A Post-bin Laden Reflection on Violence

Posted May 6 2011 by Chris Heuertz with 15 Comments

    [Editor's Note: This post originally appeared on the Q Ideas Blog and has been re-posted with their permission]

    In the spring of 1999, during NATO’s bombing of Serbia, I was in the “Tent City” in Tirana, Albania. Floods of Kosovar refugees were pouring into the camps, telling horrific stories of rape and ethnic cleansing. Something needed to be done. The Serbs had to be stopped. But as fighter jets roared above and thundering Apache helicopters flew overhead, I experienced tremendous inner conflict. Could I support violence to stop violence?

    The truth is, I prefer non-violence. That’s exactly what I mean. I cannot with integrity say I’m committed to non-violence because most of the champions who’ve made this commitment don’t seem to agree on a clear definition of what they mean by “violence.” And, if the use of force to protect a vulnerable child or my wife is “violence,” then I may not be able to fully commit to non-violence in every situation.

    This past weekend Osama bin Laden was assassinated, shot in the head, in what no doubt was an awful, bloody mess.

    Immediately after his death was announced, there was a virtual flash mob of social media reactions. It’s not surprising that the collective response was overwhelmingly celebratory; after all, bin Laden was America’s #1 enemy.

    But as I started sifting through the Tweets and Facebook status updates from friends, many of them self-proclaimed Christians, I wasn’t sure what to make of the celebration of death.

    Sure, maybe the celebration was more symbolic of what bin Laden represents than an actual satisfaction for blood lust. But we all know that violence tends to beget violence. Groups like Al-Qaeda will continue to use violence, and may retaliate for bin Laden’s death. No one is going to argue that this is the end of terrorism. The assassination doesn’t solve anything, and may likely escalate an already bad situation.

    The morning after the news I’m left wondering where to find the peacemakers whom Jesus called “blessed.” Can Christians stand above the bloodthirsty calls for revenge and lament all violence? Could we find the imagination to create a new, redemptive narrative of “justice,” without separating it from grace? I’m hoping that we followers of Christ will find the courage to really learn to “love our enemies”—perhaps the hardest and most implausible of all Jesus’ teachings.

    Why? Because we’re better than this. We are better than walking agents who perpetuate violence as retaliation. We are better than those who resort to violence to solve their problems or communicate their frustrations. We’re human beings. We aren’t animals limited to intimidation, fear and violence as a means of getting what they want, defending what is theirs, and keeping what they have. As humans who bear the imprint of the divine, we’re creative, imaginative and hopeful.

    The luxury of the non-victim is to externalize victim-hood, to espouse theories without the burden of living with the impact of them. Today we wake up in a new reality, one without Osama bin Laden, a reality that we now have the potential to shape. Without turning it into an externalized abstraction, may we reject the absurdity that violence has solved anything. May we work to create a new future where love is the rule and real peace is the goal.

    Should Christians rejoice in the death of Osama bin Laden? Should we condone the use of violence to stop violence?

    —–
    Christopher L. Heuertz is the International Executive Co-Director of Word Made Flesh, a community called and committed to serving Christ among the most vulnerable of the world’s poor. He’s also the author of Simple Spirituality: Learning to See God in a Broken World (IVP, 2008) and Friendship at the Margins: Discovery Mutuality in Service and Mission (IVP, 2010) with Christine Pohl. Follow him on Twitter @chrisheuertz.


    Print Friendly

      About the Author

      Chris HeuertzChristopher L. Heuertz is the International Executive Co-Director of Word Made Flesh, a community called and committed to serving Christ among the most vulnerable of the world’s poor. He’s also the author of Simple Spirituality: Learning to See God in a Broken World (IVP, 2008) and Friendship at the Margins: Discovery Mutuality in Service and Mission (IVP, 2010) with Christine Pohl. Follow him on Twitter @chrisheuertz.View all posts by Chris Heuertz →

      Popular Posts

      Related Posts

      • Rhoylej1

        This is a wonderful message. One that causes mixed emotions. One is agreement as a Christian. Wanting to be a peacemaker and also not wanting anyone to perish without Christ but on the flip side its very hard to contain and disregard the feelings of ‘relief’ that he is gone and ‘victory’ over one of number one enemies as an American. On another note I can clearly see how evil is trying to corrupt your message because at the end of your message above calling for non-violence the sponsor is Front Sight Firearms Training Institute. I know its just a sponsor and somebody has to pay the bills but it definitely proves that the devil is constantly trying to destroy everything good, even a good message. God Bless and keep up the great work of Christ.

      • Coachv79

        When your enemy announces he has dedicated his life to your demise you are given no option but to defend yourself. Do not kid yourself that violence begets violence. The violence was brought to us. The only way to stop it is to stop them. When they realize the futility of their effort they may stop. Then again, fanatics don’t stop until they are stopped.

        I have no qualms, concerns or guilt about what was done. I have no love for violence and have experienced war firsthand and have no desire for any child of America to experience it. We, unfortunately, have been forced to act. To not act invites more bloodshed on innocents.

        • Chris Meyer

          I understand your reply and feelings.

          To say, “to not act invites more bloodshed on innocents.”

          Innoncents have been shedding their blood since the dawn of time, because people continued to “act.”

          we believe we are right, so do they. To prove our points to each other, we are killing each other, and innocent people are dying along the way.

          If we continue to “act” does that not make us just another warring religion?

          God IS calling us to something bigger, and better…to his kingdom.

          Jesus said “love your enemy.” Somedays I don’t like that commandment, but if I have surrendered my life to HIS authority, then I must obey. There are no exceptions to this command.

          Jesus put for the final word on this: Love your enemy.

          But let’s be clear. Loving your enemy DOES NOT mean we don’t act. Or respond. But it does change HOW we are to repsond.

          You say the violence was brought to us…yet, I know you haven’t forgotted than American troops have been involved in “violence” for quite some time. Actions that others see as “bad” and thus need “acting” upon.

          It’s a vicious downward spiral, no matter how much we try to justify it. Because our “enemy” is doing the exact same thing – justifying it. And all violence prooves is who can kill who.

          If violence doesn’t beget violence, then Cain had nothing to fear after killing Able…yet he did fear, he did fear a violent reaction.

      • Brian

        Yeshua was a Jew and came in the fullness and revelation of Torah. When we read Yeshua and His statements about loving your enemies outside the matrix of God’s revelation throughout the TaNaK, and the context they were spoken in throughout the Gospels, we will come away with ideas that he never meant concerning violence. When we do not understand the semitic setting for Yeshua statements about loving ‘your enemies’, we will do violence to the text and miss the full punch of what He actually is saying.

        • Bill710

          Can you define this a little more? What does it mean to place it in that context?

      • Brian

        I do not rejoice in the death of another human being. I do rejoice that He is standing before the ONE who is completely Just and True! Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. If we lived with the reality and ideology of this man, as Israel does each day……. we may have a different perspective. Each person must give an account of their lives to the ONE who is Holy.

        Let us consider Father Abraham. Genesis 18:19, For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him. This is the story where Abraham intercedes for the people of Sodom, where some of his family lives. Also in chapter 14, Abraham rescues Lot, with his own trained men. Would you not consider his rescuing of Lot and his intercession for Sodom, as keeping the way of the Lord? Yeshua told some Jews in John 8:39, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did.

        Violence was utilized in Genesis 14! And this is the same chapter that Abram/Abraham gets blessed by Melchizedek! Abraham rescued Lot who had put himself in harms way. He put himself at risk and his men for the sake of another. This is a godly thing to do.

      • Brian

        Shalom Bill,

        It seems to me, if we do not read Yeshua in the light of the revelation of the God of Israel found in TaNaK/OT, ( in this particular instance relating to war and violence) we will mishear statements in which some consider He was advocating pacifism. I believe if we take His Jewishness seriously and the cultural background of the gospels, we would never come up with this conclusion.

        I believe Yeshua’s story is a very particular story that ONLY He could walk out and fulfill! At the same time it is the Ultimate story that we can come into and join our lives with and henceforth to the God of Israel. When we look at Yeshua words to His disciples on how they should respond to persecution and how they heeded His words, as we see portrayed in the book of Acts. Yeshua told the disciples what their mature response to persecutioon should be as the carry the gospel of the kingdom, from village to village or city to city. How about the Apostle Paul and His commission from Yeshua, through Ananias. Acts 9:15-16, But the Lord said to him, ” Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” And of course we see this in Paul’s ministry, no form of retaliation in response to the persecution and violence done to him. We need to learn from our brothers here and and their faithfulness to Yeshua’s call! They have left us a precious example to emulate, and by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit we can and we will.

        When they were being persecuted they knew very specifically why and it had a very definite context….. “for the sake of my name!” This does not address violence done when someone breaks into homes or violent terrorist acts on specific and large groups of people. Does Yeshua really condemn people who defend their country during war? “Put your sword back into place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Yeshua was talking to Peter in this context, and He had already very specifically told him, before this event, that He was going up to Jerusalem and there He would be killed. Peter was going against the very plan of God. A very dangerous thing to do!

        We are very specifically to live out the life of a disciple and emulate our Master Yeshua in all things, and that includes persecution. But this does not take into account, for a particular moment or season where we have to defend and take up our swords. How about people who lives are in constant danger of persecution and death for the sake of Yeshua? The early believers seemed to have some reprieve and at times would run the other direction from persecution. In some countries they have suffered outrageous attrocities for so long. What would be Yeshua response to these countries and leaders? What should be our response?

      • Rhoylej1

        This is very interesting conversation. I also received an email from another site where someone asked this similar question. Just a view from another perspective.

        Question: “How should Christians react to the death of evil people?”
        Answer:
        With the recent death of Osama bin Laden, many Christians are wondering
        how they should feel about such an event. Are we to rejoice/celebrate
        when evil people die / are killed? Interestingly, the authors of the
        Bible seem to have struggled with this issue as well, with different
        perspectives being presented in different passages.
        First, there is Ezekiel 18:23, “’As surely as I live,’ declares the Lord
        God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that
        they turn from their ways and live.’” Clearly, God does not take
        pleasure in the death of evil people. Why is this? Why wouldn’t a holy
        and righteous God take pleasure in evil people receiving the punishment
        they deserve? Ultimately, the answer would have to be that God knows the
        eternal destiny of evil people. God knows how horrible eternity in the
        lake of fire will be. Similar to Ezekiel 18:23, 2 Peter 3:9 states that
        God is “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to
        repentance.” So, in terms of the eternal destiny of evil people, no, we
        should not rejoice at their eternal demise. Hell is so absolutely
        horrible that we should never rejoice when someone goes there.
        Second, there is Proverbs 11:10, “When the righteous prosper, the city
        rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.” This seems
        to be speaking of the death of evil people in an earthly/temporal sense.
        When there are fewer evil people in the world, the world is a better
        place. We can rejoice when justice is done, when evil is defeated. A
        mass murderer being removed from the world is a good thing. God has
        ordained governments (and the military) as instruments of judgment
        against evil. When evil people are killed, whether in the judicial
        system via the death penalty, or whether through military means, it is
        God’s justice being accomplished (Romans 13:1-7). For justice being
        done, and for evil people being removed from this world, yes, we can
        rejoice.
        There are many other scriptures that could be discussed (Deuteronomy
        32:43; Job 31:29; Psalm 58:10; Proverbs 17:5, 24:17-18; Jeremiah 11:20;
        Ezekiel 33:11), but Ezekiel 18:23 and Proverbs 11:10 are likely
        sufficient to help us achieve this difficult biblical balance. Yes, we
        can rejoice when evil is defeated, even if that includes the death of
        evil people. Ridding the world of evil people is a good thing. At the
        same time, we are not to rejoice at the eternal condemnation of evil
        people. God does not desire that evil people spend eternity in the lake
        of fire, and He definitely does not rejoice when they go there. Neither
        should we.

        (quoted from
        gotquestions.org.)

      • Elaine Hill

        protection for the inocent must be in the forefront of our minds and we are not dealing with anything but the devil himself. As long as the earth is corrupt with evil doers, Christians must not allow terror to rule. God is always there in the total plot of life but we are not to roll over and allow our country and families to be demolished at the hands of tyrants. we have always known there is a price for freedom. freedom isn’ free. I didn,t celebrate but bin laden had it comming. and this is just the beginning of what the world will see when they attack us. I’m so glad i don’t have a government that is willing to roll over and play dead. I believe we must always negociate when possible but we are dealing with a different bread of people that are streight from the bowels of hell. Thank you Navy seals. elaine

      • Roland Van Deusen

        Now’s the time to bring our troops home. Back in 2008, we already had 300,000 cases of PTSD, 350,000 traumatic brain injuries. Now we have 6000 dead, 50,000 wounded, suicide, homeless, incarceration & unemployment rates exceeding civilians.

      • Silas West

        It is interesting to me that Gandhi effectively brought an end to the most powerful empire of the day through a very intentional commitment to nonviolence. Even when his supporters wanted to retaliate to gross injustices done to them, he continually encouraged pacifism. He gained world attention and international respect even from his enemies. Churchill couldn’t help but admire Gandhi. Though he was not a believer in Jesus Christ, the Mahatma studied the Sermon on the Mount as the central thesis upon which he built his non-violent philosophy–which in practice ended British control in India and began the toppling of the British Empire.

        It is easy for me to see how, as the powerful nation we are, we can speak about defending ourselves and not simply rolling over and letting terrorists have their way with us. But would our narrative be different if we were not as powerful? Is the “Good News” of Jesus Christ as spoken in his Sermon on the Mount (go ahead, read it) actually a slap in our faces? I’m just asking.

        • Chris Meyer

          Nice post Silas.

          The more I read the sermon on the mount, the more I am challenged.

      • Randall

        Should we destroy the real evil-doers(not bin-Laden or his associates), those who control and buy and sell us behind closed doors, who abuse the innocent, who frame the victim, manipulating them into accepting responsibility for something they had nothing to do with?
        What about those who destroy the earth with depleted uranium, deforestation, oil-spills and toxic dispersants in the waters?
        What about those who lie to us about the intentions and motivations behind war?
        Do we keep letting the psycho-paths run everything and kill everyone else, or is it our responsibility to protect the innocent, to defend the down-troden and to uplift the poor and ignorant?

      • Randall

        Gandhi was a pacifist because he was too old and frail to fight and he was also aware enough to the fact that Great Britain was already enbroiled in the largest conflict ever for the time. He only had to request that India be set free as a nation of it’s own. Of course there had to be some theatrics. Churchhill acquiesed because he had more important things to worry about. Besides that, the British Empire was mearly setting the region up for turmoil that would later lead to bloodshed of an even greater proportion. Gandhi was riding a wave of inevitability for the purpose of his own fame and glory. He was no pacifist. Ask the girls he forced to lay naked with him so he could “test his celibacy.” Sounds like child molestation to me.

      • Randall

        @ Roland you talk about the U.S. injuries and casualties. What about the innocent civilians who’s lives are destroyed or ended by our ceaseless military occupations? ALL PRE-EMPTIVE WAR IS ILLEGAL! The U.S. Military is now in six pre-emptive wars in the Middle-east and Africa. The Kellog-Briand Act of 1928 mad pre-emptive wars illegal. Frankly, if there was a draft I could see a justification for your concern for the troops. Fact is, they ALL voluteered to go over and kill children, rape women and burn villages full of peasants. ZERO justification for that. Or are you like so many people in this country and cop-out by saying that they are only over there to do there jobs or that they are defending freedom for us in the states?

      ×

      TRENDING: Remember Guantanamo Bay? Day 102 of the Hunger Strike >>