Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Christians and Self-Defense

In light of the recent attacks in Colorado in which innocent persons were viciously gunned down at a Christian gathering, discussions have begun about the morality or righteousness of armed Christians who carry loaded weapons for personal protection "just in case". Far be it from me to judge, but I am left wondering exactly how much suffering we are willing to endure for the cause of Christ. Though I don't carry a weapon, I am as guilty as many others who seek the comforts this world can offer and then reason to myself that the Holy Father has provided for my comfort and well-being. It is, of course, always good and right to give thanks to the Lord for every good thing that comes into our lives, but I sometimes wonder if we can tell the difference between what is good for our mortal bodies but not necessarily so good for our immortal souls.

I met a fellow pastor at our licensing school several years ago who commented that he had a concealed carry permit and was armed most of the time. Though I let it go, I was struck by a disciple's apparent need to trust only in himself and the state in which he was licensed to carry a loaded weapon for his well-being. The perspective changes, of course, when he mentions that he is primarily armed for his family's protection, but does the reality?

While most of us possess an intense desire to protect those we love from harm, I wonder if carrying a loaded weapon is the proper or practical course of action especially if confronted by a lone gunman, or two, bent on taking possessions from us (mugging). What would we have in our possession the value of which could be fairly compared to the inherent value of a human life, even a criminal’s? And lest we forget, we are in this particular scenario confronted by predators who are likely far more experienced in such confrontations than we would ever expect to be. Would pulling a weapon in hopes of being able to out-draw our opponent not put those whom we love, as well as other innocent bystanders, at far greater risk by invoking a gun fight? I'm not sure I know what the correct response might be, but I am relatively certain that those who confront with weapons do not necessarily mean to harm more than to overwhelm and frighten.

Years ago I had a knife put to my throat. I froze. The guy probably had no intentions of actually cutting or killing me, but he did get what he was likely after: fear. I cannot recall exactly what was going through my mind at the time, but I'm pretty sure I didn't want to die and I'm equally sure I agreed to whatever terms were presented to me at the time. I also cannot say that my response was measured or planned, but I am alive today because I did not take an already bad situation and attempt to make it worse. Of course I had regrets later. Of course I wished I had had the presence of mind to react a little more quickly but in any ensuing battle, who is to say that I still would not have been cut or killed? Or worse, who is to say that I would not have been the one to cut or kill had I gotten the upper hand? Would either outcome have been worth the struggle?

”Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). Under such a situation, how would God have been glorified had I fought back? How would God have been glorified had I gotten the upper hand and actually ended that guy's life? Our society might suggest that I had every right – if not a manly obligation - to defend myself, but what will come first? In this particular case, my assailant had complete control - for that moment - over my mortal body. Not a happy memory, of course, but it is true enough. My immortal soul, on the other hand, was still owned by Another whose terms cannot be negotiated. Absent the assailant, what changes? My mortal body is indeed my own, but I have extremely limited control over the acts of another. I can take preventive measures to protect myself but if someone is determined to kill me AND is willing to go to jail or die in the process, there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, I can do to stop it. The ownership of my soul, however, never changed hands.

Peter sought to protect his Friend, and his Friend rebuked him by declaring that we "who {choose} to live by the sword will be destroyed by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Noah received a similar admonishment about the penalty for spilling the blood of another man and offers no conditions (Genesis 9:6). Our own system of justice rejects a "vigilante justice" mentality which would bring nothing but chaos and anarchy. Ours would be such a "dog-eat-dog" society in which terms of survival would be dictated by the “fittest”, leaving the weakest among us vulnerable to the terms of another. It is for the sake of order (1 Peter 2:13-14) that our society demands law enforcement by professionals who are trained extensively and in more areas than what currently presents itself.

Essentially it is that there is only so much we can do to combat evil ... by worldly means. There are, however, other measures we can take such as refusing to respond in kind, “for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head” (Romans 12:20). Repaying evil for evil? What makes our action of self-defense, which is an EQUAL though opposite reaction, righteous or morally correct? How is it that a man with evil intent is about to commit an evil act by ending my life or even the life of one I love, but my act of ending his life in self-defense is somehow not equally evil, even if I could argue that my intent was noble? I cannot control his actions, but I can control my own because I possess the capacity of will to determine my next course of action. By the same token, I will also be held accountable for my own chosen course of action if not in this life, most certainly in the life to come.

I wish it were as simple as I seem to present it. Having such faith in the presence of a direct threat, especially a grave threat against our loved ones, is a tall order for nearly everyone. Peter failed when he was directly challenged, and he physically walked with the Lord and was witness to much we seem to cast doubts upon by our own perverted sense of "progressive" theology. Reasonable minds might suggest that Peter should have suffered absolutely no lingering doubts, yet he obviously did. For some reason when he needed his faith most, he chose to flee. How could this have been, especially when it was he who was prepared to protect Jesus previously (John 18:10)?

”Whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it” (Matthew 16:25). So when we arm ourselves, we are making a statement to the effect that we are in fact willing (and ready!) to shed another's blood in order to "save [our] own life". What does this sort of mind set say about our profession of faith as disciples, or students, of Jesus? We would choose to "trust" Jesus for our eternal salvation, but we won't trust Him to help us across the street? Jesus chose to forego the protection He could have "called down" (Matthew 26:53) thus preserving His own mortal life, but He declined for something greater. Can it be said that such a choice was foreordained, or would it be closer to the truth to suggest that Jesus made a free will choice for the sake of something much greater, an ideal that is completely apart from the expectations of this world?

There are no easy answers for those who live under a cloud of doubt. In a world seemingly gone mad, it is easy for non-believers to wonder aloud where our God is in the midst of such chaos and suffering; it is even easier to live in fear as is evidenced by so many who choose to arm themselves. Christians must be constantly reminded, however, that this is not our Father’s world (Ephesians 2:2) and our battle is not against flesh and bone (2 Corinthians 10:3), “for the weapons of our warfare are not of this world but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-6)

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I do not consider victimization by a criminal predator to be serving Christ. I do consider using whatever means necessary up to and including deadly force to be a just response to such violence. In my opinion, this is best both for ones body and soul.

Everyone will not choose to carry a weapon but everyone should make up their minds as to exactly what they will do with the threat of criminal violence and then be prepared to live with the consequences of that choice.

I will not accept victimization by a criminal and I will not permit a family member or even a perfect stranger to be so victimized when it is in my capacity to stop it.

I would not use deadly force to protect property. Most petty and property crime does not involve violence. If a criminal threatens physical harm or uses a weapon to threaten such harm, that threat must be taken seriously. In such a case deadly force is an entirely appropriate option when one is confronted with the threat of criminal violence. To do otherwise would put ones self and other innocent persons at far greater risk than if one responds to a criminal threat with force. Should I loose my life, it will not be because I surrendered to a criminal. Should he or they loose their lives, it will be because I responded within the law when they chose to act in an illegal criminal manner to threaten myself or other innocent persons.

To decision to refuse to submit to criminal violence does not necessitate that one will take the life of a criminal. Sometimes there is nothing one can do except submit as circumstances preclude any other response. Criminal predators look for victims who are not capable or prepared to respond. One reason a handgun is such an effective choice for self-protection is exactly because regardless of physical stature it allowed anyone man or woman to respond forcefully to stop criminal violence.

Jesus spoke to his situation as the One who would give his life as a ransom for many. None of us will ever face a mob bent on arresting and crucifying us and the command to Noah had nothing to do with an innocent person resisting criminal violence.

Our system of criminal justice is not established to protect but respond to and punish criminal violence. Law enforcement officers are always a 911 call away. They arrive to make reports and gather evidence. Law enforcement can not provide safety to anyone.

Until the lion lies down with the lamb, many persons will have to live with the chaotic threat of criminal violence for regrettably the weakest of society are always vulnerable to the strongest. To be prepared to use force in response to violence is not vigilantism. Almost uniformly our justice system recognizes the right of individuals to use force to protect themselves from such violence.

Paul's urging a merciful response to an enemy applies specifically to our living in the world. It does not in any way address criminal violence.

To use legal force to stop criminal violence is not at all evil. To refuse to be raped, robbed or murdered is not evil. To use legal force to stop such victimization is not evil. Any evil pertains to the person who choses to at in such a criminal manner.

One may engage in all sorts of intellectual gymnastics to resolve a supposed ethical conflict. But in the practical world of everyday life the decision to carry a weapon and the willingness to use that weapon to stop criminal violence is a value judgment. Specifically is to a judgment that when confronted with a mortal threat that necessitates responding with deadly force innocent life is of more value than the life of a criminal. Neither progressive theology nor nobility of action enter into the equation.

That deadly force as a legitimate response to criminal violence is so much debated is a sign of hope. For it demonstrates consideration far beyond that level of superficiality that so often characterizes public debate so-called.

Michael said...

Earl,

I happen to believe that the debate that is currently being engaged is in response to a picqued consciousness as to what would be required of us within the context of what we truly believe about Christ and our place within the Kingdom of Heaven.

All your points are valid ... within worldly concerns and considerations. Yes, you are within the bounds of US and state laws by defending yourself with deadly force, but Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world..."

I accept what you say. I just don't happen to agree with it within the context of what Christ tried to teach us.

Let us both pray that we are never confronted (me, again) with such situations.