It turns out that writing about Mark and Grace Driscoll’s Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and Life Together ends up being very similar to talking about Mark Driscoll’s ministry.

Here’s what I mean by that: when Driscoll became nationally prominent (or at least in the circles I run in) I started getting cautious questions from acquaintances that were some variation on “So… what do you think about this Mark Driscoll guy?”  I’m sure my little corner of the world wasn’t the only one filled with people who had heard Mark be clearly and winsomely faithful to what the Bible actually says and then heard about him doing something that appeared to be controversial just for controversy’s sake or plain foolish.

My answer then about Driscoll’s ministry is pretty close to my current take on Real Marriage: taken on the whole it’s largely a good thing.  Yes, there are parts I’m uncomfortable with.  There are certainly some things that I think are clearly not consistent with scripture (more on that in a bit).  However, most of what I find in Driscoll’s ministry or his latest book is really faithful and helpful Biblical teaching.  When one views Driscoll through they eye Christian charity – namely that none of us get it all right – I’m ultimately very thankful for what Driscoll is doing.  That qualified endorsement obviously doesn’t equate to wholehearted embrace across the spectrum of what Driscoll produces but it also means a wholesale dismissal of Driscoll is a serious case throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

To specifically deal with Real Marriage I’ll say that the criticism coming at Driscoll’s latest book is something I can understand and appreciate.  I cannot imagine any scenario where I would need to discuss specific sex acts from the pulpit.  However, I realize that what I will or will not touch on in the pulpit does not mean that questions like the ones answered in Real Marriage won’t arise among Christians.  (In fairness I should also say that I certainly disagree with the ridiculous idea that reading this book is somewhat akin to drinking out of a toilet.)

The truth of the matter is that not only do these questions arise (dare I say often) as people think through marriage and sex as Christians but also – and this is central to the value of Real Marriage - they will go somewhere for the answer.  In our sex-saturated culture there are no end to sources for answers to questions like “What can a married man and woman do within in the context of their marriage.”  Very few of those sources are intentionally connected to God’s self revelation of Himself.

I was working on this review before Driscoll issued this post on why Real Marriage is taking such heat in Christian circles but he hits on exactly this same issue:

Many Christians, because of upbringing and past church experiences, view sex as gross and something that should not be talked about in public. 

Unfortunately, this view is pervasive in the church. Many couples have honest questions about sex and various sexual acts but struggle to find a pastor willing to teach on these topics.

With nowhere else to turn, these couples find wrong and damaging answers in magazines, television, movies, porn and more.

The practical result is that couples divorce their sex from their spirituality, talking to their pastors about “spiritual” issues and ordering their love life around advice from “secular” sources.

Next time you’re in line at the grocery store, read the headlines on the women’s magazines that are shouting at little kids standing in line with their parents. Our culture has made the wrong answers about sex far easier to find than the church has made the right answers to find.

This book is largely pastoral.  While I bemoan the fact that a lot of people who reach out to this book will be doing so as a means to avoid having these conversations within the context of a local church I am thankful a Biblically-informed voice is available for them to hear.

That isn’t the only reason to commend Real Marriage.  The book does a good job of modeling for readers the necessity of taking every issue of life to the Word of God in order to find God’s revealed will.  It also does a pretty good job of walking readers through how to apply the clear teaching of  scripture to areas of human experience that aren’t explicitly addressed in Scripture.  These are all very good things.

Of course, there is a pervasive form of legalism that sees Christian morality as a line and approaches the subject of ethics from a desire to see just how much wickedness someone can participate in without crossing that line into sin.  That mentality will seize on the “Can We…?” chapter with delight and bend it to sinful ends.  I would argue that rather than accusing the Driscolls of feeding that mentality we should acknowledge that good things can be turned to wicked ends.

The major weakness I see in Real Marriage is directly connected to an element that should be a strength.  The key model for marriage presented by the Driscolls is friendship.  At first blush that is great: marriage is in fact friendship.  It’s just that marriage isn’t only friendship and the Driscolls door a poor job of letting their readers know that.  There is only a passing glance given to Ephesians 5, a text that should be central to any Christian book on marriage.  To leave readers thinking that marriage is just about friendship rather than presenting friendship as one component of the way marriage models for humanity the Christ’s love for His church is to strip marriage of the lion’s share of it’s dignity.  If I can illustrate my point I would say this reduction of marriage to friendship is akin to reducing Jesus to merely a good teacher – calling someone a good teacher is only an insult to someone who is infinitely more than that.  In similar fashion reducing marriage to being mostly about friendship is an insult to an institution that is so much more than that.  This failure to put the beauty of Ephesians 5 in front of its readers is a much more grievous fault on the part of Real Marriage than the “Can we…?” chapter, at least to my mind.

At the end of my book reviews I like to make a recommendation (either to read or stay away) to any who read the review.  Would I recommend Real Marriage? Sure, with some qualifications.  One – anyone who isn’t at least engaged has no need to read this book.  In fact, I would strongly recommend they stay away.  Two – if this will be the first book you’ve read on marriage then I recommend you pass Real Marriage until you read some more foundational treatments of this subject (to be named in just a moment).  Three – if direct talk of a sexual nature will scandalize or offend you  then stay away.

I will still recommend When Sinners Say ‘I Do’ by Dave Harvey as the first book about marriage anyone should read.  The second that should be read is The Meaning of Marriage by Tim Keller.  For most people reading those two titles will make reading Real Marriage superfluous.  However, for those who want to supplement what they’ve read about marriage after reading Harvey and Keller then Real Marriage would be a fine option.

- – - – -

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

One of the ways I try to be intentional with my blog is to refrain from using the content from another blog as the content for one of my posts.

I’m choosing to break that rule twice over but I’ve got a good reason.

John Gardner (over at Honey and Locusts – a blog you will find on my blogroll and should be reading if you aren’t) has linked to and commented on a post by Voddie Baucham on his ministry’s blog and I’m going to appropriate both for this blog.

Tired of reading yet?  Please don’t give up – it will be worth your time.

Both what Baucham and Gardner have written are so directly representative of my thoughts on Dr. Paul as a candidate that I would have written exactly what they did if I was… you know… a better writer.  I’m hopeful that when you read the excerpts you will be motivated to read the rest of what both men composed.

What Gardner Wrote…

…Baucham has written one of the most balanced, logical, and well-articulated examinations of Ron Paul’s political platform from a Christian perspective that I’ve seen. It’s the sort of thing I’d love to have written myself, as it captures very well many of my own thoughts, right down to the fact that he’s not my “perfect candidate”, and there are some things about his positions (and Libertarianism in general) that make me a little uncomfortable. Still, as Baucham writes, “I want a man whose decisions are predictable because of a long track record of constitutional conservatism. I may not always agree with a man like that, but I will always know why he did what he did, and I can live with that.“

…About What Voddie Wrote

…I support Dr. Paul because he has been a consistent conservative. He has been married to the same woman for more than fifty years; delivered over 4,000 babies as an OB; never performed a single abortion; has never voted for an unbalanced budget, a tax increase, or a bailout; forecasted the economic debacle long before it happened; and gave back $140,000 last year through his office to pay down the national debt (100,000 in 2010). This man is so principled that he refuses to claim his congressional pension!

Ron Paul is the real deal. He is not perfect. He needs a savior just like you and I do (as noted by his trust in Christ as his redeemer). But when it’s all said and done, he is a man with whom I agree in principle. I know where he’s coming from, and it’s not based on his “personal story,” or his sense of what’s going to get him elected. It’s the same thing he’s been running on (and governing from) for over three decades; the Constitution of the United States (viewed through the lens of a basic biblical world and life view). And I’m glad to support a man like that.

I honestly feel intimidated sitting down to review Desiring God by John Piper.  I am convinced there is no more powerful presentation of the correct paradigm for understanding the Christian life than the one laid out by Piper in this book.  As such I’ve been recommending the work for years to anyone who would listen.  I truly believe it is must read in a way few other books are.  Of course the value of this book falls short of the value of reading Scripture.  I wouldn’t want to be unclear about that.  However, the value of Desiring God is seen in the way in which it guides it’s reader to understand the framework of Scripture as pertains to what God desires from and for those who He created.

I don’t know that I felt the same weight of impact Piper felt when I became convinced that God had created me for the express purpose of enjoying Him but I certainly understand the idea.  Having been reared in the Evangelical world I was certainly convinced that God loved me and was infinitely worthy of being loved.  However, I thought that honoring God meant obeying Him for His pleasure.  To see from Scripture that God was intending that I reap pleasure from what brought Him pleasure was revolutionary to my mind, so revolutionary it felt like a smaller conversion. This new edition of Desiring God (the 25th Anniversary Reference Edition) has features that make it worthwhile to pick up even if you (like I) have a copy of the previous edition.  One, it’s a good reason to give the old copy to someone who hasn’t read it.  Two, there is a new chapter on suffering that Piper wisely presents as necessary to establishing the merits of Christian Hedonism.  Can Christian Hedonism withstand the furnace of suffering?  The new chapter on suffering gives convincing proof that it can in fact.  This is little surprise, considering that Christian Hedonism is so thoroughly wedding to the truth of God’s self-revelation.  A smaller change is the switch from using the New International Version to the English Standard Version for Scripture citations.  The ESV exceeds the NIV in integrity and distances Desiring God from the drift from Orthodoxy being seen in Zondervan.  There is one more change in this new edition of Desiring God that I’m excited about and which constitutes the third reason you should consider picking up a new copy of this work.

I hate to go total book nerd but I couldn’t be happier that the citation style in Desiring God has moved from endnotes to footnotes.  I’m the kind of reader that wants to read the citations and explanatory notes.  Doing so with endnotes detracts greatly from the experience of reading a book, particularly a paperback that doesn’t lay open flatly.  Using endnotes leaves you with one finger where you are reading and another where the notes are for the section you are reading – the whole process is an unnecessary exercise in finger gymnastics.  I’ve said for years that an author who makes use of endnotes doesn’t want his reader to actually read his notes.  Having now read through this text which I have loved so much with the explanatory notes readily accessible at the bottom of the page I feel like I’ve read a substantially different and improved version.[1]  The footnotes give significant additional depth to Piper’s main text that I really regret not having been more diligent to read the endnotes before.

So do I recommend this book to you as a reader?  Absolutely, in the highest degree, and without reservation.  If that reads like cheerleading to you I freely admit it is.  However, it is cheerleading based on what I believe to be the objective value of this book.  I truly believe every Christian ought to read it and that scores of non-Christians would benefit from it as well in that after reading it they would have at least the opportunity to reject the most compelling vision of Christianity I’ve encountered.  By all means get this book.  In fact, get two.  Give one to a friend and read it together.

In her pamphlet Strong Meat (in which her famous trace The Dogma is the Drama is found) Dorothy Sayers gives her summary of the state of doctrinal education amongst her “young friends” in Christendom.  Reading it leaves one under the impression that the spiritual climate in World War II-era Britain was, at best, frighteningly similar to our own day or, at worst, perhaps just a bit better in that doctrinal truth was still part of the Christian ecosystem.

Judging by what my young friends tell me and also by what is said on the subject in anti-Christian literature written by people who ought to have taken a little trouble to find out what they are attacking before attacking it, I have come to the conclusion that a short examination paper on the Christian religion might be very generally answered as follows:

Q.: What does the Church think of God the Father?

A.: He is omnipotent and holy. He created the world and imposed on man conditions impossible of fulfilment; He is very angry if these are not carried out. He sometimes interferes by means of arbitrary judgments and miracles, distributed with a good deal of favouritism. He likes to be truckled to and is always ready to pounce on anybody who trips up over a difficulty in the Law, or is having a bit of fun. He is rather like a Dictator, only larger and more arbitrary.

Q.: What does the Church think of God the Son?

A.: He is in some way to be identified with Jesus of Nazareth. It was not His fault that the world was made like this, and, unlike God the Father, He is friendly to man and did His best to reconcile man to God (see Atonement). He has a good deal of influence with God, and if you want anything done, it is best to apply to Him.

Q.: What does the Church think of God the Holy Ghost?

A.: I don’t know exactly. He was never seen or heard of till Whit-Sunday. There is a sin against Him which damns you for ever, but nobody knows what it is.

Q.: What is the doctrine of the Trinity?

A.: ”The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the whole thing incomprehensible.” Something put in by theologians to make it more difficult—nothing to do with daily life or ethics.

Q.: What was Jesus Christ like in real life?

A.: He was a good man—so good as to be called the Son of God. He is to be identified in some way with God the Son (q.v.). He was meek and mild and preached a simple religion of love and pacifism. He had no sense of humour. Anything in the Bible that suggests another side to His character must be an interpolation, or a paradox invented by G. K. Chesterton. If we try to live like Him, God the Father will let us off being damned hereafter and only have us tortured in this life instead.

Q.: What is meant by the Atonement?

A.: God wanted to damn everybody, but His vindictive sadism was sated by the crucifixion of His own Son, who was quite innocent, and therefore a particularly attractive victim. He now only damns people who don’t follow Christ or who never heard of Him.

Q.: What does the Church think of sex?

A.: God made it necessary to the machinery of the world, and tolerates it, provided the parties (a) are married, and (b) get no pleasure out of it.

Q.: What does the Church call Sin?

A.: Sex (otherwise than as excepted above); getting drunk; saying “damn”; murder, and cruelty to dumb animals; not going to church; most kinds of amusement. “Original sin” means that anything we enjoy doing is wrong.

Q.: What is faith?

A.: Resolutely shutting your eyes to scientific fact.

Q.: What is the human intellect?

A.: A barrier to faith.

Q.: What are the seven Christian virtues?

A.: Respectability; childishness; mental timidity; dulness; sentimentality; censoriousness; and depression of spirits.

Q.: Wilt thou be baptised in this faith?

A.: No fear!

I understand the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement to be the foundation of the good news of the message of Christianity.  As such it is of chief importance that God’s people understand this doctrine and be able to articulate it in an understandable way.  Here’s my best attempt to model how we should think and speak about this crucial doctrine.

Scripture teaches that Man is created in the image of God for the purpose of glorifying his Creator.  Part of this obligation to glorify involves a moral responsibility that reflects the ultimate moral goodness found in God.  Therefore any person who attempts to be intentional about this obligation to glorify God (i.e. Christians) seeks to live life in such a way that one’s personal morality reflects what God has revealed about Himself morally in Scripture.

The problem then is the failure to live up to that standard.  It’s been said that the only Christian doctrine that can be proved empirically is the doctrine of man’s depravity which states that men have a inherit tendency to rebel against the morally perfect God through immorality.

God the morally perfect is also gracious and unwilling to have His original purpose for man thwarted by their rebellion.  Therefore His crafted a plan where His perfect morality isn’t compromised by failing to punish this rebellion against Him known as sin yet He is able to have for Himself a morally pure people which glorify Him.

The answer is Jesus as the perfect man.  To summarize the Biblical understanding of Jesus Christians use the term sinless (see Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22 for textual examples) and righteous (see Matthew 3:14-15). This means that not only did Christ never rebel against God but in fact always did everything that God required perfectly.  Christ, in this sense, fulfilled all righteousness.

However, rather than reaping the benefit of such an exemplary life Christ willingly took the punishment that was earned by the rebelliousness of everyone else.  The perfectly sinless and righteous was treated (willingly) by God as if He had committed every sin, every act of rebellion against God, that humanity had generated (or will generate) in history.

There is thus a great swapping of accounts (to borrow a banking concept); the one who earned all reward from God through His personal righteousness was punished as if He had committed all the rebellion of mankind.  The other side of this swap is that those people who actually had been rebellious (Christians, defined here as those whom God recognizes as His people through their faith in Jesus) are treated as if they had lived the perfectly righteous life of Jesus. That is why Christianity speaks of a substitute who atoned (or covered over) sin.  You can see this whole concept encapsulated in 2 Corinthians 5:21.

The good doctor Luke’s writing is absolutely saturated by the miraculous work of God through the Spirit in the Son of God.  This Trinitarian view of history should shape our own view of history.

However, Luke’s writings have been blamed for much of the confusion we see in our day regarding the role of the Spirit in God’s activity among His people.  Paying close attention to Luke should help us dispel much of the fog around what has been called the Charismatic Gifting of the Spirit.

One example of this is the phrase filled with the Spirit.  When you hear that you might think of Acts 2:4 – “…they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.”   I don’t have to tell you that this text has been used to justify the idea that the sign of the filling by the Spirit is speaking in tongues.

One of the most significant problems with that position is that it fails to keep in mind that Acts was written under the assumption that its readers would have read Luke first.  Luke introduces the concept of being filled with the Spirit long before we get to the 2^nd chapter of Acts.  Luke actually brings the phrase to his reader in the first two chapters of his gospel (1:41-42 and 67-79).  For Luke the activity of the Spirit begins with the proclamation of God’s Word in what we would call preaching.

That being filled with the Spirit results in proclaiming the Word of God in a way understandable to one’s hearers (as is obviously the case with Elizabeth and Zechariah) controls the way we read the Acts text, particularly when Acts 2:4 is read in the context of 5-13.

This reading of Acts in light of Luke also controls the way we read Acts 10:45-46 and 19:6.

To be quite honest I don’t really care about Harry Potter. Note that I didn’t say for but rather about. The distinction is important for me because I feel, as someone who is indifferent to the Harry Potter phenomenon, like a man without a people. I don’t think Potter is an agent of the devil and that leaves me alienated from Evangelical circles but I also don’t find Rowling a particularly compelling writer and that leaves me alienated from just about everyone else.

What I do care deeply about in all things connected to Harry Potter is Jared Moore’s The Harry Potter Bible Study: Enjoying God through the Final Four Harry Potter Movies. Despite my ambivalence to Potter I will enthusiastically recommend this book to any Christian I know. There are two reasons for my exuberance. The first flows from the Christian necessity of engaging the people and culture we live alongside. The second (and most important) is the skillful and approachable way this book models engaging media as a Christian.

In his article on the cultural relevance of Harry Potter author John Granger calls the Harry Potter saga “the shared text of our time.” Much as I might bemoan that reality I confess that Granger is correct; exceeding 400 million in sales ensures cultural relevance and near complete cultural saturation. As such the church must be prepared to discuss the Potter series in an intelligent and engaging fashion (or, you know, in any way other than screaming HARRY POTTER IS OF THE DEVIL!!! and running away). The Harry Potter Bible Study will guide its reader in doing just that very thing. Moore manages to respectfully interact with the Potter narrative while not glossing over its faults. This is a rare example of dealing with a controversial topic by providing more light instead of just more heat.

The lasting value of this study transcends cultural engagement, as important as that task is. The reason I would recommend this book to any Christian is that it does such a great job of leading the reader through the process of evaluating media from a Christian worldview. I am one who advocates appropriately interacting with media as a means of speaking truth to culture from within culture. Said another way, I believe we have an obligation to use the truth built into fallen culture by the Creator to lead those around us to the saving truth of God’s revelation. Engaging media and making use of what gold we find there is the closest most of us can come to what Paul does in Titus 1:12 and Acts 17.

The sad reality is that while the world “worldview” has become very familiar in our churches we Christians don’t tend to do much close-range viewing of the world. Avoidance is still carrying the day and that mentality contributes to the unhealthy ghettoizing of the church. We have received much in terms of worldview instruction. We greatly need more modeling on how to employ our instruction and Moore’s book gives just that.

You should get this book. In fact, you should get this book, get the last four Harry Potter movies, and work through them. Once you do that you should work through the material with your family and (*gasp) maybe even people in your church. That kind of study will inculcate within you the habit of doing what Moore models with every message you receive via media, be it text, film, music, art, or speech. I don’t so much care that anyone become a more skillful Potter expert or critic. I do care that the church become better able to think Christianly about the world around us and use that ability to present the gospel in a compellingly truthful fashion. Moore will help you do that. No, you won’t agree with every conclusion he draws. That isn’t the point. You’ll learn how to draw Biblically informed conclusions for yourself and employ that knowledge in the cause of the Kingdom.

Like I said: Get this book.

This work functions as a readable introduction to an important figure in history which informs without overwhelming. This issue alone justifies the publication of the title and the time it takes to read the work. The author does a good job of introducing the important ideas and personalities that shaped the intellectual world Galileo existed in. While the interested reader might wish for a lengthier treatment in this section the purposes of the work limit the attention that can be paid. However, fertile seeds for further reading are planted. The biography proceeds to paint a picture of Galileo as a devout man who was both firmly a product of his time and yet able to see beyond it in order to shape the future. I recommend this book for anyone wanting an introduction to this important figure, particularly if one wants to develop a taste for Galileo studies that go beyond this title. I believe the work would be appropriate for younger high school students and above.

Disclosure: I received this title as part of Thomas Nelson’s review solicitation program.

*Whew*

Long-time-no-blog.

I’m back because in the process of resigning from the church I pastor I’ve left behind a candidate for ordination. He has the natural giftedness for ministry but needs theological training and development. I encouraged the church to pursue his ordination and encourage the next pastor to work with him toward that end. Not knowing how long the process of finding another pastor would take I decided to leave him a reading list to work through. I believe these books will provide a good foundation for entering the ordination process and thought the list might be useful (even if just for discussion) to other people.

Here’s what I left him (with links to purchase the titles if anyone is interested).

General Christianity
What Is the Gospel? by Greg Gilbert (Aids one in thinking intentionally about the Gospel)

The Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul (A great introduction to the God of the Bible)

Ashamed of the Gospel by John Macarthur

Tell the Truth by Will Metzger (Absolutely the best book I’ve ever read on evangelism).

Desiring God by John Piper (This book presents the most compelling vision of the Christian life I’ve encountered).

Nine Marks of a Healthy Church by Mark Dever (A primer on Ecclesiology and the importance of the local church)

Theology

Know the Truth by Bruce Milne (A concise yet thorough introduction to Christian theology).

Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem or Christian Theology by Millard Erickson (Grudem’s is a bit more accessible, Erickson’s is a bit more thorough; take your pick or get both )

Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey (this book is probably the thickest in terms of what it asks of you as a reader. However, don’t skip it – other than the Bible it’s the most profitable book I’ve ever read)

Understanding, Teaching, and Preaching the Bible

Grasping God’s Word by J. Scott Duval and J. Daniel Hays (Will help you study the Bible better).

Preaching: How to Preach Biblically by John Macarthur (Will help you preach the Bible better).

Christ Centered Preaching by Bryan Chapell (Will help you preach the Bible better expositorily)

Ministry as Vocation

Brothers We Are Not Professionals by John Piper (I picked this one because I believe Piper has the right perspective on how to view ministry as a minister).

The Reformed Pastor – Richard Baxter (Probably the best book on pastoring ever written, save the Pastoral epistles. Baxter was a Puritan and by “Reformed” he means “Converted”)

Lectures to my Students – Charles Spurgeon (Spurgeon has a great perspective from a different era and you’ll appreciate his saltiness)

Pastoral Issues

Overcoming Sin and Temptation by John Owen (Best thing I’ve read on sin and sanctification)

The Trellis and the Vine by Colin Marshall (Text on how we build ministry models in a way faithful to Scripture)

The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love: Reintroducing the Doctrines of Church Membership and Discipline – Jonathan Leeman (The subtitle says it all)

Worship: The Regulative Principle and the Biblical Principle of Accommodation – By Ernest Reisinger & D. Matthew Allen (An argument for worshiping in a manner consistent with God’s revelation)

Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley (A good primer/introduction to Church History).

Grounded in the Gospel: Building Believers the Old-Fashioned Way – J. I. Packer

Extras

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/ (This is a podcast that’s just chock full of helpful material; comes in 30 minute doses).

http://www.monergism.com/ (Resources galore on virtually any issue)

Question: Is it morally acceptable for Christians to celebrate the death of Osama Bin Laden?

My answer:

Let’s all first acknowledge that any human being spending eternity in Hell is absolutely awful (so awful in fact we continue to see “theologians” attempt to rework Christian revelation so that they can believe no human actually ends up in hell).  Nonetheless Hell is a creation of God and like everything else He created it is morally good.  As we all know Hell serves God’s just nature – His rebellious (and thus wicked) creations, be they angels or humans, meet their just end in this place.  Christians, following God’s lead, never rejoice in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23; 33;11). However, when the wicked are punished for their wickedness by the God they opposed we conclude that God is good and just to punish them as they deserve (noting that the redeemed deserve this eternity as well, rejoicing that Christ has born our deserved punishment for us – Galatians 3:10-14).

Where Usama (Osama?) Bin Laden [hereafter OBL] is concerned it is clear that he is solely responsible for his eternity because of his actions (both in acquiring a sin debt and provoking the government – given the sword by God for the punishment of evil (Romans 13:1-5) – that ended his life).  In fact he was vigorously committed to that fate because of his religious rebellion against God and zealous promotion of that false faith’s agenda which he repeatedly enforced through sinful tactics such as the murder of innocent human beings.  

I say all that to say I have a hard time being sympathetic when this is clearly the intentionally chosen course of his life.  I’m actually more upset about the woman they used as a human shield; she (to my mind) likely suffered the same eternal fate but humanly speaking is less culpable for the course of her life and the way it ended because of the culture she lived in, a culture shaped largely by men like OBL.  

Again, I do acknowledge that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.  However, it is not uncommon for God to call for the heads of wicked men (and women; like Jezebel – 2 Kings 9:1-10) and for the people of God to rejoice at their death (like in the life of David or perhaps in the book of Esther regarding Haman).  While OBL certainly wasn’t a religious enemy on par with what we see in scripture he certainly was a thoroughly evil man who set his own fate (humanly speaking) by the chosen course of his life.  I feel comfortable as one who loves life, peace, and justice saying it was a good thing that OBL was taken out.  

Yes, it would have been far better for him to convert (2 Peter 3:9) but his stubborn refusal to do so leaves this the best available alternative.  As a result I believe my Biblically informed Christian conscience is free to see OBL’s death as God’s good gift of justice in a morally warped world as well as His commitment to preserving human life.