Should Jesus-followers celebrate the death of Osama bin Laden?

By now, most have heard and even moved on from the news that US Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden, the master mind behind the 9-11 terror strikes. It's possible that you missed this news, but I doubt anyone has not heard of the event nearly ten years ago that led to this news.

Probably everyone reading this remembers exactly where they were when they saw the news on TV or got the phone call. We all stood in one united deafening silent moment of shock and horror at our devastating loss and exposed vulnerability. We mourned like never before at the irrational and unjustifiable loss of innocent life.


Regarding yesterday's news of bin Laden's death, I've heard a wide range of responses both by US politicians, mainstream media, and Christians alike. By some media and Christians, I'm disgusted. So, I've tried to lay out a biblical and Christian response to both bin Laden's death and those like him (think Hitler and Stalin). Allow me to answer a few questions that I've heard regarding this news.

1. Was it right for the US to attack and kill him?

A better question might be to ask if it is right for the government of any nation to have a law against murder and that the consequence of murder and worse state-terror is death. Biblically, yes.

For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Romans 13:4.

Osama bin Laden is a mass murderer and a terrorist. Both him and those like him, and the nations that sponsor terror are justly attacked and either annihilated or at least uttered powerless to attack again.

2. But doesn't politics and US agenda cloud the "righteous" mandate of such attacks? What if it is only about oil?

Like you, I've grown both skeptical, even jaded to any political allegiance or quick support for every US "cause". I've seen the US manipulate situations, politicians use Christians for their own agenda, and allowed the media to abuse their responsibility by reporting only what they want us to hear.

However, in this incident, it is apparent to all law abiding people that bin Laden was evil. How can I make such a statement. The Bible makes it clear that killing innocent people is evil (Exodus 23:7; Psalm 10:8; 64:4-9; 94:21; Proverbs 1:11). It's a one of the things God hates (Proverbs 6:17).

War is necessary to protect human life and the cause of freedom. It seems paradoxical to take life in the name of life. But so long as evil exists on earth (until Christ's triumphant victory at the end of time), there will be a need for righteous leaders to gain national safety and peace through military strength. We do NOT glamorize or celebrate war, but mourn it's necessity. We don't celebrate the mass death of enemies. We grieve the need to defend freedom from tyranny and long for a day when God rights all wrong. Until then, we are comforted in the profound words of Abraham Lincoln nearly 150 years ago,

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

3. Is it right to celebrate when people are killed?

Probably more than the other questions, this one seems to stir the most debate. It's born from our own horror at the jubilation and dancing in the streets by masses of Muslims around the world on 9-11. They celebrated at the death of thousands of innocent lives, non-combatants, women and children. Bin Laden plotted and armed Islamic terrorists, and evil people celebrated our destruction.

And now, the US has killed bin Laden and we celebrate. Aren't we doing the same thing?

First, let's go back to previous point and restate the question: is it right for Christians to celebrate the death of wicked people?

The righteousness of the upright delivers them, but the unfaithful are trapped by evil desires. 7 When a wicked man dies, his hope perishes; all he expected from his power comes to nothing. 10 When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy. Proverbs 11:6–10. (italics added)

Whether Solomon was mandating the celebration or stating the obvious, there is something right about evil being punished. We should celebrate justice and rejoice in the victory of good over evil. While bin Laden was a human, he was clearly unrepentant, purely motivated by evil, and desirous of destroying innocent lives. Bin Laden wasn't an innocent person murderously attacked by big-bad-mean Navy Seals. He was an evil militant.

Also, other Christians have warped passages of the Bible to suggest that bin Laden deserves the same treat as David gave his father-in-law Saul. Most remarks like this are given by individuals with a very poor understanding of the Bible and proof-text Scripture to justify their own views rather than God's. David didn't kill Saul, not because he wasn't evil and evil deserved destruction, but because he had been "God's anointed" and David did not want to be responsible for taking the life of someone God had anointed. This clearly does NOT apply to bin Laden.

Final, but sobering thought:

We understand that wickedness, evil, and terror should and MUST be judged and punished. We celebrate the destruction of evil and evil people. And it is right!

The only place for pause on a day of celebration in the death of the wicked is to recognize that while we too are wicked. No, certainly not evil in the vein of Osama bin Laden. No, we are not terrorists, mass murderers, or busy plotting the destruction of innocent people. But we are living under judgment, rightly deserving of righteous punishment, because our desires are evil and selfish. God is right to pour wrath against sin, and through our celebration at bin Laden's death, we all agree.

However, we recognize that every person, both mass murderers and little-white-liars will be judged by God, and everyone will be found sinful and deserving of judgment (Romans 3:23; 6:23), and not just death on earth but forever death (Revelation 20:11-15) for all who did not place their faith in the salvation offered through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We are all sinners deserving of godly judgment. We will all stand before God and be judged for our life and actions (2 Corinthians 5:10). Those who throw themselves at the mercy of God through the grace offered in Jesus find a "covering" for their sins and are made righteous in God's sight.

So, let's celebrate at the good news that justice prevailed over evil. Let's celebrate that, through Jesus, mercy prevails over justice on our behalf through the cross of Jesus.

Response to LOVE WINS by Rob Bell

If you haven't heard the controversy surrounding Rob Bell's (Pastor of Mars Hill Church) latest book Love Wins, then allow me to briefly bring you up to speed and offer some great recommendations. Since I have neither the time nor desire to outline a thorough review of his book, and feel that there are better authors and scholars to do such a job, I'm reposting Ed Stetzer's recent post about Bell's book. Stetzer also offers several other blogs, of which I've read a few.
_________________________________________
Much to my frustration, I was not able to publish a review of Rob Bell's Love Wins for you along with the swarm of others when it came out. I had received the book about a week or so before it was published, read it twice, and had prepared a somewhat lengthy review (not compared to Kevin DeYoung's reviewum opus). But nonetheless it shared some thoughts about several elements of the book. If you follow me on Twitter, you know that it was lost in technology world-- and I still have not figured out what happened. Sigh.

Either way, since much of the detailed reviewing has been done, I have not reproduced my original writing. The need for that has seemed to pass. Instead, I will share a few thoughts over the next few days about the concepts of love, holiness, and eternity.

It probably goes without saying that it is a well-written and engaging book. Though I don't find it particularly theologically hefty, it certainly is creative, fast-moving, and attention grabbing, as all of Rob Bell's writings tend to be. However, I think it has some fundamental premises that simply are wrong. I will try to critique them briefly (but hopefully fairly), and then present some alternative ideas in the coming days.

Martin Bashir's interview hit at a key issue of the book (though I found his interview style to be a bit abrasive). The book represents a desire, and certainly a well meaning one, to recast Christianity in a more favorable light. Coming from a non-Christian family, I find that appealing. I want it to be true. I want it to work. Yet, I think that project will ultimately fail. Actually, I think it has already failed in mainline Protestantism. It requires us to reject too much scripture to fit into our cultural sensibilities. Rob Bell's views may be more appealing in contemporary culture, but it falls short of faithfully proclaiming what the scriptures teach--just read Jesus' frequent comments about the afterlife and eternal consequences.

I think the clear and overwhelming rejection of Bell's views by orthodox Christians (with often lengthy scriptural responses) indicates that this is clearly in error on several points. I actually had originally prepared a list of those, but as others have done so aptly, there is no need to repeat that process here. There have been few defenders in orthodox Christianity of Bell's thesis--and rightly so. Even Mark Galli, tentmaster of evangelicalism's "Big Tent" (Christianity Today) believes it is a bridge too far. Galli's right.

If there has been one well-known evangelical defender who has engaged on the subject, it has been Richard Mouw. I must confess, I find his comments confusing (original comments here and elaboration here). To say that an optimistic inclusivist view (some might say a "mostly" universalist) is well within the realm of orthodox Christianity is odd. It has been present, but as a small minority. And, it would be even "smaller" in evangelicalism. Perhaps Mouw's comments point to the shift that has been experienced in segments of evangelicalism. I will be writing more on that in the days to some. Others have written about an "evangelical tipping point" represented by this moment and I think they are right.

Yet, I would agree that there has always been a minority tradition within the Christian faith that Christ saves everyone regardless of the response they give to Christ in this life. However, the position has been considered to be in error by the vast majority of orthodox Christians (and just about ALL evangelicals). For that matter, I don't think that Love Wins is the most compelling statement of that view. You would find a more compelling and better-written thesis (with some differences) in A Wideness of God's Mercy of Clark Pinnock or some of the writings by John Sanders.

Now, that is not to say that we cannot learn from our mainline friends. I read many mainline thinkers and find their scholarship strong and their thinking challenging. Yet, I think Lisa Miller of Newsweek asked the question that needed an answer. She asked Rob Bell, "Aren't you just a mainline Protestant posing as an evangelical? Aren't you just saying what Episcopalians have been saying for fifty or sixty years?" (Be sure to read the whole interview here. I don't think he answers the question she asked, but his answers and ideas are worth reading)

Bell has largely recast and tweaked the view that many mainline Protestants have held for a hundred years: that because of God's love, he saves everyone, regardless. This is not new. This is not groundbreaking. This is not revolutionary.

In many ways, Rob Bell's Love Wins is simply mainline Protestantism with better haircuts and cooler music. Similar statements could have been made at the Parliament of World Religions in 1893 or later (with some modification) in Karl Rahner's concept of the Anonymous Christian.

I do think you should read the book-- it addresses questions your friends are asking. And, it will be influential. And, you should wrestle with the scriptures for the answers and be compelled to act by what you find.

With all of that stated, I think that what Rob Bell has written is outside of the realm of the historic Christian view and more in line with the mainline Protestant view (and, yes, I am saying that the historic Christian view is not the modern mainline Protestant view). Since Bell relates to evangelicals and is read by many in the evangelical tradition, it appears that the book is geared toward (in part) persuading evangelicals. Thus, Love Wins seeks to provoke and persuade us to a new view that I (and other evangelicals) see as theologically problematic. And, as such, it is unhelpful to the church and ultimately accomplishes little of what he intended. (I will explain more in the coming posts.)

Yet, Bell appeals to the love of God. And, I love the love of God and consider it worthy of our consideration.

My exhortation (to all of us) from the Bell conversation is that we (re)learn how the scriptural truths of the love of God and the holiness of God are held simultaneously in the scriptures. Unfortunately, I think Bell comes up short in considering their partnership and instead pits them against one another. Furthermore, I think that we might consider how our view of love impacts our view of the work of God.

Now, it's probably no secret, and I should reveal my own bias early on, that I have a different view of what the love of God does and how we are to understand it.

I think the scriptures teach us that we are compelled by love in how we are to live out our faith and God's mission. In 2008, I co-authored a book on the subject with Philip Nation. Over the next week or so, I'll offer a few more blog posts reflecting on Rob Bell's view of God's love with a response to it. Along the way, I'll use excerpts from my book, Compelled By Love.

But for now, I'll simply leave you with a thought for the next installment. In 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, Paul wrote, "For Christ compels us, since we have reached this conclusion: If One died for all, then all died. And He died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for the One who died for them and was raised." I believe the best understanding of God's love is that it does not teach us that all are saved but it does teach us that God's people are sent to announce the good news of the gospel to all. We will explore that distinction and others in the coming days.

Posted on March 28, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Response to LOVE WINS by Rob Bell

If you haven't heard the controversy surrounding Rob Bell's (Pastor of Mars Hill Church) latest book Love Wins, then allow me to briefly bring you up to speed and offer some great recommendations. Since I have neither the time nor desire to outline a thorough review of his book, and feel that there are better authors and scholars to do such a job, I'm reposting Ed Stetzer's recent post about Bell's book. Stetzer also offers several other blogs, of which I've read a few.
_________________________________________
Much to my frustration, I was not able to publish a review of Rob Bell's Love Wins for you along with the swarm of others when it came out. I had received the book about a week or so before it was published, read it twice, and had prepared a somewhat lengthy review (not compared to Kevin DeYoung's reviewum opus). But nonetheless it shared some thoughts about several elements of the book. If you follow me on Twitter, you know that it was lost in technology world-- and I still have not figured out what happened. Sigh.

Either way, since much of the detailed reviewing has been done, I have not reproduced my original writing. The need for that has seemed to pass. Instead, I will share a few thoughts over the next few days about the concepts of love, holiness, and eternity.

It probably goes without saying that it is a well-written and engaging book. Though I don't find it particularly theologically hefty, it certainly is creative, fast-moving, and attention grabbing, as all of Rob Bell's writings tend to be. However, I think it has some fundamental premises that simply are wrong. I will try to critique them briefly (but hopefully fairly), and then present some alternative ideas in the coming days.

Martin Bashir's interview interview hit at a key issue of the book (though I found his interview style to be a bit abrasive). The book represents a desire, and certainly a well meaning one, to recast Christianity in a more favorable light. Coming from a non-Christian family, I find that appealing. I want it to be true. I want it to work. Yet, I think that project will ultimately fail. Actually, I think it has already failed in mainline Protestantism. It requires us to reject too much scripture to fit into our cultural sensibilities. Rob Bell's views may be more appealing in contemporary culture, but it falls short of faithfully proclaiming what the scriptures teach--just read Jesus' frequent comments about the afterlife and eternal consequences.

I think the clear and overwhelming rejection of Bell's views by orthodox Christians (with often lengthy scriptural responses) indicates that this is clearly in error on several points. I actually had originally prepared a list of those, but as others have done so aptly, there is no need to repeat that process here. There have been few defenders in orthodox Christianity of Bell's thesis--and rightly so. Even Mark Galli, tentmaster of evangelicalism's "Big Tent" (Christianity Today) believes it is a bridge too far. Galli's right.

If there has been one well-known evangelical defender who has engaged on the subject, it has been Richard Mouw. I must confess, I find his comments confusing (original comments here and elaboration here). To say that an optimistic inclusivistview (some might say a "mostly" universalist) is well within the realm of orthodox Christianity is odd. It has been present, but as a small minority. And, it would be even "smaller" in evangelicalism. Perhaps Mouw's comments point to the shift that has been experienced in segments of evangelicalism. I will be writing more on that in the days to some. Others have written about an "evangelical tipping point" represented by this moment and I think they are right.

Yet, I would agree that there has always been a minority tradition within the Christian faith that Christ saves everyone regardless of the response they give to Christ in this life. However, the position has been considered to be in error by the vast majority of orthodox Christians (and just about ALL evangelicals). For that matter, I don't think that Love Wins is the most compelling statement of that view. You would find a more compelling and better-written thesis (with some differences) in A Wideness of God's Mercy of Clark Pinnock or some of the writings by John Sanders.

Now, that is not to say that we cannot learn from our mainline friends. I read many mainline thinkers and find their scholarship strong and their thinking challenging. Yet, I think Lisa Miller of Newsweek asked the question that needed an answer. She asked Rob Bell, "Aren't you just a mainline Protestant posing as an evangelical? Aren't you just saying what Episcopalians have been saying for fifty or sixty years?" (Be sure to read the whole interview here. I don't think he answers the question she asked, but his answers and ideas are worth reading)

Bell has largely recast and tweaked the view that many mainline Protestants have held for a hundred years: that because of God's love, he saves everyone, regardless. This is not new. This is not groundbreaking. This is not revolutionary.

In many ways, Rob Bell's Love Wins is simply mainline Protestantism with better haircuts and cooler music. Similar statements could have been made at theParliament of World Religions in 1893 or later (with some modification) in Karl Rahner's concept of the Anonymous Christian.

I do think you should read the book-- it addresses questions your friends are asking. And, it will be influential. And, you should wrestle with the scriptures for the answers and be compelled to act by what you find.

With all of that stated, I think that what Rob Bell has written is outside of the realm of the historic Christian view and more in line with the mainline Protestant view (and, yes, I am saying that the historic Christian view is not the modern mainline Protestant view). Since Bell relates to evangelicals and is read by many in the evangelical tradition, it appears that the book is geared toward (in part) persuading evangelicals. Thus, Love Wins seeks to provoke and persuade us to a new view that I (and other evangelicals) see as theologically problematic. And, as such, it is unhelpful to the church and ultimately accomplishes little of what he intended. (I will explain more in the coming posts.)

Yet, Bell appeals to the love of God. And, I love the love of God and consider it worthy of our consideration.

My exhortation (to all of us) from the Bell conversation is that we (re)learn how the scriptural truths of the love of God and the holiness of God are held simultaneously in the scriptures. Unfortunately, I think Bell comes up short in considering their partnership and instead pits them against one another. Furthermore, I think that we might consider how our view of love impacts our view of the work of God.

Now, it's probably no secret, and I should reveal my own bias early on, that I have a different view of what the love of God does and how we are to understand it.

I think the scriptures teach us that we are compelled by love in how we are to live out our faith and God's mission. In 2008, I co-authored a book on the subject with Philip Nation. Over the next week or so, I'll offer a few more blog posts reflecting on Rob Bell's view of God's love with a response to it. Along the way, I'll use excerpts from my book, Compelled By Love.

But for now, I'll simply leave you with a thought for the next installment. In 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, Paul wrote, "For Christ compels us, since we have reached this conclusion: If One died for all, then all died. And He died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for the One who died for them and was raised." I believe the best understanding of God's love is that it does not teach us that all are saved but it does teach us that God's people are sent to announce the good news of the gospel to all. We will explore that distinction and others in the coming days.

Posted on March 28, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Best Sermon I've Ever Heard

My 8-year old daughter, Rebecca, led our church service at home yesterday. Let me set this up by giving you the background, but keep reading to hear one of the best devotions on the meaning of Christmas and salvation.

Since Lifehouse services were canceled due to inclement weather, we had a family worship time with both sets of grandparents, who were all snowbound in our townhouse. That devotion I prepped for everyone at LHE, we threw out the window when Rebecca was willing to lead the whole service.

Words can't describe my pride as I watched and experienced her lead us. She, with the help of her sisters, sang Joy to the World, Away in a manger, Jesus loves the little children, I have decided (all 5 verses), and Silent Night.

Then came the sermon. Rebecca and Carissa read from their children's story Bible and incredibly illustrated the Creation, using a flashlight as light, stuff animals to show when God made all different kinds of creatures, and so on. They even had an apple for when Eve ate from the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". Rebecca explained that Jesus came to pay the price/ penalty for our sins and the sin of all mankind. And flip over to the Nativity stories in their Bible. More illustrations using our manger figurines. At this point, we were all enjoying the simple truths in the teaching. Then...

Rebecca wrapped up the illustrated sermon with this devotion:

The Recycled Life, by Rebecca Grach

Can you think of some things that get recycled? Paper, plastic, metal cans.

Our life is a lot like a piece of paper. It gets worn out, dirty, and messed up. It becomes useless and damaged. Sin destroys what used to be clean and perfect. Our soul is damaged, messed up, and destroyed.

God takes all our mess, trash, and He RECYCLES our life. Through His love and forgiveness, Jesus reaches into our life, makes everything perfect and new.

Do you need your life recycled? What is damaged, trashed, messed up that you need to allow God to completely remake and recycle? What is destroyed that only God can transformed into something new and beautiful?

BTW, we do have pictures which I'll post later. If I had a video camera, you'd all be in tears.