March 16, 2009

Response to a Libertarian Christian who is opposed to Christian Self-defense

I have not, to my knowledge, ever discussed this or anything with this writer. I do not know his denominational affiliation, if any, or whether he would consider having fellowship with me as a christian.

As a New Testament Christian - that is, someone who believes that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and our only authority for all matters of life and religion, and that human tradition and creeds are to be rejected - I have long studied the Scriptures regarding what rights I have, and what obligations I have, as a follower of Christ Jesus, regarding the bearing of arms, self-defense, military service, and other related matters. I do not agree with the way this man understands and interprets the Scriptures, but that does not mean that I hate him, or believe that he is wrong in anything (or everything) he believes.

It is my object in responding, to challenge his opinions for the benefit of others, to exhort him to change his opinion, and to change any unscriptural beliefs he may hold which underlay his opinion on this very important topic. For purposes of clarity, I have broken some of his paragraphs and sentences into parts as I address the various issues.

Let me first state that I am completely opposed to all forms of gun control. The State itself doesn’t even have a rightful existence, in my view, so it certainly doesn’t have the right to control weaponry of any kind.

I believe that we can agree on these two topics. The State, in particular, exists in rebellion to God and in violation of numerous specific commands and even more inferences in Scripture.

However, from an ethical standpoint, I must take issue with the (very common) assertion that Christians have a God-sanctioned right to self-defense. Admittedly, we all have different exegetical approaches to Scripture, but my own view of the matter is that we must start with Christ’s explicit commands and then ensure that our understanding of the rest of Scripture is consistent with the message of Christ during his earthly ministry.

I certainly agree with the writer in his view of Scripture. Explicit commands by the Savior are the basis, but we must also include explicit commands as made by the writers of the New Testament (NT), which we can and must assume are consistent with Christ's teachings, not only during His earthly ministry but also as recorded by John and others as given later through revelation (such as Revelation).

But we are also obligated to obey the inferences and silences of the commands He and the NT writers have given us: the writers of the books of the NT were speaking by and with the Lord's authority. I suspect that the writer and I might share a concern over those who treat commandments of the Old Testament as binding on Christians today. However, it is important to point out that not ALL Jesus' commands apply to us: for example, His command to Judas at the Last Supper (John 13:27: "What you're doing, do quickly.") is not to be followed by us today. Nor is His command in Matthew 16:20 to tell no one He is the Messiah.

Furthermore, we must also be careful to follow Christ’s own example, as he consistently commanded us to be like him. Given that, I cannot reconcile self-defense, or the violent defense of one’s property or family with the New Testament:

It is indeed important to follow the Lord's example, as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11:1: 1 Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ. Peter elaborated on this in 1 Peter 2:21: For you were called to this, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in His steps. It is clear that we are to imitate Him, to follow His example.

But there are many things that Jesus Christ did that we cannot or should not do - our imitation of Him is NOT the imitation of a mime or slave; and most important, WE are not God. We cannot heal as He did, we cannot forgive a person's sins as He did (we are to forgive those who trespass against us, but this is obviously different from Jesus' power to forgive sins as He exhibited in the Gospels). We cannot call down legions of angels to our defense, and we certainly cannot give commands as He did. We do not (intentionally) imitate Him in having no home (Matthew 8:20), nor are we commanded to do so. And we (for the most part, at least) do not imitate Jesus' celibacy, a matter as important as violence. It is in this area that the writer's exegesis fails.

1. In spite of the vague reference to the purchase of a sword in Luke 22, there is absolutely no command by Jesus ever to commit an act of violence, under any circumstance.

I must take exception to the writer's claim that this is a "vague reference." Far from it, as a casual reading shows, 35 "And He said to them, 'When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?' So they said, 'Nothing.' 36 Then He said to them, 'But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me, ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end. 38 So they said, 'Lord, look, here are two swords.' And He said to them, 'It is enough.'”

It is a very specific reference to swords. And it is, indeed (in light of the writer's first comment), a very specific command: "he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." No, this is not a command by Jesus to commit an act of violence, but it is a command by Him to be prepared for an act of violence.

It is reasonable to assume what Jesus only implies, as well: the sword does not go up on the mantle, but is to be carried while traveling and teaching. Just like the money bag and the knapsack, it is a tool with a specific purpose. The fact that it is grouped with these is also an indication that the sword was not just to be "displayed" but to be used as necessary. While buying a sword is not a violent act, it certainly is a defense, even a passive defense against a violent act, a deterrent. And while using a sword may be an act of violence, it is indeed possible to commit a violent act without a sword, and to use a sword without committing an act of violence.

We should be asking two questions here: first, is carrying a sword only to be a passive defense? And second, is this a general command or a command that only applied to the apostles or at that time and place? The first needs consideration of more Scripture to answer. The second is answered in this immediate context. I believe this command applies to all of the followers of Christ, based on the requirement to travel as a prepared person would, and not as a penniless, hapless beggar. They need money, pack (presumably not empty), and weapon. And the command is stated in third person: not "let you" but "let he" buy one. If this command does not apply to all disciples, then how can the command of Matthew 28:19-20 apply to us today?

2. Jesus himself never commits an act of violence. (Turning over the tables of the money changers did not cause any physical harm to anybody, and it did not result in the loss of property, so it cannot be properly termed violence.)

I would disagree in three ways with this.

First, overturning the tables IS an act of violence, and if it had been done anyplace else, by anyone else, it would be an act of aggression as well. (Indeed, this emphasizes that our following Christ's example is not to be an exact imitation: in the days or in those places where a church building is used as a market. It would be wrong for a follower of Christ to go in and do what Christ himself did that day.)

Secondly, the Lord did this at least twice; one time, at least, He used a whip (John 2:15). It is highly unlikely that the actual moneychangers and sellers did not attempt to protect their property (money and livestock) or were not whipped by the Lord as they did so. And would not such be remarked on in the text if He did avoid such injury?

Third, it is highly unlikely that there was no loss of property. Coins falling into cobbles or cracks in stone floors, tables breaking when overturned, opportunists grabbing someone else's money or beasts; and doves escaping to the air all amount to property lost. If the New Testament writers recorded how many baskets of leftovers would be collected after the miracle of the loaves and fishes, would they fail to report such?

I know of no other record of Jesus defending himself or doing violence to anyone, but He certainly stated that He had a right to do so, in self-defense. Indeed, He said that just a few hours later, in the Garden: Matthew 26: 52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" We will look at this incident and His words more later.

3. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ explicitly commands: “You have heard it said ‘an Eye for an Eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you for your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go with him one mile, go with him two miles.” The entire construction of these commands is meant to sound, and be, a radical departure from the hearers’ understanding of these ethical situations. If somebody breaks into your home and points a gun at you, Christ himself said “Do not resist him.” That would seem to include shooting him dead.

Matthew 5:38-41 does indeed make a radical departure from the Old Law (which is what is assumed to be quoted by Jesus; Leviticus 24:19-20) just as the Old Law was a departure from the cycles of revenge that fueled violence in the heathen nations. But it is important to note that Jesus does not quote the whole law in this case: 19 If any man inflicts a permanent injury on his neighbor, whatever he has done is to be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Whatever injury he inflicted on the person, the same is to be inflicted on him. (A) 21 Whoever kills an animal is to make restitution for it, but whoever kills a person is to be put to death.

There are several ways to view this: first, note that Jesus did not say "it is written" as He usually did when quoting the Old Testament law. Some scholars believe that Jesus is addressing a common twisting of the Old Law (one still practiced today) used to justify tit-for-tat vengeance, in every aspect of life, and NOT the reasoned judgment of law which is so obvious in Leviticus. Men had twisted the law into a tradition of their own, just as they had in many other circumstances. Jesus condemned this as wrong. To put it in a more modern vernacular, "don't sweat the small stuff." The law was specifically addressing "permanent injury," but none of the three examples Jesus gives are permanent injuries. And also note that Jesus did NOT repudiate the whole law. Should He not have specifically condemned even the death penalty? Yet later in Romans chapter 13, the death penalty is specifically authorized (or so it is usually understood). Second, these are very minor offenses indeed to be ignored for the sake of peace and, indeed, of the Gospel. If someone insults us, we naturally want to respond - but for the sake of peace and to demonstrate our love for them and for the Lord, we refrain from what would be "normal."

The other way to look at this is a basic principle of Christian living: proportionality. Our response to anything is to be proportional, not just to the insult or injury offered, but to the real significance of the injury or insult. If we are truly focused on serving the Lord, we will not allow really trivial matters to interfere with our mission or indeed or relations to other people. But that does NOT, based solely on this passage, extend to outright physical injury, much less submission to likely death UNLESS the death will result in greater good, overall. Indeed, Jesus Himself was applying this principle there in the Garden when He told Peter to put up his sword - it was more important that He be arrested than that He be defended. (This does not make Peter's defense of Him with the sword evil - just not the right thing to do at that time.)

And the passage certainly does NOT, despite the writer's claim, say anything at all about a home invader THREATENING you. This might apply to a pickpocket or a bullying police officer, but the circumstances are very different. The writer's interpretation conflicts directly with another passage, indeed: Luke 11:21-22: 21 "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his estate, his possessions are secure. 22 But when one stronger than he attacks and overpowers him, he takes from him all his weapons he trusted in, and divides up his plunder." There is no condemnation of the "strong man" for his defense, either here or in the parallel passages (Matthew 12:29, Mark 3: 27). Jesus seems to approve of the strong man defending himself AND his property.

Finally, please note Jesus' command: "Do not resist an evil person." (Sometimes translated "resist not evil.") This cannot be an absolute command, for then we would be absolute slaves to ANY evil person who cared to order us about. (And temptation would find no resistance in us, either!) If this is an absolute command, then not only would we carry the occupation soldier's pack an extra mile, but we would do anything he demands of us, at least as long as it was not a directly evil thing. (This is a favorite mainline religious pastime, of course, and the way they view Romans 13: do whatever the evil man says IF he is a government official, provided it is not a DIRECT violation of God's law.) If we indeed are not to "resist evil" then Jesus Himself sinned by escaping from a mob (John 8:59). Resistance by sneaking away is still resistance. (Add Peter, Paul, and others to the list, also.) This argument is self-contradictory.

Furthermore, if somebody breaks into your house with a gun, how do you know they intend to shoot you? They might be using it only for intimidation. Then, if you shot him, your response would be incommensurate with the crime. Given that you cannot discern the intentions of the invader, “better safe than sorry” in this circumstance would seem to push us to err on the side of being consistent with Jesus’s teaching, rather than on the side of killing another person.

The writer raises important points here - as I recognize in discussing proportionality, or as he says, whether it is commensurate to the crime (or rather, threat). This is an important issue as recognized in the Old Law (using the Old Law as a teacher, and NOT as authoritative): the householder who responded to a break-in with force in time of darkness was given more latitude than responding to a daylight break-in.

However, it is a straw-man argument. If God gives us the right to defend our home (Luke 11:21, quoted above), then there is no "better safe than sorry" question that needs to be addressed. Not being able to read the mind of a person threatening you, there is no way to divine his true intentions - in ANY circumstances and not just a house invasion. Our actions must be based on OUR intentions and judgment and knowledge (even if incomplete), not the other person's. Yes, the Christian MUST be sure that as much as lies within us, we do as Paul wrote (Romans 12:18): "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." Someone should not be killed for breaking into a home, even at night; it might be unfair. But then, someone should not be killed for accidentally misjudging and crossing two painted yellow lines on a roadway - but it happens.

Finally, this idea of "better safety than sorry" and consistency seems to assume that Jesus' commands in this case are for the benefit of the evildoer and NOT for the benefit of His follower. That is a strange concept, and clearly NOT consistent with Jesus' teaching. The reason to avoid conflict over minor things and to avoid vengeance (the way in which the passage is used) is for OUR greater benefit as His followers, to avoid distractions by trivial things.

Obviously, a Christian should be reluctant to take life, or initiate an action that might result in taking a life (most home invasions ended by the homeowner's gun do not result in death, after all - and many do not result even in shots being fired). But if it is a choice of shedding blood or, through our inaction, allowing innocent blood to be shed WHEN THERE IS NOT A GREATER GOOD to result from it, for which are we more likely to be held accountable by God?

One might argue that protecting one’s family is different than protecting oneself. “You may shoot me, but if you hurt my wife I will kill you.” This would seem to be inconsistent with Christ’s difficult saying: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” When asked to choose between our family or Jesus, we must pick Jesus.

This argument is not only circular, it is distasteful and ugly. This argument can in no way be reconciled with, for example, 1 Timothy 5:8: "Now if anyone does not provide for his own relatives, and especially for his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." Is this passage saying that it is wrong to refuse to feed your children, but okay to let someone else keep you from feeding your children? Or okay for you to, by inaction, let someone KILL your children? Luke 14:26 is indeed a "difficult saying" but the writer twists it badly - his argument would indeed conflict even with Jesus' basic restatement of the Law: to love God and to love others as ourselves. The writer's interpretation assumes that his original assumption about Jesus' prohibition on violence, even in self-defense, is valid; if the later is not valid, the former cannot be either. Yes, we must choose Jesus over all humans, but this complete abjuration (whether or not they are believers) is not demanded of us. Indeed, it is because we choose Jesus that we defend ("provide for") our family. "Love the Lord your God... love your neighbor as yourself" includes families.

4. In St. Matthew’s account of Christ’s arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, when Peter actually drew his sword and cut off the ear of one of the servants of the High Priest, Christ responded, saying “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword die by the sword.” St. Luke’s account has Christ saying “None of this!” in response to Peter’s act of violence.

We have already looked briefly at this passage (Matthew 26: 51-54): 51 "At that moment one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword. He struck the high priest's slave and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus told him, 'Put your sword back in place because all who take up a sword will perish by a sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot call on My Father, and He will provide Me at once with more than 12 legions of angels? 54 How, then, would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen this way?'"

So first off, it appears that the writer is subtly misquoting Scripture, as can be seen in Luke 22:50-53, John 18:10-11, and Mark 14:47. Based on the original Greek and the various English translations (I don't know which the writer is using), it is not the mere action of drawing a sword, but "living by the sword." This may have been more a warning to the soldiers and the Malchus (the servant) than to Peter, as some scholars have pointed out. But the writer fails to explain the primary reason Jesus objected to the action of Peter, which we have already discussed.

It was NECESSARY to the plan of salvation that Jesus be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. Peter, impetuous and loyal (within limits, of course) and stung by Jesus' earlier prophecy, did not understand His priorities. As we discussed earlier, we must distinguish between general commands and commands specific to a person or time. This is clearly a specific command. In virtually the same breath, as we pointed out earlier, Jesus reaffirmed His power (and right) to use angels to defend Him - and explains why that is not what is going to happen. God's plan demanded that Jesus not defend Himself, and not allow the disciples to defend Him.

5. Christ’s arrest, brutal torture, and crucifixion, are to be our ultimate example of how to behave in the face of persecution, petty violence, or any other act against ourself or that which we cherish. We are to forgive those who are perpetrating the violence against us, even as they are doing so. Could Christ have called legions of Angels to save him? Yes, of course. But he didn’t. And we shouldn’t either. Nor should we call on a 9mm slug, either.

Here, the writer is making the same mistake as we've already addressed. We are not the Son of God, the Liberator, Who died to set us free from the law of sin and death. He gave up His life - and while we too may be called upon to give up our lives (as have millions of christians through the last best part of 2,000 years), it is when the Gospel can be proclaimed and Christ glorified - not for the sake of what is in our pockets or our dresser drawer. As I've pointed out earlier, we are not obligated to imitate the Savior in all things; in many we can NOT imitate Him. In the face of persecution is one thing - but there is no sense, no opportunity in most cases, to demonstrate the love of Christ by allowing ourselves or someone else to be injured or killed through inaction. As discussed, more than once Christ did not meekly submit to those who would have stoned Him, killed Him, because the time was not right. See John 8:59 and Luke 4:28-30. The writer would have Jesus surrender to the mobs as He later did to the authorities.

6. There is no support, either in the writings of the Apostles, or in their actions, for a “violent Christian,” even one acting in self-defense. Virtually all of the Apostles were imprisoned at some point in their lives. Most were killed. I do not think that people killing you for your faith are to be treated any differently than people killing you for your money, or even for no reason at all. The complete lack of a record of self-defense in the New Testament means that we have no reason to question the radically non-violent interpretation of Christ’s teachings.

As I have touched on already, there IS a great distinction between being injured or killed for your faith and being injured and killed for your money or a sadist's pleasure or a political struggle. You can and should treat people differently if they are killing you for your faith IF the commands of the Savior - especially to spread the Gospel - are better served by that.

As regards a "complete lack of a record," the writer is wrong, because there IS support for self-defense in the Scriptures. No, the Scriptures do not record that the apostles, or other brethren, took up arms in their own defense. But they DID allow, even encourage and actually conspire to have others take up arms for their personal defense, as that was necessary for them to carry out their mission to spread the Gospel. Morally, there is no difference between committing the violence yourself, and having (or allowing) other people commit the violence (or make the threat of violence) to defend you. You are still responsible for that act.

Paul is the best example of this, and he did so repeatedly, even while other times allowing himself to be beaten and imprisoned and all but killed. In fact, more than once, he used the guards who imprisoned him to be his defense (violence or the threat thereof) against those who sought to kill him. Most egregious of these incidents was his use of the troops summoned by his nephew to defend himself against a mob in Jerusalem. Peter committed a crime by escaping from jail, certainly an act close to violence. If we wish to make some reasonable assumptions, Paul's companions probably committed violence several times in rescuing him from his tormentors. By the writer's arguments, Paul and Peter sinned repeatedly in doing this; allowing or encouraging violence by others to defend them.

Furthermore, we must let the silence of Scripture speak as well. If violence, let alone self-defense, is forbidden to Christians, to followers of Christ Jesus, why did not Jesus or the apostles explain this important doctrine of faith to such people as the Roman centurion whose son was brought back to life, Cornelius and his household, or Paul's prison guards in Rome? Surely this important concept would be clearly stated and expressed. Oh, today, people will argue that not all soldiers use violence and have to physically defend themselves, but in Roman times there were no non-combatants in the ranks.

7. If we are to follow the golden rule, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, then if we should examine the situation of self-defense thusly. If the person is robbing us because he is hungry, we would not want somebody to shoot us if we were in the same position. If we were committing some senseless act of violence, would we not want somebody to tell us, in advance, that we were forgiven? Might that not melt the heart of the perpetrator and thus deliver him from his evil? Would we not want to be treated in the same manner?

It certainly is important to examine ALL we do in the light of God's teachings, and not just the Golden Rule. We probably will come to some different conclusions. Of course, we would not want to be shot doing that - but I would not want (in my right mind) to be compounding my sin of attempting armed robbery by actually completing it. And while there are definitely times when armed robbery has been committed by people to feed themselves or their children, that is vanishingly rare, and certainly no more cause for accepting an erroneous doctrine than the remote possibility that someone could die between confessing Christ and being baptized is a reason to abandon the doctrine of baptism.

The writer also raises yet another strawman. Defending yourself, even with violence, is not a refusal to forgive someone for their offense against us any more than defending yourself is an act of revenge. I see no conflict, for the believer and follower of Christ, in defending yourself against someone and forgiving them at the same time. However, again, the writer makes a common mistake - there is no obligation for the Christian to forgive someone for an offense for which there is no repentance. Jesus' instructions to forgive seventy-times-seven times were applicable to the person who repents of their offense but then re-offends, presumably through weakness. Even Stephen's example was not specifically forgiveness for those who stoned him, but was asking (Acts 7:60), "Lord, do not charge them with this sin."

I am certainly open to others’ thoughts on this subject, and with all theological matters I am working out my faith in “fear and trembling” with the humility to admit that I could be completely wrong. But I do feel that at least as the evidence has been presented to me so far, that the Christian is not right in acting violently in self-defense.

I appreciate the writer's attitude as expressed here, and echo his sentiments. I pray that I did not, in my responses, attack either his faith or his sincerity; I just believe that he is wrong in his conclusions, and his error is caused by certain assumptions and a twisting of Scripture - not that his twisting is intentional or done with malice.

Sadly, we are all to some degree products of our environment, and as converts to christianity, it is often difficult to overcome the early training and sinful habits. To make matters worse, some Christians have been preaching this radical and unscriptural idea of hyper-paficism for literally centuries - often in reaction to the failure of those who only called themselves Christian who were constantly committing violent aggression against others. The Way (Christianity) is ill-served by such, no matter what doctrine is taught, fought, or defended. Christian "pacifism" has been accepted, wrongly, over the centuries just as many other doctrines not found in the Scriptures and antagonistic to the Scriptures have been accepted without justification for centuries.

Nathan Barton is writing this from a wonderful place in the West, which might be in the Black Hills of South Dakota or Wyoming, or might be in one of the Four Corners States. Exactly where it is, the breezes blow with the scent of liberty, and the sound of the pines or the pinions is the sound of freedom. For thousands of years, people have fought and died for the liberty that Americans in the great spaces of the West enjoy, and he writes these commentaries in the hopes that continued generations will be able to do so, until the end of Time. Visit the blog: The Gospel Sower

Archives

"Islamist Terrorism" and the US Role: a response to Ivan Eland

Science and Economics Vs Green (And Other) Nonsense

Bogus Cell Phone Fire Warning Email

Armed and Ready To Defend - The Greater Love

The Inherent Contradiction of Government

A Nigerian Scam

The New Bogeyman: Worldwide Hunger and Biofuels

A Baker's Dozen - Meditations On The Scripture and Our Right To Defend Ourselves

The Russo-Georgian War of 2008 to date: a libertarian view

The Current "Economic Crisis"

Baker's Dozen Reasons To Defeat The Bailout

Now the war begins

Veterans Day, 2008

"The First Hundred Days" - New Tyranny in a Once-Free Union

Running Out of Water?

Barack 'Gun Rights' Obama

Neither Predator Nor Prey

Complete Archives for Nathan Barton