In “An Act of Judgment?” Oliver O’Donovan shows a nuanced grasp of the many distinctions that must be made when thinking through the justification of the use of force in the international sphere, though his particular position is difficult to ascertain. On the one hand, he seems to suggest that if Osama bin Laden’s killing was an assassination, Christians should condemn it. On the other hand, he suggests that perhaps bin Laden’s death isn’t correctly described as an assassination, though he doesn’t offer an alternative classification.

O’Donovan doesn’t seem to think that the killing of bin Laden was wrong, but he is not satisfied with the justification given for the targeting operation. “Faced with extraordinary actions, [Christians] may demand thorough and coherent explanations on morally serious and law-regarding grounds,” he writes. “For myself, I am left thinking that whatever good account there is to be given of why bin Laden was killed, it has yet to be fully made public.”

What might this good account be? We should want an account that confirms that bin Laden was still active as the leader of Al Qaeda and actively participating in hostilities as a command and control figure. It seems as if the Obama administration has demonstrated this. We should want an account of why the United States, as opposed to anyone else, understood itself as having the authority to carry out that mission. And, perhaps most importantly, we should want an account of bin Laden’s legal status: Was he a combatant, an unlawful combatant, or a criminal?

This designation is crucial to the entire discussion since this status determines our moral and legal responsibilities. Indeed, his legal status is also relevant to the discussion of whether or not his targeting killing should be classified as an assassination. (In 1981 President Ronald Regan issued Executive Order 12333, which expressly forbids any member of the U.S. government to take part in assassination attempts [part 2.1]. Apparently, however, this executive order was reinterpreted in 1998 regarding terrorists.)

But these are issues to be settled by those with expertise in international law. O’Donovan is right that it is important for Christians to hold their political authorities responsible for answering these questions. I believe this is not only a Christian duty, but also the duty of every citizen who is concerned with the rule of law that governs the use of force. We cannot sacrifice our legal and moral principles in the face of enemies who do not share them — otherwise we become just like those we are trying to defeat.

The death of bin Laden also is an opportunity to remember the particular Christian duties that we have toward our enemies.

When I watched the live coverage of U.S. citizens’ jubilant reactions at the White House and Times Square and learned of the celebrations at U.S. military installations I felt that something terribly wrong was taking place. While these reactions were understandable to a certain extent, the display failed to recognize that killing met by killing rarely produces peace. I thought of Proverbs 24:17: “Do not rejoice when your enemies fall, and do not let your heart be glad when they stumble, or else the Lord will see it and be displeased, and turn his anger away from them.”

The Christian answer to violence is that violence must be met with love. “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:44). And Paul instructs the Christians in Rome to “never avenge yourself, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay says the Lord.’ No, ‘if your enemies are hungry feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:19-21).

But the truth of the matter is that we find it difficult to love our enemy. It is highly unlikely that any of us would have invited bin Laden in for dinner if he had showed up at our door. We must ask ourselves, however: “Have we ‘avenged’ ourselves on bin Laden?” This is why we need the “good account” of the moral and legal principles that were followed to justify the use of force. If the act of killing bin Laden was truly justified, then this justification must be articulated clearly so that our actions may be distinguished from the actions of our enemies. Justice cannot be satisfied with revenge.

Even if we were justified in using force to kill Osama bin Laden and his death brings a sense of “closure” to the victims of the 9/11 attacks, his death has not broken the cycle of violence. We have already seen that 80 people in Pakistan have been killed as an act of “revenge” for bin Laden’s death. Will someone avenge those 80 deaths, too? And then who will avenge the avengers? Will anyone be marked as Cain so that he may not be killed in revenge?

As has been so often said, the Christian duty to love is not a feeling, but can be understood as an act of fulfilling our responsibilities to God and our neighbor. Augustine believed that taking someone’s life to defend the innocent in order to preserve a “provisional and earthly peace” could be understood as a paradoxical act of love. But he also understood these responsibilities of political authority to be a tragic necessity, borne from the responsibility that comes with trying to preserve a common life in the face of evil.

Those who render this provisional and earthly judgment, Augustine says, do so “with tears,” knowing that the death of one’s fellows can never be something to celebrate. “As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live” (Ezek. 33:11).

Originally published in The Living Church, republished with permission. This article is one of two on the subject, the other, by Oliver O'Donovan is published on Fulcrum here

The Rev Dr Deonna Neal is currently serving as the Distinguished Visiting Professor in the William H Lyon Chair of Professional Ethics at the United States Air Force Academy.

Guest Author

These posts are by guest authors for Fulcrum