Friday, June 09, 2006

Now that Al-Zarqawi is dead. . . . what?


No doubt it is a good thing that Al-Zarqawi has been killed. He was a truly wicked man whose obsessions with jihad could not allow him to make discriminating judgements between warriors and civilians or between enemies and innocents. In his mind (and I assume in the minds of all those who embrace radical Islamist ideology) all those who are not for you are against you. Just consider his efforts and successes at killing non-Sunni Muslims.

He has been called evil by many; and no doubt he was. But, even as that description is applied to him we might stop and ask ourselves the question: What does that mean?

The Christian theological tradition has been consistent (with some popularized exceptions) in its insistence that evil is not an actual principle in and of itself. Rather, evil in the Christian tradition has been understood as a distortion and perversion of the Good. (If one believes the biblical witness that God made all things and at the end called them "very good," then he can see how evil could not be thought of as an actual entity or principle in itself. It is, in the words of a baptist friend of mine, always parasitic.)

This theological conviction, applied to the likes of Al-Zarqawi, would lead, I think, to the affirmation that the hideous wickedness that he became was the result of perverting some other impulses that he might have had that might have been, if ordered differently, good. For instance, if he really wanted to bring glory to God, what if that passion had been directed by discipleship after Jesus Christ, seeking to follow his example? Or similarly, if he was truly interested in the integrity of Arab culture, what if he had fought for the best expressions of equality that one can find in Muslim ethics? (Remember, many of those who are working feverishly to rebuild Iraq now are devout Muslims, such as the police officers who risk their lives daily.)

But, tragically and horrifically his passions were misdirected. And he became evil! His life became a perversion of that for which God had made it. Instead of serving humanity he attacked it, because he did not think all were worthy of God's love and mercy. His ideology drove him to distort the image of God within him. And all his sins (his ideological transgressions and his muderous acts) were so serious in the eyes of God that Jesus took in his own body on the Cross. And he shall be judged by the very one who bore his iniquities. At his judgement the nature of reality was (or shall be, I don't pretend to know exactly how it all works) was revealed to him. No doubt, in the light of Jesus Christ an explosion of truth about himself took place that causes the two five hundred pound bombs to seem silent.

So, what should the Christian response to all this be? Well, of course, gladness that a terrible threat to innocent human beings has been ended, for a world filled with threats is a fallen world. Certainly we should have a sense of just deserts (one does reap what he sows), for a world without justice would be torment. But, as well, we should be saddened that a life for which Christ died was so, so marred, to the point that his eyes could reflect the very character of the devil. A world that lacks the grace to see the pitiable even in the most deserving of death is Hell.

Perhaps we ought to take a cue from J.R.R. Tolkein, who has Frodo in Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings," looks at the disgusting and dispicable Gollum and be both repulsed by his evil and filled with pity that a creature not meant for that end might come to that. Acknowledging the terribleness of sin and the necessity of it being judged and feeling sorrow for the one whose soul is lost, that is the way of Christ.

"Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly" (Revelation 22:20).

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

When I hear your description of Al-Zarqawi I think to myself... that's his dogma... that's the God he has chosen to worship. What a terrible personal anguish to be bound to an angry, wrathful God who seeks to punish all humankind through terrorism. His God has demonic qualities, and some would say Zarqawi did also.

The entire time I listened to the reporting on Al-Zarqawi's assassination, I could only think of Spielburg's newest film "Munich" which documents Israel's response the Palestinian terrorists who murdered their athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. The film questions whether the apporpriate response to terrorist violence is the further use of violence. But while it questions such a response, if offers no alternative. And to ignore violence and overlook terrorism is to permit an unjust soceity to emerge. It's a moral paradox. But I agree with you that Tolkien may provide the best response.