A week ago the United States announced to the world that Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the terrorist group Al Queda and the mastermind of the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York on the 11th of September 2011 had been located in a hideout in Pakistan and killed in a raid by US military. This led to scenes of triumph and rejoicing in New York and many other cities in the United States.
Such a significant event on the world stage deserves some consideration and comment by Christians, and so at a press briefing on Thursday the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said the following.
“I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done.
“In those circumstances I think it’s also true that the different versions of events that have emerged in recent days have not done a great deal to help.
“I don’t know the full details any more than anyone else does. But I do believe that in such circumstances when we are faced with someone who was manifestly a war criminal in terms of the atrocities inflicted it is important that justice is seen to be served.”
“A very uncomfortable feeling.” “It is important that justice is seen to be served.”
The United States has defended its actions. US Attorney General Eric Holder said Bin Laden was a lawful military target, whose killing was “an act of national self-defence”.
“It was a kill-or-capture mission. He made no attempt to surrender.”
The former head of the British Army, General Lord Dannatt, who is a practising Anglican, defended the action of the US special forces on BBC Radio 4. He said that, while ideally Bin Laden would have been captured, his killing was “unfortunate but necessary”. “The special forces troops going in had been briefed, perfectly reasonably, that if Bin Laden was anything other than naked, he could be assumed to be wearing a suicide vest. Unless he put his hands straight up and surrendered straightaway they had to assume that he had evil intent.”
So what does God think about the death of Osama Bin Laden? One question people have been asking is whether the jubilation around the US celebrating that death was appropriate. Although it is completely understandable that the relatives and friends of those who were murdered or injured in the Twin Towers attack would rejoice that the man ultimately responsible for that terrorist attack was now dead, should we as Christians be celebrating?
Some would see a precedent for such attitudes in the Psalms of Lament such as Psalm 137.
7 Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!”
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us— 9he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
The fact that Psalm 137 is included in the Canon of Holy Scripture tells us that God understands how strong our emotions can be – and we should always pour out our souls in honest prayer, holding nothing back from God. But that does not mean that such cries for revenge are an appropriate response to the evil acts of evil men.
A quotation from Martin Luther King has been doing the rounds on Facebook this week. ” Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that”
We can be content that there is one less terrorist plotting to harm innocent people in indiscriminate mayhem – but that does not mean that revenge in on God’s agenda at all. It is not. God is a God of justice – not of revenge.
There are also deeper questions to be answered about the circumstances of Osama Bin Laden’s death. Are we happy that he was killed and not taken alive and brought to trial? As the Archbishop of Canterbury was asking, “Was justice really seen to be done?” And how do we feel about American forces mounting a military operation on the land of a friendly country, without even telling that country it was going to do so. How would we feel about American forces starting a firefight on the streets of Chelmsford, which our government knew nothing about?
I am not going to offer you answers to these and other questions tonight, but I want to offer a framework for the discussions. There have been plenty of commentators responding with emotions and soundbites this week, and sadly most of them haven’t actually understood what the questions should be, let alone offered intelligent answers.
For us as Christians one fundamental question is this. “Is violence EVER right?” Many Christians including our Baptist forefathers the Anabaptists have adopted a position of pacifism. Jesus taught “Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the sons of God. … Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”. For a pacifist using force is the direct opposite to loving your neighbour as you love yourself. Love and violence are never compatible.
But whilee some Christians of all traditions have been pacifists, the majority of Christians have not. In this sin-spoiled world, the majority have believed that there could be some situations when violence, though undesirable, becomes necessary.
There is the case for SELF DEFENCE – a “Kill or be killed” situation. If it can be justifiable to use force to defend our own lives, then we have to ask what God might require us to do in situations when evil men are harming innocent and powerless people. Our Christian obligation to love our neighbour may not allow us just to stand back and watch innocent suffering. Instead perhaps we should get involved to prevent that suffering. But in a fallen world, ethics can sometimes be very messy. It may not always be possible to avoid doing wrong. Sometimes it may come down to having to choose between two different kinds of evil. And so in extreme circumstances it might even be justifiable to break the Sixth Commandment, “Do not kill,” if taking the life of one evil man is the absolutely the only way of saving innocent lives. Just occasionally the command to love our neighbours might take priority over loving our enemy when that enemy is intent on murdering those neighbours. So is it morally justifiable to kill a terrorist like Osama Bin Laden? The majority of Christians would agree that it can be.
More than that, the Bible does give governments and states and legal systems right and responsibilities in their task of protecting ordinary people from evil. Even if individuals are obliged to follow a code of pacifism, it doesn’t necessarily follow that nations are not permitted to use violence to defend their people. Some would argue that the reverse holds. Individuals should be free to take a stance of non-violence precisely because it is the right and duty of the community and the government and the state to protect them from evil. For the purpose of protecting the individuals, the state has the right to use reasonable force to resist evil. Police should have the right to force to restrain the evil of murder and violent robbery. Armies should be authorised to use force to resist invasion from outside the state or community.
Many Christians agree that this right and responsibility is very clear from ROMANS 13:1-6. He who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. … If you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
The Bible is teaching here that human sin is so serious that sometimes a violent response, even a lethal response is necessary and appropriate. If there were no enforcers of justice, chaos would prevail. Even the classic Christian pacifists did not deny this was the duty of political authorities. For them, political authorities are permitted and required by God to wield the sword for the sake of justice, order and peace. The Anabaptists said, “The sword punishes and kills people and protects and defends the good. In the law the sword is established to punish and to kill the wicked, and secular authorities are established to use it.”
So whilst many Christians have been pacifists, the majority have not. They have recognised the right to self-defence, and the obligation to love our neighbour by protecting the innocent and the defenceless. They have recognised the duty of the state authorities to restrain evil and punish evildoers, both within the state and threatening the state from outside.
So war is always a tragedy. But in this fallen world, where all it needs for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, we need to recognise that ON RARE OCCASIONS, THE ALTERNATIVES TO WAR CAN BE WORSE THAN WAR.
Somebody has said, “The failure to fight a just war may be a failure to love. Fighting just wars … is something Christians ought to do out of love for God and neighbour …” A just war is an act of love because it brings justice, it restrains evildoers, and promotes the peace and well-being of the community. Ridding the world of evil — by legitimate means — is a good and loving act.”
I just used the phrase, “a just war”. Many politicians use that phrase – and many abuse it. The idea of “just war” has a very specific meaning. Through the centuries Christians and other philosophers have been led to criteria, which help them decide whether war is justifiable or not. Whether it is right to go to war and which methods are legitimate to use in warfare and which are not. The “just war” tradition seeks to provide moral guidance to political leaders as they consider the resort to force, and to provide guidance to military planners as they plan the conduct of the war and prosecute it. These ideas started many centuries ago with Augustine and Aquinas and are now recognised by most Christians. They draw on Christian principles of loving your neighbour, protecting the innocent and defenceless, and the duty of the state to defend its people from evil. But they also appeal to a generally held human sense of honour. Some acts in war have always been deemed dishonourable, whilst others have been deemed honourable. These “just war” traditions are now expressed in International Law in the Geneva and Hague conventions.
As we think about the events surrounding the death of Osama Bin Laden, ideas of a “Just War” are the best place for us to start.
So what are the criteria for a “just war”? To start with, there are six things to think about when a nation is contemplating war.
1. War must be waged by a legitimate authority
that is, by the rightful ruler or government against an external enemy. So a sovereign state has a right to wage ware to protect its people. Terrorism is never “just war.” The real evil in terrorism is not that so many innocent people are killed. The heart of the evil is that only legitimate sovereign authorities have the right to wage war. Any use of force by local rulers, mercenaries or criminals is illegitimate. Keeping the use of force to restrain evil as the monopoly of the state is a necessary condition for a peaceful and civilized society. Freelance terrorism is a return to the barbarism of private wars. It is a direct attack on the justice, order and peace which political authority seeks to provide.
2. War must be in a just cause
A just cause means defending the legitimate rights of the state. A just cause means an injustice already committed. That could mean some physical injury like an invasion or an attack, or an aggression against economic activity, or even an attack on a neighbour. Some people think it is legitimate to wage war as a defence against a possible future attack, some don’t. Most think it is acceptable to act against a neighbouring oppressive government in order to liberate the suffering people.
3. War must be undertaken with the right intention, which ultimately is a just and lasting peace..
A critical principle of just war is “right intentions.” Wars that are fought to take what doesn’t belong to us or expand our borders or for revenge are unjust wars. But war can be fought with good intentions.
“We make war that we may live in peace.” Aristotle (384–322 B.C.)
A just war is fought for the cause of justice and not for self-interest. War is intended to bring peace and the common good. But this can be complicated if the only way of securing peace with a neighbour who is attacking you is to invade and occupy his land and replace his government.
4. The principal of proportionality must apply –
The damage the war causes must bear relation to the seriousness of the issues over which war is declared. A minor injustice would not be sufficient to legitimise the major suffering a war produces.
5. The war should be a last resort,
All peaceful remedies must have been exhausted.
6. There should be a reasonable expectation of a successful outcome,
not as military triumph, of course, but in achieving the limitation of evil and a lasting peace. But then there are times when it is right to resist aggression even when there the chances of success are slim. It is sometimes morally necessary to stand up to a bullying larger force
Justice in going to war. Six things to consider when a nation is contemplating war. Of these most people agree that from a moral point of view the third is the most important. Right intention – motivation “ the eradication of some injustice which has befallen fellow human beings and which can be eliminated in no other way.” (David Brown)
But what about when the war has started? Some people (none of them Christians) argue that once war has started then all methods should be employed to ensure that victory is achieved at a minimum of expense and time. Others think that possessing a just cause is a sufficient condition for pursuing whatever means are necessary to gain a victory or to punish an enemy. Others suggest that morals are only for peacetime when conflicts can be resolved by peaceful means. They say that when it comes to war, “all things are fair”. They are wrong.
Just war tradition is not only concerned with whether it is legitimate to go to war. It has a seventh criterion which is entirely concerned with HOW war is fought. A nation fighting for a just cause may still fight unjustly. And even if the war begins without just cause, nations are obliged to use just methods. Here are two criteria for justice in conducting war which are very relevant as we consider the death of Osama Bin Laden.
7. The MODE of conducting the war should be morally legitimate:
(a) The innocent must not be killed by indiscriminate slaughter.
In one word – discrimination. In war soldiers and other combatants become legitimate targets by being trained and armed, and that itself constitutes a sufficient threat to combatants on the other side. Those who join an army renounce their rights not to be targeted in war; but non-combatants (civilians, or ‘innocents’) remain immune from attack. This distinction between combatants and civilians must always be maintained. Innocent civilians must not be not killed or injured. They must be shielded from harm. They can never, for any reason whatsoever, be the targets of an attack. The history of modern warfare is characterized by “total warfare,” the expansion of targets beyond strictly military ones. But that is not legitimate in just war theory.
There are certain tactics in war which have always been viewed as dishonourable. Attacking from beneath a flag or truce or surrender. Soldiers masquerading as civilians. The kind of suicide bombing that has taken place in Afghanistan or Iraq or Israel. Deliberately endangering civilians on either side by using them as a “human shield”. These are universally judged to be unacceptable! Acts of terrorism are never acceptable because they are against innocent unsuspecting civilians.
(b) The war must not result in disproportionate evils to the enemy population, to the home populations or to the international community.
In one word – proportionality. Just war theory requires that the extent and violence of warfare are limited to minimise destruction and casualties. “Take no prisoners” violates that principle. A battle must end before it becomes a massacre. The principles of proportionality and discrimination place limits on the violence of war.
Justice in going to war. Justice in waging war. I have not attempted so far to answer the question of whether the actions of the Allied Forces in the Iraq, or Afghanistan, or in attacking the stronghold where Osama Bin Laden was hiding, may correctly be described as a “Just War”. The political and military issues involved are much more complex than the media can present. Some of the moral questions are also very difficult, especially for us as Christians. This evening I have just been trying to help each one of us to understand the issues a little better. As you watch the news reports and listen to the discussions, keep these principles of “just war” in mind and form your own judgments.
