Guns, self-defense and Christians

[schoel]

While I would gladly lay down my own life instead of killing an aggressor, I don't think I could choose to sacrifice the life or well-being of my wife or children to an aggressor. To that end, I've been considering purchasing a gun and learning to use it to prepare in case I am faced with that terrible choice.

Your thoughts, opinions and Scripture references on the subject, please.

- Should Christians prepare to defend others or trust that God will take care of whatever He allows?

[TK]

I believe that God instilled in men the desire and need to protect their family. I think this is right and proper, although I am not sure if there is an explicit Bible verse.

If an intruder breaks into my home with the intent of doing my wife or children bodily harm, up to and including death, and if I do not intervene with force and thereby allow it to happen, then in my view I am as guilty as the perpetrator(thereby invoking the "thou shall not murder" command). I am not 100% sure this is God's view. However, I do not believe Jesus would be overly fond of cowards-- especially when it comes to protecting innocent 3rd parties- particularly my family.

I am also not 100% comfortable with the idea that I must simply allow a crazed intruder to take MY life, if that is what he intends to do. I think that is taking scripture a tad far. I might let him slap me on the cheek, but blowing my brains out is another matter. Besides, if I allow him to murder me, that is not very loving, becasuse "no murderer shall see the kingdom of heaven." Better to wing him with my 9 mm and hold him at bay until the authorities arrive. Of course any gun course will teach you not to draw a gun unless you intend on shooting to kill.

That being said, I am no "gun-monger" or NRA member nor am i a hunter. For many years I did not own a firearm; a couple of years ago my dad gave me one that belonged to his dad-- so it is more of an "heirloom." My dad has bugged me about getting my concealed carry license just so i am comfortable handling the gun-- however I have been putting it off.

TK

[TK]

In my above post I said:

However, I do not believe Jesus would be overly fond of cowards

I understand that some persons may choose not to defend their family due to a "moral choice" and not merely out of cowardice. Nonetheless, I do not believe Jesus would be very fond of that, either.

TK

[schoel]

If you disagree with my sentiments (or TK's), please let me know why...

I'm curious to wrestle with all view points on this.

[steve]

My views can be found here: http://www.thenarrowpath.com/ta_resistance.php I wrote that back in 1999, but still am fairly persuaded of the same position today.

[Sean]

Great question. It kind of depends on what you think Jesus would have you do.

Personally, I've grown up around guns and think they probably can be used for self-defense if it really comes down to that.

My concern, however, is that I'm not sure this is really what Jesus would have us do. Nor do I know what I would do if I had to "pull the trigger".

When Peter used the sword Jesus stopped him. It's interesting to note that Peter wasn't defending himself but Jesus! Yet this is the scenario that we are told we should respond out of love for our neighbor by taking violent action.

So what if the "worst" situation occurs. You know, the one people always talk about. What if someone breaks in your house and violently attacks your wife/kids. Is the only solution to shoot/kill them? Is there any situation where you only have this option? It doesn't seem likely to me, but anything is possible.

So lets assume an attacker has your wife and is going to kill your wife. Do you kill the attacker to protect your wife? Is that the love Jesus spoke about? I'm not so sure.

First, it seems this is exactly what Peter was trying to do when he drew is sword. He was trying to protect Jesus, not himself. But Jesus stopped him. One could say this was because Jesus had to die this way, but...

Second, Jesus said He could called 12 legions of angels if He so desired, but He did not.

Third, eventually the apostles were also put to death but other Christians did not seem to "love" the apostles enough to kill their attackers.

Fourth, James mentions (James 5:6) the righteous being murdered without resistance. Did these righteous have no one who "loves" them enough to fight for them? You mean they didn't even put up a fight? Why?

Fifth, couldn't Jesus have sent 12 legions of angels down to save the apostles and other righteous people who were killed? It certainly seems Jesus could have protected His apostles but instead He let them die. Does this mean Jesus didn't "love" them because He could have protected them from harm but did not? Yet we are told Christ loves the church. She is His bride. Apparently this does not mean love equates to killing aggressors who seek to take your life or the life of your loved ones.

Sixth, in Romans 12 Paul states "Repay no one evil for evil." and "do not avenge yourselves" "but rather give place to wrath". In Romans 13 it says: "For he (the authority) is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."

If we are not to repay evil for evil but rather give place to God's wrath, and the agent of God's wrath is the governing authority who bears the sword then I don't see how we as Christians can turn this on it's head and say we can bear the sword, we can execute God's wrath. I'm having a hard time seeing we have that freedom in Christ, even to protect a loved one. Since that would in fact be repaying evil for evil. We wouldn't normally go around killing people, but when our lives are threatened are we suppose to return the threat? What about those 12 legions of angels?

[schoel]

Sean - Great post!

You have thrown a few wrenches into the works.

Here's my attempt to wrestle with them:

So lets assume an attacker has your wife and is going to kill your wife. Do you kill the attacker to protect your wife? Is that the love Jesus spoke about? I'm not so sure.

In bringing up the "love Jesus spoke about", it begs the question - Love for whom? I have a responsibility to love my wife and a responsibility to love the attacker. When in a situation where acting on my love for one results in harm or violence for the other, how do I choose?

First, it seems this is exactly what Peter was trying to do when he drew is sword. He was trying to protect Jesus, not himself. But Jesus stopped him. One could say this was because Jesus had to die this way, but...

Second, Jesus said He could called 12 legions of angels if He so desired, but He did not.

Jesus refusal to act in his own defense (calling the angels) and his halting the violence of Peter, differ from the above scenario you describe in 2 ways -
1) Jesus was certain of his calling to go to the cross, based on revelations given him over the course of his life, especially his Gethsemane prayer. Any defense against that was to disobey God's calling.
2) Jesus was the object of the aggression. He chose to not defend himself. He convinces the aggressive party of soldiers to let the disciples go (even though a good number of them had already run out on him). While he didn't employ violence, he did actively work to let them escape.

Third, eventually the apostles were also put to death but other Christians did not seem to "love" the apostles enough to kill their attackers.

The apostles were murdered by the state, or mobs in circumstances that seemed to offer no hope of escape from any sort of self defense. In Steve's article (linked above), he makes a case that when confronted with an aggressive situation where the only outcome of self defense is to "kill as many as possible before killed", this sort of self defense isn't biblical, moral or even reasonable.

Fourth, James mentions (James 5:6) the righteous being murdered without resistance. Did these righteous have no one who "loves" them enough to fight for them? You mean they didn't even put up a fight? Why?

The context of this passage is James condemning the evil rich. He refers to their murder of the righteous while they offered no resistance in order to pile up the guilt on those who would kill peaceful people. The lack of resistance may be describing that these righteous were powerless against the evil power that these rich had at their disposal. I don't think this passage is making the case for non-resistance.

Also, I often wondered if James is condemning the rich Jewish leaders (Sanhedrin, etc). His statement of verse 6 may be referring to Jesus as "the righteous person" (note singular).

Sixth, in Romans 12 Paul states "Repay no one evil for evil." and "do not avenge yourselves" "but rather give place to wrath". In Romans 13 it says: "For he (the authority) is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."

Vengeance is different from self defense.

Self defense - An aggressor is coming for your family member. If you do nothing, he will cause harm to them in a matter of seconds.
Vengeance - Tracking down an aggressor later and shooting him or an aggressor is no longer a threat to your family but you choose to harm him anyway.

Fifth, couldn't Jesus have sent 12 legions of angels down to save the apostles and other righteous people who were killed? It certainly seems Jesus could have protected His apostles but instead He let them die. Does this mean Jesus didn't "love" them because He could have protected them from harm but did not? Yet we are told Christ loves the church. She is His bride. Apparently this does not mean love equates to killing aggressors who seek to take your life or the life of your loved ones.

I swapped the order because this makes your best argument.
It presents the question - "If God doesn't save them, am I interfering with his plan by coming to their defense?"
An issue surfaces - How would I ever know if God wants to save them or not? Perhaps, I'm there as the plan of God to save them?

Bottom line for me so far -
While disciples of Christ are required to entrust everything to God, we are also called to act on our and other's behalf. For instance, I know that God is the ultimate provider for myself and my family, I don't just wait around for money and food to fall from the sky.
When faced with an aggressor that threatens my family, is it trust in God to do nothing, or is it negligence?


All this issue wrestling is tough...

[look2jesus]

In my reading earlier today I came across this verse and I thought it might apply to this discussion:

If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution... Ex 22:2-3a

One other thought I had while reading Sean's last post was that, while I'm not positive what our proper role ought to be in some of these scenarios that have been described, I don't think Paul's statement about repaying evil with evil is necessarily applicable. Certainly there is a difference between taking a life in self defense and breaking into a home with murderous intent.

Just one more thought to add to this discussion. We all seem to agree that the government does have an authoritative role to play in the carrying out of justice. But if I'm in the jury box in a capitol punishment case, as a Christian, am I at liberty (if I believe the evidence is incontrovertable that the party is guilty) to cast my vote and take part in sentencing a person to death. Or should I simply refuse to be a juror in a capitol case on the grounds of religious conviction?

[steve7150]

am I at liberty (if I believe the evidence is incontrovertable that the party is guilty) to cast my vote and take part in sentencing a person to death. Or should I simply refuse to be a juror in a capitol case on the grounds of religious conviction?









I think the OT prescribes the death sentence in certain situations and i think Paul also did, and if this is true then how could a husband and a father not protect his family against murderous intent? I think part of a husband's biblical role as head of the family is to provide security for his family.

[Joan]

I don't pretend to have a scriptural basis for this, but I would fight to the death if necessary, to protect a child. I can't imagine doing otherwise. And if I was married, I would assume my husband would do the same for me. It seems to me that a husband is responsible for the protection of his family (to the best of his ability and means) in the same way a government is responsible for the protection of its citizens. But maybe not always.

I can imagine another scene in which men from a government hostile to Christianity have come to murder a family of believers; somehow, that seems different. In that case I would think the man's responsibility would not be to fight, but to pray, encourage his family to the extent he is able, and model for them what it is to courageously face cruelty and death.

As for sentencing a murderer, wouldn't the O.T. law of a "life for a life" apply? When I served on a jury recently, it was hard to tell what the truth was (in light of conflicting testimony), but I prayed, and the Lord opened my eyes to see what I needed to see. Then I knew how to vote.

But those are just my thoughts. How good to know that as long as we walk closely with the Lord we can trust Him to guide us, should we fall into trouble.