffer believed, of an evil perpetrator of crimes as a Hitler might bring great relief or satisfaction.  [Or an Osama Ben Laden?] But for Bonhoeffer it would bring a lingering sense of guilt as well.  

But in no case, for Bonhoeffer, could there be a celebratory attitude at someone dying. This, because there would always be a sense of moral loss in the action no matter how evil the behavior of the one upon whom death was inflicted. In his mind we may perform "justifiable retribution" upon a person, but never "Just retribution" as that is the preogative of God alone.

Some of you may see this as a minor thing or even a play on words. Perhaps! But, like some other issues that could give us a sense of being godlike in our behavior, unless addressed and even checked,  [Abortion for example] this difference may keep us clear minded on things with eternal ends in view. We fallen human beings often must choose between the lesser of two evils but also face our responsibility in bringing about something "justifiable."  

But something defined as "Just" would be best left in the hands of the One who knows enough to make the call. Bonhoeffer may have taught us as Christians some valuable lessons whether we agree with all his positions theologically or not.

So, the killing of Osama Ben Laden...relief, gratitude, satisfaction, justifiable end? Perhaps! But celebration? Perhaps Not!

Paul B.

22 comments:

Bob Cleveland said...

Thinking of God's own statements that He does not rejoice in the death of the wicked, and coupling that with the fact that He sent David to kill Goliath, I conclude that God, in His sovereignty and in His wisdom, sees such things as necessary but unpleasant. We should do the same, IMO.

If I haven't told you the story of the execution of Gary Gilmore, I need to do that sometime.

Celebration? Absolutely not.

Bob Cleveland said...

And besides, our security does not come from the death of Osama Bin Laden. It comes from the same place it did when he was alive.

Jesse Moore said...

Paul,
I am in almost complete agreement with you on this one except: for Bonhoeferthere was no other way to be rid of the menace of Hitler. In the case of Osama it appears we could have captured him without killing him. This, I think ws the more acceptable course of action. Other than that point, I agree with yhou. Job well done. and Nicely put.

Christiane said...

My Church supports life from conception to natural death, and therefore opposes the death penalty.
HOWEVER, it understands the morality of using the death penalty if there is no other means to protect innocent citizens from the perpetrator. And, in certain cases, the death penalty is the only way to safeguard the common good from the murderer.

We do not know the training of the Seals (highly classified), or the details of everything that occurred that Sunday night in that compound, and I, for one, do not 'condemn' the actions of our brave military men. The murderer Bin Laden is dead. It was a 'war time' action, if you will. And the 'common good' is the better for it, when you understand that the data collected from the compound is yielding tremendous information to further stop terrorist attacks in future world-wide.

The Seals who accomplished the mission ?
The House of Representatives refuses to honor them.
I honor them. Their names will not be known. But they have taken out a man devoted the the deaths of innocent people worldwide.

Rejoice at OBL's death? No.
Rejoice that he was stopped from hurting any more people? Yes.

The 'moral dilemma' is always before us . . . to take a human life to protect the innocent . . . but, in battle, it is permitted for defense.

The Seals defended us.
I would like to tell Eric Cantor of the House Republicans this:
'those Navy Seals are soldiers of this country. Honor them.'

Christiane said...

Post script:

After reading my comment, I decided to confess that I am not very rational about it. I am passionately American in the sense that we have asked our young men and women in the military to lay down their lives, and they have gone out and served with great honor, and many have come home draped in our flag to rest in our soil.

I hate it that so many in this country haven't sacrificed anything these last ten years. Many among our wealthiest citizens have profited greatly during this time.

And now, not to honor our Seals who put their lives on the line for this mission disturbs me greatly.
The shameful campaign to disregard their brave service has begun,
and I hate to see the involvement of the House of Representatives' leadership in it.

Sorry for rant, Paul. But I feel better now. My family has three serving in uniform, and that's where I am coming from emotionally.

Steve Miller said...

Paul,

The scripture is very clear about rejoicing in heaven is for a repentant sinner getting things right with God. Rejoicing in the scripture is connected to a relationship with God. This is what sets it apart from just having happiness or just being happy.

The death of OBL is the result of dedicated military and civilian warriors properly trained for many years to accomplish a mission and to do it with honor for their comrades in arms and total professionalism.

Our Navy SEALS do not seek outside recognition or honor to do their job, though they are always privately and personally recognized for a very good reason. They do not need a public recognition in the manner some would desire. Their honor is in wearing the uniform and being a member of a team with a cause greater than themselves.

No one hates war more than the warrior in uniform because they know what the cost is to attempt to bring war to a closure. I am reading the new book out on Bonhoeffer which is very enlightening. I believe he understood fully what he was doing, the reason for his decision, and the consequences involved. He viewed the greater cause as to the end of World WarII.

I praise God for those who in our armed services who take on a cause greater than themselves, the protection of our way of life, our families, and our nation. I praise God for those who serve seeking no recognition but to honor God and serve our nation.

I like your word "relief" regarding the killing of OBL knowing it is temporal. Over zealous in celebrating OBL's death serves only to provide a false security. Our security is always in the Lord because it is eternal.

Nice words brother Paul; you always makes me think and ensure my perspective is proper.

Steve in San Antonio

Christiane said...

Hi STEVE,

Perhaps it would do US good, as a country, to honor the bravery of our warriors.

If we do that, it might not be so easy for us, as a people, to send them to their deaths as 'business as usual'.

We need to remember the cost of freedom isn't cheap, or free.
And the fact that our military don't expect to be 'credited as honorable', is that much more reason for us to pay our respects and thank them for their service.

Paul Burleson said...

All,

I appreciate every comment made. You are a thoughtful and articulate group. I love this kind of respectful discussion and particularly on this kind of subject.

I seldom write on thing politically. But I'm a grateful American citizen with thoughts both positive and negative about our country and appreciation for those who protect us and care for us in our societal difficulties and emergencies. [I pay for the breakfast of people in uniform any time I can when in a cafe. It's a good experience for me to appreciate them that way.]

Christiane, I was not aware of the refusal of the House of Reps to honor the Seals. I've some work to do to look into the reasoning and, again, your thoughts are quite good.

Steve Miller said...

Paul,

It is my understanding the House under its new leadership does not support "commemorative legislation" in committee. In the past a resolution to honor almost anything was dealt with in committee. I don't believe it was aimed at the SEALS for recognition. However, it certainly does not stop the delivering of speeches on the floor to honor thier activity; this has happened with regards to the SEALS.

I do not wish to dwell on this issue because the point is those that have chosen a profession, laid before them by God, engage with a mindset of service. They do appreciate the handshake, the nod and the smile, the serious remembrance of Veterans Day and Memorial day plus the numerous cities in the U.S. which render the proper respect for those in uniform. It is very difficult to send your comrade in arms to harms way and very painful in remembering them when they fall. I know this was tough for me personally. Once again, those in uniform, are of a mindset of service before self. Their celebration is of coming home to an appreciative country and family. We celebrate their service, however you choose; the military member is pleased to see you smile and say thanks. However, the greater reward is of the Father smiling and saying well done.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Steve in San Antonio

Paul Burleson said...

Steve,

As a career military man and a personal friend, your words carry weight with me and I appreciate your service as a citizen warrior.

Just a thought, I'm reminded that when the nation of Israel surrounded the Tabernacle of Moses to worship, they did so with the worshippers closest...Aaron and his sons, the workers next...they carried and set up the Tabernacle, and finally the warriors... guarding.

No analogy intended. [Certainly not for a New Covenant holy nation like we are as God's people.] It's just an interesting fact that for a nation to function at its best, it takes the warriors.

Anonymous said...

Christiane,
I believe if the names of the Seals are known that will be their death warrant.
Worldwide, including America, there are many who would love to die and be known for avenging the death of Osama Ben Laden.

Jesse Moore,
I believe your saying: “It appears we could have captured him without killing him” is the understatement of the day.”

I believe the Seals had orders to kill even if he was sleeping. I mean with a bullet or bullets in his chest why another to his head if their orders were not to be sure he was dead.

The important question – why dead? For a fact – dead men don't talk.
But he could have told more information than all the other stuff. Then why?

Maybe he knew stuff that some didn't want to take a chance on him revealing. Makes a person wonder huh?

Hey! Maybe I've been watching 'Chicago Code' too much.
Rex

Aussie John said...

Paul,

I appreciated your carefully articulated words.

Looking from the other side of the world, and over the years,reading and listening to the huge amount of information regarding Bin Laden and the matters surrounding him, I found it difficult to see anything of a desire for justice, but rather for vengeance. Certainly the words, "seek vengeance" often popped up.

There is no doubt the cry for vengeance which is coming from the mouths of Bin Laden's supporters will result in serious repercussions around the world.

The fellow can not, anymore vent his evil on the world, but nothing is going to change. There always has been, and whilst sin remains, always will be a Hitler,a Saddam Hussein, a Mugabe, a Bin Laden.

I hope my words are not received in any critical sense, because none is intended, but life has taught me, as it has no doubt you, the utter senselessness of violence, regardless of whether justice is involved or vengeance.

Am I speaking mindless nonsense?

Paul Burleson said...

Aussie J,

I hear no nonsense at all, much less mindless, which would be IMPOSSIBLE from you.

I hear you. I have some personal ideas that may be a bit different but I'm always trying to be open and giving a hearing to people who differ with me. [Not that you do]

I read this recently..."When speaking to murder, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the death penalty which destroys it as a symbol of a society's values. It is not possible for a government to demonstrate the supreme worth of human life by killing. Some claim the very seriousness of killing proves the importance of the innocent life the state is acting to avenge. But far from cancelling out the original crime, it instead places the state in the position of mimicking the killer's original decision that a particular person should no longer live."

I hear this argument and appreciate from whence it comes. I just have a different take on the very points being made here. I think I could show why I disagree with the quotes basic assumptions. But, as I said, I want to hear what people are saying..

traveller said...

Paul, thank you for this thoughtful post. I agree with the thrust of what you have said about not rejoicing in anyone's death. While governments may have, or assume, the authority to execute people and to engage in war, this does not mean such actions are wise.

One of the best ways to honor our military is be wise in how/when we deploy them. I am afraid that far too often the motivation for deployment of our military has less to do with protecting our country than it has to do with either protecting the economic interests of certain people or with the egos of our leaders. So, for me, the best way to honor our military is not by accolades, although these may be appropriate at times as well, but to recognize the great value of their lives and not put them in harms way unless it is clearly a last resort.

Paul Burleson said...

Traveller,

Thanks. I couldn't agree more.

Anonymous said...

Aussie John,
You said Blogger was having some problems. Maybe that's why my comment of May 11 'disappeared' from Paul's blog. (I thought he had deleted it.) So I'll send it again and add a little more.

Christiane,
I believe if the names of the Seals are known that will be their death warrant. Worldwide, including America, there are many who would love to die and be known for avenging the death of Osama Ben Laden.

Jesse Moore,
I believe your saying: “It appears we could have captured him without killing him” is the understatement of the day.”

I believe the Seals had orders to kill even if he was sleeping. I mean with a bullet in his chest why another to his head if their orders were not to be sure he was dead.

The important question – why dead? For a fact – dead men don't talk.

But he could have told more information than all the other stuff. Then why?

Maybe he knew stuff that some didn't want to take a chance on him revealing. Makes a person wonder huh?

Hey! Maybe I've been watching 'Chicago Code' too much.


Now it's May 16 and the News said there's a money trail supporting Ben Laden. If I heard right, some was coming from America.

Maybe Chicago Code killing the bribed juror to prevent the possibility of detection is not the only show in town.
Rex

Paul Burleson said...

Rex,

I don't delete any comment without saying I deleted it. So if a comment is not showing up, it's either because something is wrong or down with blogger [Which often does happen] or because it is received as spam for some reason. I do have spam protection enabled on my blog.

Anonymous said...

OK Paul,
Nice of you and nice to know.
Rex

Anonymous said...

Paul,
Clayton Hicks, pastor of New Zion when I was 15, asked if you were related to a Dr. Burleson who taught at Baylor University.

Blogs are amazing sometimes. I told a story on Wade's blog about my brother, and a person in Australia said he was exactly the teacher he needed when he was was a young boy in Alaska.

Last week, a Baptist Standard blog editor sent a name and phone number of someone that wondered if I was kin to a Rex Ray who worked with their missionary grandparents in China.

Their grandfather died there. My uncle's first born was also buried there at the age of five. She left asking, “Mama, which one is our house?
Rex

Anonymous said...

Paul,
In the case of Hitler, those that decided to kill him had no option of capturing him, but in the case of bin Laden, Seals could have taken him prisoner just as easily.

Lets write a fairy-tale of bin Laden's life: He's captured – becomes a Christian – spends the rest of his life in prison where he writes a book that influences all Muslims to follow his example.

I'd like and explanation from our government why capture was not an option.
Rex

Paul Burleson said...

Rex,

Dr. Burleson is in my family root system.

I don't have much thought about the government and any reasoning for what is done by it. I'm not much for theories about why things are done. [Conspiracy theories]

I will say, however, that my conclusion about the events is, after reading a ton of material, that this was essentially intended to be an execution, not an apprehension.

The fact that Bin Laden’s body was buried almost immediately at sea is an odd fact to me also. After going out of his way to placate the Muslims in so many ways, according to those who oppose him, the President winds up making a body disappear in a way THAT DOES offend many Muslims who didn't even like Ben Laden. {The President's advisers missed it there unless there are other motives we don't know about.]

This is, more or less, what happened to Hitler’s remains you recall. As a result, the disappearance of his body has become a bone of contention for years and conspiracy theorists have had a field day. ["Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of man?" The Shadow knows." You have to go a long way back to remember that!! ;)]

Anonymous said...

Paul,
For what it's worth, I'll forward an email. It 'brags' on several Democrats but makes Obama look like a bystander in the operation of getting Ben Laden.

The 'Shadow knows' was one of my favorites. :)

Maybe, "We'll understand it all by and by" with the help of 'Time will tell' and "The Truth will set you free".
Rex