George Weigel vs. Rowan Williams, Tom Wright and Others

Weigel will avoid “love your enemies” by distinguishing between personal commands for followers of Jesus and the actions of the State. The pursuit of OBL in no ways qualifies as “just” under just war theory. This was not “justice” and I’d much rather folks embrace the naked pragmatism that drove the decision to violate another country’s sovereignty (not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan)

I can’t say what he was thinking or why he wrote like this. But I find that many people who want to do ethics accept a split between classic Christian ethics and what Jesus teaches (particularly in Matthew 5-7, but throughout the gospels). In doing so, they separate what ought to be held together. And in it’s worst form, the sermon on the mount then becomes counsels for personal perfection rather than emphatic teaching worth foundational for our life together.

I wonder what Dietrich Bonhoeffer would have thought about Bin Laden’s leadership as compared to Hitler’s? I don’t have a strong opinion at this point, but I think Bonhoeffer could give us a valid opinion in how Christians coulf frame this action by the US. I’m not sure how the death of Bin Laden makes a strong difference strategicly in the fight against terrorism, and am not convinced we won any hearts and minds with the action. It certainly looks like revenge, to me.

Yeah, as Karl says above, I don’t expect the state to replace my personal response to a personal affront. Last time I checked, the world is still fallen. That does not mean one is a warmonger. To the contrary! But we must read scripture, not in light of our worldly fantasies of an ephemeral peace, but in light of the Prince of Peace, who never promised lasting peace on this side of eternity

What is war is not dependent upon the determination by Christians that it is “just.” That is a determination of the State, or of a collective of States. It would appear that much of the world opinion (speaking of the authority agreed to among the nations, not the man on the street) is that the actions of OBL against the US is war and that the US is justified in their eyes to undertake it as war. I may or may not agree. But there is war whether or not we like it. And even if the war does not meet my/our definition as just, there continues to be war. And the actions taken within that war are not OK in part and not OK in others. If you disagree with the execution of a kind of wartime justice upon OBL because the war is not just, then the issue isn’t the death of OBL, but the war in general. His death is no more or less just or heinous than any other death. But it would seem that the characterization as war, and as just within the world court is somewhat settled.

The problem that I might have with both the quote and the comments on it are that both seem a little bit to presume that either the secular overrides all aspects of the spiritual, or the spiritual overrides all aspects of the secular. Christians are commanded to love their neighbor and even their enemies — even if we (as members of a State) are at war with them in the secular realm. War is an action of one State (or States) against another State (or States). We would hope that how both the individual States, and the collective of States would conclude about war was as Christians. But this is not a criteria for the existence of war. Yet we should not allow a State’s determination of war to affect our love for our enemies, even where we find the war to be just.

And nothing demands that we agree with war in general, or with any particular war. Our citizenship is not of this world, but of the kingdom of God. But that does not cause our kingdom to override the State. We are, in the this-world sense, still citizens of a State. We don’t have to like their positions. They still are the State and we are not.

As Christians, we are clearly commanded to love even our enemies. Many of the comments by Christians display way too much hatred to support their obedience to this command. This should be our most pressing issue. It is understandable that some Christians in the US to collectively breathe a sigh of relief upon the elimination of part of a serious threat to their security. But to celebrate a death in the manner that some have is troublesome to me. The issue is not just war v love your enemies.

There are two issues that seem to get routinely blurred together. First, yes the state (i.e the U.S.) has the right to wield the sword as an agent of justice. Second, Christians are called to eshew violence and retribution, living peaceably with others as far as we are able. These two items are not incompatible although many people think they are and that is where we get Christians espousing a “just war” doctrine to excuse Christian participation in the wielding of the sword. Did the U.S. have every right to “take out” bin Laden? Certainly. Should Christians either participate or celebrate his execution? Certainly not.

But Dan S., this argument cuts both both ways: it’s fascinating that those who approve of this act as “correct, moral and just” do not see how their analysis is colored (determined?) by the cultural lenses that come when they “rise and sleep under the most advanced military and intelligence apparatus ever devised in human history.”

Are not critics of this decision trying to work from a biblical (rather than American) framework? Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to suggest that somehow our identity as Americans should determine our response. I’d argue that our identity as Christians should give us the critical distance to lament our country’s actions when appropriate.

If you’re of the position that 9/11 was a crime and not an act of war, I’ll clarify your issues for you. Al Qaeda and bin Laden were also behind the bombing of the USS Cole — a WARship.

Certainly THAT is an act of war.

So, can the government treat him like a warrior and not a criminal based upon that attack?

Different DanS than the one above, but I agree with him.

It think the question about Weigel and loving our enemy are related to Scot’s post earlier this week about the “politic” of the church. I think this really confuses the distinction between individual morality related to eternity vs societal need for temporay justice. They are not one and the same.

There was a story in the news a couple of years ago about a woman who was captured by an unsavory fellow who, as I recall, was threatening to kill her. She was apparently kind enough and loving enough that the fellow eventually gave up, turned himself in and considered Christianity. All rejoiced. But the guy still got cuffed and taken away. Love for his eternal soul in no way diminished the need to maintain a bit of public safety and allow the guy to face his debt to society at large.

But imagine that “loving your enemy” becomes a policy of the Chicago Police Department. Would the good cops cease to prosecute drug dealers, murderers and arsonists? Does tackling a mugger, cuffing him and locking him away in a cell embody “loving one’s enemy”? Does clocking a guy who is beating his wife embody love for the woman who is being brutalized? How does love for the thug balance with love for his victims?

The roles of the individual, church and state are different. There is nothing inherently incompatible with the Police safeguarding safety and preserving order on the one hand, and the church praying for the souls of criminals on the other. Presumably visiting those in prison does not require us to forfeit a belief in the necessity of a prison system, courts and law. Christians visit those in prison with the understanding that they committed a crime and are deservedly going to stay in prison until the temporal debt to society is paid.

Which brings us to war. Loving our enemies does not mean allowing them to continue to commit crimes against innocent civilians, to bomb cafes and discos, to blow up trains, shopping malls of fly airplanes into buildings as if love for the “enemy” is more noble than love for their victims. It is not the job of the military to consider the eternal fate of those they battle against. The job of the military is to protect and defend against hostile forces. OBL is no longer able to plot suicide attacks against civilians. That is what the military objective was.

OBL’s victims may well forgive him out of Christian charity. Churches may pray for peace and for terrorists to repent. Those are questions that wrestle with eternal consequences, as opposed to temporal ones.

But the military – they have to do a particular job in the temporal sphere, temporal justice in a fallen world.

Or does the scriptural principle that the state “carries the sword” cease to be part of the New Testament alongside Christ’s command to love our enemies? Do we remove one statement from the Canon to honor the other? Or do we try to honestly accept both as God’s truth?

In all of the discussion I’ve seen in reaction to Wright’s comments, there seems little American interraction with his core point regarding US exceptionalism. This seems unfortunate, and sometimes ironic when responses are so loaded with American-centric language and thinking.

I basically agree with Weigel. I wasn’t impressed by Wright’s remarks.

It’s fascinating when people who rise and sleep under the most advanced military and intelligence apparatus ever devised in human history lament it.

I’m calling “total hooey” on this statement.

It’s a lovely rhetorical strategy to try and neutralize a critique, AND it evokes the blustering arrogance of Col. Nathan Jessup in “A Few Good Men” (lovely screen writing) but it doesn’t hold water.

The place where we live doesn’t determine our morality, nor does it determine the role of the people called “Church” in the world. The Church does not rise and fall under the guarantees of the State. (Just ask the secret Church in Arabia or China.)

The Constitution and the intelligence apparatus of this country do not guarantee my life or my body. God does…and that’s what we as Church bear witness to AND that is why the Church needs to unapologetically proclaim that 9/11 and the 3k dead, the over 100k dead as a response, AND the death of this evil man all simply bear witness to the inescapably broken character of human endeavor and a world gone mad with sin.

The whole thing is a tragedy. It’s all sin.

Where Canterbury goes wrong is particularly lamenting OBL without the wider context of the whole mess as aggregating evidence of what we proclaim about sin and the need for God’s eschatological intervention in the world.

Richard #23

As I understand it, OBL ran a large international terror network that engaged in acts of war against domestic and military targets of this country and others. The scope of the Unabomber and McVeigh’s activities and the nature of their threats were not comparable. The means required to neutralize OBL and his forces were and are also not comparable to ending the criminal activities of McVeigh and the Unabomber.

More generally, I understand that Weigel does not deal with Jesus’ command to love our enemies. Unless one makes a case that loving an enemy means never bringing harm to them, it is not obvious to me how Weigel has been shown to be missing an important point. The book of Revelation seems to teach that God will throw people into the lake of fire, people God presumably loves.

Obviously if one believes the crucified life requires the embrace of nonviolence as a way of life, no justification can be made on Christian terms for the killing of Bin Laden. Since Mr. Weigel understands the Christian life differently, his interpretation of the ethical application of Jesus’ command would differ as well.

#27 K.

First, I think the goals of those two entities are different (one national, one global).

Also, when would how another treats me change how I, as a Christian, should treat them? Please notice that I am not stating how I should treat them in this context. I’m simply saying that nothing another would do to me should justify me doing something wrong (whatever “wrong” here means). What they do to me is not a deciding factor in my decision.

Last, I’m certain that many (at least some anyway) do indulge in some form of ivory tower musings – otherwise, how did they reach the conclusion that they have?

Thank you Andy H in 29. A few other criteria for just wars that aren’t being met:

1) All non-violent options have been exhausted
2) Reasonable chance of success
3) The violence used must be proportional to the injury suffered
4) The weapons used must discriminate between civilians and combatants

Weigel seems to be confusing “just war” with justifying war. If the US wants to continue to name this a “war” (despite not having Congressional approval) then US citizens are forced to acknowledge that it is not just.

Comment #5 Mark: I agree with your thoughts here. Is it ever right to take life? Is war a “Christian” response? War, execution of justice through violence (death penalty with or without trial in the case of Bin Laden)–are responses of a secular government and society.

I think Bonhoeffer (and perhaps Miroslav Volf) would agree that sometimes violence is necessary to remove a threat against society–however, one must never think this is a Christian response. One cannot claim to follow the man who allowed violence to be visited upon him (the innocent)and did not open his mouth in complaint or seek retribution or justice for himself.

The cross is much too large for a person to be able to carry while picking up a sword.

The continual invocation of Matthew 5 in this discussion is missing the context of Matthew 5. Jesus’ words were not speaking to the issue of Justice – even if taken literally.

The series of statements by Jesus were not in any way abrogation of the Law of Moses as many, including some scholars (e.g., Richard Hays in his otherwise excellent book on NT ethics), think. It is actually a drawing out of the Law of Moses. The scribes and Pharisees had taken “eye for an eye” which was only intended to be employed by Israelite Governing authorities and applied it to a personal level. In this context, Jesus is not at all discussing actions of the state, he is discussing individual vengeance – essentially taking the law into one’s hands. He is actually correcting the Pharisees misconceptions or misuses of the Law of Moses which clearly allowed for the punishment of the evildoer – even to death – while still “loving one’s neighbor as oneself” (Lev. 18:19). John Stott’s discussion of this is one of the more solid commentaries.

Further, Romans 13 clearly indicates that governing authorities do not “bear the sword in vain.” While some see a tension between Romans 13 and Matthew 5 – there is no tension when Mt. 5 is read in its context. The “sword” in the Romans context is a weapon that didn’t just wound someone, it was going to be used as authority that would, if resisted, almost certainly result in death.

While one might, in our culture, point to the issues of Miranda, that is simply a cultural application of law to protect rights of the innocent. OBL proved his lack of innocence. It is clear that in this situation, OBL, was neither penitent nor deserving of life (as Gen. 9:6, Rom. 13:4, illustrate). Had OBL chosen to turn himself in and turn his life over to Jesus – that would have been far better. But, the fact is, he still would have been deserving of death. The death penalty is not a pleasant thing. Yet, it does not necessitate something contrary to Christian love. Discipline; punishment of evil; etc. are not contrary to love, when love is incorporated into the Holiness of God. OBL’s death is little different than the death of Hitler or other evil tyrants.

Indeed, one should still be saddened by death. But, more than that, the saddest thing is the corruption of the soul of OBL and so many other young muslims who have been distorted by both a shallow reading of the koran, the whole system of Islam is a false doctrine contrary because it fails to acknowledge Jesus as the true Son of God. Now, that’s not to say that we should not love all muslims, all of humanity, and those practicing Islam should not be in any way ever mistreated for their faith. But, it is nevertheless a delusion and distortion of the message of Christ which is the message of Scripture.

This in no way is a defense of the war in Iraq or much of the way in which the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan have been waged.

But, this action is clearly within Just War theory boundaries (though even that system is not fully worked out – it’s not as though there is a clearly defined, heaven approved, theory).

“But if I sleep safe at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do me harm, I lose credibility when I then arise in the morning and lament the necessity of their existence”

So now we can’t even lament living in a fallen and violent world?

If we value our peace so dearly, why do bring violence upon other civilians in the name of our peace? The USA has devastated countless banana republics and other sovereign nations for trading rights and “American” interests and we’ve continued to do so. We invaded two nations in our “pursuit” of OBL have caused untold suffering through this.

“So now we can’t even lament living in a fallen and violent world?”
—-
Of course you can, Richard. I join you in lamenting it. But one can lament something and still face reality. I lament sin but recognize its existence. I lament death and disease and poverty and crime. I lament them and I recognize their existence.

The lamentable fact is that violence is necessary in our world; the reality is that violence is necessary in our world. It’s both lamentable and true.

Jeremy – thanks for your kind remarks about half of my point, but I regret to say that your infuriation about my second point leaves me equally infuriated. Are you seriously suggesting that bin Laden was, in fact, armed? It has been very widely reported that he was not and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been not the slightest hint of a suggestion from any official source that this reportage may not be accurate. I think we can safely take it that he was unarmed.
As regards the ‘things that happen in the dark’ argument, I can only say gimme a break! This was a meticulously planned attack by very highly-trained professional killers. The timing and circumstances (including the darkness) were chosen by them. And with good reason, because unlike their victims, the attackers were well used to operating under such conditions, had a lot of training and all the latest in cutting-edge technology and equipment. They also had the advantage of surprise and clear superiority of numbers. The idea that this overwhelmingly superior force of highly-trained, fully-equipped professionals was so intimidated by three hysterical women that they had no option but to shoot everything that moved is patent nonsense. We all know the truth – that they had been given carte blanche to kill bin Laden and the expectation was that in all probability, they would kill him. Be honest – can anyone seriously doubt this? And this goes directly to the legality of the operation, for reasons that I have already stated.

And I simply disagree that violence on behalf of the State is prohibited or something to be avoided at all costs. That’s why we approach this from different perspectives and reach different conclusions. I don’t “shrug my shoulders” at it; I already said that I lament its necessity. I simply understand and acknowledge the necessity.

Your phrasing on the “disproportionate killing of 100K in response…” takes this out of the realm of religion and into the realm of national security and geopolitics. I could argue, as many have, that this is the correct and necessary response from those perspectives, but I understand that some don’t share that view.