One week after Mr. Laden’s death, different websites are taking the pulse of readers to see what they think. Two that came my way by way of email were polls conducted by Christianity Today and the History News Network. I have to say that judging the polls simply on the basis of their questions, the folks without (or with hidden) religious conviction come closer to ascertaining the significance of Mr. Laden’s death than the folks who are born-again.
Here is CT’s set of questions:
What is your reaction to the death of Osama bin Laden? (check all that apply)
I am thrilled he is dead.
Justice is served.
I am less excited than I thought I would be.
I am concerned about the overly jubilant reactions.
I wish he had been brought to trial.
There are still evil people in the world.
Something else
This is how HNN framed their poll:
In the late 1990s Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States. In 2001 he ordered the 9/11 attack. Now he’s dead. What impact will his death have?
Question 1: How big an event is this?
Marks the end of terrorism against us.
Marks the beginning of the end.
Won’t have much of an impact.Question 2:
Are you worried about a retaliatory attack?
Worried a lot.
Worried a little.
Not worried at all.Question 3:
Show pictures of his corpse to prove he’s dead?
Yes.
No.Question 4:
This will unite us again.
For a short while at least.
For a long while.
Not much at all.Question 5:
Obama deserves credit for bin Laden’s death.
Yes.
No.
Not sure.Question 6:
This will help Obama win in 2012
Yes.
No.
Not Sure.
Given evangelicalism’s dependence on the conversion experience, I should not be surprised that Christianity Today asked so many questions about its readers’ feelings. But what on earth does a Christian’s reaction to Mr. Laden’s death have to do with the terrorist organization he funded and ran, or with the peace and security of this world’s societies? As for this event’s theological significance, perhaps the pollsters at Christianity Today could have assessed evangelical beliefs about hell and universalism by posing questions about Mr. Laden in the light of Rob Bell’s new book.
Old Life 
Speaking of Laden & Bell: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/05/mars-hell.html
LikeLike
I think this is more a case of why we don’t generally tend to look to publications like Christianity Today for incisive analysis of… well just about anything, really. CT exists to show the evangelical flag, not to provide useful information about geopolitics. I wouldn’t expect Electronic Gaming Monthly to cover the issues well either.
LikeLike
Good catch. The CT poll question reflects the inward focus while the HNN reflects the outward focus.
I did find it odd how many Christian blogs were telling people how they should feel. It was as if we should all be in lock step in the matter even though the Bible teaches a myriad of acceptable ways one could feel about this kind of situation. Is it a sign of our church era that inward feelings are not a matter of adiaphora while catholic areas of doctrine are?
LikeLike
I like the question. To paraphrase Turretin, “we must distinguish.”
Certainly there is a redemptive wisdom centering on the gospel, fear of God, etc., that Christians by definition possess. But with regard to common kingdom wisdom, Christians too often try to woodenly proof text the world and thereby miss or misconstrue the wisdom we could have. Then there is a “group think” amongst evangelicals that tends to close off access to all kinds of wisdom that could be developed.
To collect common wisdom requires a certain mindset to analyze under the guidance of certain principles which, like tools, open up the object of contemplation. But these principles have to be held somewhat lightly so they can be corrected and revised as necessary to account for what is being studied.
The common evangelical reaction on the death of Bin Laden is to a large extent under the power of the patriotism that has been enmeshed with evangelicalism since at least the time of Billy Sunday, then carried on by the Moral Majority and their successors. So, “hip hooray” is going to be the reaction, and, going back to “group think,” really the only option if one is going to have comfortable conversations around the church coffee pot.
LikeLike
Darryl:
1. A clean and definitive sweep of the editorial board at CT is long overdue.
2. Staff the new board with Professors from Westminster (west). Also, add Lee Gatiss, a young, up-and-coming Calvinistic Anglican.
Regards,
Phil
LikeLike
@Lily:
“Is it a sign of our church era that inward feelings are not a matter of adiaphora while catholic areas of doctrine are?”
Well put.
LikeLike
It’s not like we don’t have valuable resources to draw upon. Those resources, which consist of an elaboration of biblical principles over the centuries, might guide us to ask “was he shot during the prosecution of a just war?,” and “was he shot in self-defense?” I’m not sure those questions give us tidy answers but they bring forward a number of principles like justice, private actors vs. state actors, and sixth commandment considerations that should at least be in the conversation. But, as you say, there is no conversation, just reaction & emotion.
LikeLike
Hi Michael Mann,
I very much agree with you on the dangers of group think and it was good to read your comments. For better or worse, my own reaction to Osama’s death was pretty much indifference and that could be viewed as problematic by some. I do cut the evangelicals a lot of slack on patriotism since we do have dual citizenship and larger numbers in evangelical circles seem to have relatives in the military and in their congregations.
LikeLike
Lily, double kudos on the adiaphora point. And, yes, agnosticism over certain political fodder tends to signal problems to some who have politicized faith and injected a hefty dose of emotionalism to boot. I’m reminded of those who deem it “unfaithful” to not be sufficiently morally indignant over particular American jurisprudence circa 1973.
So when you say you cut slack on patriotism I take that to mean a patriotism of affirmation. But I think there is also something to be said for a patriotism of dissent, which can also be found amongst those who have family members serving.
LikeLike
Lily, certainly as an interpersonal matter I won’t be scolding military wives for being uncritically enthusiastic about successful military operations. But Billy Sunday would preach with an American flag draped over the pulpit, and said things like ““I think that Christianity and Patriotism are synonymous terms.” That kind of mindset remains, though not always so blatantly. As I’m sure you will agree, we really need to be able to separate the two and clearly have a deeper allegiance to the kingdom of God.
LikeLike
Hi Zrim,
Re: ….those who deem it “unfaithful” to not be sufficiently morally indignant over particular American jurisprudence circa 1973
I’m thinking we’re most likely on the same page when it comes to politicizing faith and churches becoming secularized by politics. I don’t think we should expect Christians to be in lockstep in what issues motivate them to become involved in civil participation or that as individuals we can be personally involved or financially support every worthy cause. I would only be alarmed by someone who named themselves a Christian and who promoted the freedom to abort children, divorce spouses, or so forth for other than legitimate reasons. If that makes sense?
Re: So when you say you cut slack on patriotism I take that to mean a patriotism of affirmation. But I think there is also something to be said for a patriotism of dissent, which can also be found amongst those who have family members serving.
Yes, but it can get messy. For example, does my indifference to Osama’s death mean that I failed to appreciate that he was murderer who was a continuing threat to both church (eg: Christians in the middle east) and state (eg: our nation’s citizens)? From one vantage point, God gave him 10 years to repent after 9/11 and as Christians, we would have rejoiced at his repentance. Osama’s death was not at the hands of private citizens but by our government via our military. Are we allowed to rejoice that we are protected by a God ordained government that served justice?
Both Saint Paul and Peter affirm that God has instituted the government to punish wickedness. “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:13-14). And, “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God…Then do what is good and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom 13:1,3,4)
On the other hand, there are those who will be concerned about our government overstepping their bounds by doing what it did in Pakistan. Does my indifference mean I am insensitive to government wrongdoing? I certainly don’t have answers to these kinds of questions except to think there is liberty to not become embroiled in every political situation and liberty to participate or not participate in them? Does that make sense?
LikeLike
Hi Michael Mann,
Too funny! I’m glad you aren’t inclined to scolding military wives – can you imagine the peck of trouble you would be in for if they were Marine wives? On the serious side, I’m thinking we are most likely in agreement on 2k and definitely our allegiance is to God’s kingdom first and foremost not man’s kingdom. In hindsight, I think I may have made the comment because I was trying to find some way to bless the evangelicals since it seems so easy for me to see only what’s amiss in evangelicalism! Guilty conscience? 😉
LikeLike
Where’s Scott? Where’s Heidelblog? Marines, never, repeat, never drop their 100-lb packs on a 30-mile march. He could have left Heidelblog in place but he deleted his blog. Ya’ never, ever, ever–as a leader–ever drop your pack–ever. Take that from a retired USMC COL over 29-years of suffering, separations, hurts and anguishes, Scott. Leaders get whacked MUCH MORE TOUGHLY. CONSIDER YOUR ASS KICKED. I’ve seen it before, regrettably. We’ve seen it again. Furious.
LikeLike
Lily, yes, I think I’m picking up what you’re laying down. My point is that liberty makes room to be politically agnostic and not so convinced that the right, true and good are brokered by legal animus. There are those who have more faith, and liberty makes room. But from my experience it’s been the more faithful that reserve at least as much ire for the agnostics as they do for their political counterparts.
And when I read Paul and Peter on the disposition owed human institutions I don’t see how it translates easily into fist pumps over “justice being served.” And employing the pious term “rejoicing” hardly helps. Instead of giddiness and expression, what comes through is humility and comportment. But those virtues go down as easily as obedience and submission in American-made piety, which is to say like a jagged little pill. But it would be nice to see more dignified rejoicing over the ordinary and proximate justice that gets served every day by God ordained authorities than the woot-woots over an extraordinary and exact justice.
LikeLike
Hey Zrim, glad you picked it up and tied up the loose ends.
Re: My point is that liberty makes room to be politically agnostic and not so convinced that the right, true and good are brokered by legal animus.
We may share similar thoughts. With human nature being what it is and with the state of nation being what it is, I don’t believe that legal animus will result in the right, true, and good either. I may have been asleep most of my life, but it seems like things have become so politicized with special interest groups pushing their agendas this last decade, that I’m not sure how citizens can’t get involved in opposition coalitions to at least try to slow things down or try to push things towards the lesser of two evils. My concern is that it seems like too many of these coalitions seem to be manipulative in presenting things to fire up their base and it seems to escalate the insanity. It seems like a no-win situation as far as I can tell.
Re: There are those who have more faith, and liberty makes room. But from my experience it’s been the more faithful that reserve at least as much ire for the agnostics as they do for their political counterparts.
FWIW: I have wondered if some of it is from the frustration people feel or how overwhelmed people feel from all of the rapid changes these last few years. Add the economic situation and a lot people’s stress levels are pretty high with no where to vent? I don’t catch Christian political flak, perhaps because my way of deflecting it is to say I’d vote for the Sunday blue laws if someone could get them on the ballot. Which (gasp!) I’d be tempted to vote for, but since it will never happen, I’m spared the temptation.
Re: And when I read Paul and Peter on the disposition owed human institutions I don’t see how it translates easily into fist pumps over “justice being served.” And employing the pious term “rejoicing” hardly helps.
True. For better or worse, I guess I looked at it as people letting off steam with something they saw as good news in the midst of difficult times…
Re: Instead of giddiness and expression, what comes through is humility and comportment. But those virtues go down as easily as obedience and submission in American-made piety, which is to say like a jagged little pill. But it would be nice to see more dignified rejoicing over the ordinary and proximate justice that gets served every day by God ordained authorities than the woot-woots over an extraordinary and exact justice.
True again. After some time to think about Osama’s death and the state of the middle-east and our nation, the more it seems like a sober reaction would have been more in line. Perhaps I’m just gloomy, but I’m not sure the days where there was dignified rejoicing in the ordinary and proximate justice will return anytime soon.
LikeLike
I have wondered if some of it is from the frustration people feel or how overwhelmed people feel from all of the rapid changes these last few years. Add the economic situation and a lot people’s stress levels are pretty high with no where to vent?…For better or worse, I guess I looked at it as people letting off steam with something they saw as good news in the midst of difficult times…
Lily, could be. But the sort of religious antagonism I am thinking of is the sort that seems to come by nature more than nurture, which is to say that it exists even in booming times. Culture warriorism has always existed and seems generally animated by the need to control, amongst other things. Maybe it’s aggravated by immediate situations, and maybe it’s part of the dying gasps of Christendom. But I’m not as inclined as you to give it much rope.
LikeLike
Hi Zrim,
Re: Culture warriorism has always existed and seems generally animated by the need to control, amongst other things. Maybe it’s aggravated by immediate situations, and maybe it’s part of the dying gasps of Christendom. But I’m not as inclined as you to give it much rope.
Very good points. Do you suppose culture warriorism may be in process of hanging itself no matter how little or how much rope is given?
LikeLike
Lily, one can only hope.
LikeLike