All right, good morning, everyone.
Welcome to week six of our class on the ethics of life,
! where we've been exploring the meaning and implications of the sixth commandment,
! which is, you shall not murder.
Let me give just a quick review before we dive in this morning.
We spent the first two weeks of our class
looking at the kind of biblical principles behind this commandment.
And we said there in those classes that one of the implications
of this sixth commandment was that the church was to become more and more
through the gospel a community of honor and dignity for all people,
a community of hope, and a community of reconciliation.
Then we spent two weeks kind of discussing some of the practical implications of the sixth commandment,
and we started at the very earliest stages of human life,
specifically looking at the topic of abortion.
And we saw that across numerous biblical passages,
the Bible makes no distinction between the dignity of human life inside and outside the womb.
And so we argued that abortion is morally wrong.
Then, just last week, we discussed capital punishment,
and we noticed that Christians have understood
and applied those biblical texts differently on this question.
And I think it's safe to say that what we observed was that capital punishment
was both permitted and commanded by God in the Old Testament.
And we saw that in a passage like Romans 13,
capital punishment by civil authority seems also to be permitted in the New Testament.
But we also gave some thought and considered that,
given the different contexts in which we live today,
perhaps not everything that is permissible is fruitful or prudent.
So we noticed that there are different approaches among Christians
as to how best to handle that question today.
Now, our original plan, if you were here last week,
was to discuss the topic of war today.
But we needed to make a schedule change
because I realized I'm going to be out of town next week.
So Tom was gracious enough to swap weeks with me.
So next week, Tom is going to lead us in a consideration of Christian approaches to war
and pacifism and just war.
Today, we're going to talk about self-defense.
Self-defense in light of the Sixth Commandment.
So the question before us this morning is this.
Does Scripture prohibit the use of physical force
to defend oneself against a physical attack?
If we're being attacked, if our life is threatened,
or if the life of a loved one is being threatened,
are we permitted to use physical force, even lethal force,
to defend ourselves or others?
And if so, is it right for a Christian to own and use a weapon,
such as a gun, for that purpose?
Now, we're talking about individual citizens, Christians.
We're not talking about the state or police forces today.
I think we looked at Romans 13 last week, and we'll look at it again next week,
where we saw that there is a place for state and for governmental authorities
to use that kind of force.
But we're asking about us personally.
Now, again, as we saw last week concerning capital punishment,
and what we'll see this week with respect to war,
or next week with respect to war,
is that faithful Christians do take differing views on this question.
But I think the best place to begin
as we think about this question of self-defense
is with Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount.
So, if you turn to Matthew 5, verses 38 through 48,
we'll begin our reflections there.
So, Matthew 5, 38 through 48.
Jesus says this.
He says,
You have heard that it was said,
an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil.
But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek,
turn to him the other also.
And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,
let him have your cloak as well.
And if anyone forces you to go one mile,
go with him two miles.
Give to the one who begs from you,
and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
You have heard that it was said,
you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.
But I say to you, love your enemies,
and pray for those who persecute you,
so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.
For he makes his son to rise on the evil and on the good,
and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if you love those who love you,
what reward do you have?
Do not even the tax collectors do the same.
And if you greet only your brothers,
what more are you doing than others?
Do not even the Gentiles do the same.
You, therefore, must be perfect,
as your heavenly Father is perfect.
All right, let's pray.
Father, we thank you for this morning.
Thanks that we can gather together as your people,
Lord, and come to your word,
and ask for your wisdom and guidance.
And we thank you that through your Spirit,
you do offer that to us.
Lord, thank you that we as your people can live
according to your word by the power of your Spirit.
And God, thank you that through your Spirit,
you give us charity as we wrestle with these tricky issues together.
So God, we pray that as a result of our meditation on your word this morning,
we'd come away with a richer sense of your goodness,
and your power, and your beauty,
and a deeper sense of living for you,
living faithfully unto you.
We pray this in Jesus' name.
Amen.
Okay, so some Christians would certainly understand Jesus
to be prohibiting all forms of self-defense here, right?
Jesus says, don't resist the one who's evil,
but if anyone slaps you on the right cheek,
turn to him the other also.
Now, often this interpretation of Jesus' words,
if one takes that interpretation,
is part of a larger interpretation of Scripture
that sees all use of physical force or violence as wrong and evil,
whether by individuals or by the state.
So, for example, the Anabaptist tradition
has been especially known for its commitment
to this sort of total nonviolence.
Now, other Christians would say
that Jesus here isn't really speaking about self-defense
in the way that we usually mean it.
The slap on the right cheek, it's argued,
is not actually a form of physical violence or a lethal attack,
nor is it kind of physical abuse.
Rather, in the context of the ancient world,
the slap on the cheek was actually what we might call an insult.
It was a form of social humiliation and contempt.
It didn't threaten your life.
It actually threatened your reputation and your dignity.
And in response to that, Jesus says, don't retaliate.
Rather than returning insult for insult,
rather than kind of brooding over how you're going to get them back
and make them pay, Jesus says, turn the other cheek.
Let their insults fly.
In fact, the greater strength in that moment
isn't hurling your insults back at them.
It's breaking the cycle of retaliation
and refusing to respond in kind.
Even if that means you receive more insults in the process.
Okay, so we've got these sort of two broad readings of this text.
Now, I think exegetically, putting this passage in context,
I think that second reading of Jesus's words in Matthew 5
is actually more accurate than the first.
I don't think Matthew 5 is speaking directly
to the question of whether Christians can justly defend themselves
against a violent attacker.
I think Jesus is giving an example of how it would be easy to retaliate
and escalate a conflict,
and as his followers were not to respond in that way.
Rather, as children of our heavenly Father,
we're called to love our enemies,
to pray for those who persecute us,
and to do good to those who are unjust
and who may seek to do us wrong.
But,
if Jesus isn't speaking directly
to our kind of particular question about self-defense here,
are there not still principles in what Jesus is teaching
that could and should apply to that situation?
Well, I think the answer to that is yes.
But in order to do that rightly,
we need to consider this passage
along with some other passages in Scripture
that might apply to this same question.
So, let's do that.
Let's look at some other passages.
First, I think we should consider
that Jesus' clear teaching about non-retaliation
and love of enemy
does not mean
that Christians should never remove themselves from danger.
In fact, I think there's plenty of scriptural precedent
to suggest just the opposite.
There are passages that seem to clearly encourage
escaping from danger.
Right?
Think about 1 Samuel 19, 9-10
where David flees from Saul.
Here's the passage from 1 Samuel.
It says,
Then a harmful spirit from the Lord came upon Saul
as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand
and David was playing the liar.
And Saul sought to pin David to the wall with the spear.
But he eluded Saul
so that he struck the spear into the wall
and David fled and escaped that night.
Right?
So, here's an example of David.
His life is at danger
and he runs away.
And the scriptures seem to say,
That's probably a good idea.
Right?
Get yourself out of danger.
Interestingly,
as we follow the story of David and Saul
in 1 Samuel,
even though Saul repeatedly tries to kill David,
David never retaliates against him.
In fact,
David refused to kill Saul
in what we might call self-defense
even when David has numerous opportunities to do so
because Saul is the Lord's anointed.
Right?
David says he has no right to lift his hand
against the Lord's anointed.
So, at least in this example,
David's treatment of Saul
seems to support Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5
that we should refuse to retaliate when wronged.
But Jesus kind of applies that principle
to all of our relationships.
Okay, we see another example of escaping from danger
in the New Testament as well.
In 2 Corinthians 11, 32 through 33,
Paul says,
So when facing physical violence,
Christians should certainly seek,
if possible,
to remove themselves from danger.
Jesus' teaching about loving our enemies
and turning the other cheek
and not retaliating
doesn't mean we should keep ourselves
in the position
where others can persist in harming us.
Okay?
All right, second.
Second thing.
Jesus' teaching about non-retaliation
doesn't mean
that we shouldn't take lawful means
to prevent violence and unjust treatment.
Right?
Even though Jesus has turned the other cheek,
that doesn't mean we shouldn't take lawful means
to prevent violence and unjust treatment.
And the New Testament offers numerous examples
of the apostles verbally and legally
defending themselves and others
before the sort of violent courts
and authorities of their day.
Just to rattle off a few examples,
in Acts 4,
Peter and John are arrested by the Sanhedrin
and they speak boldly in their defense.
In Acts 5,
the apostles again defend themselves
before the Sanhedrin.
In Acts 7,
Stephen gives a long and bold verbal defense
before his martyrdom.
The apostle Paul likewise
defends himself numerous times.
In Acts 16,
he defends himself
to the Roman city authorities in Philippi.
And at the end of Acts,
in chapters 22 through 26,
we have a series of legal defenses
that Paul makes before Roman centurions
and crowds and Jewish courts
and Roman rulers.
And then when we turn to Paul's letters,
we see Paul defending himself
and his ministry
against a number of accusations.
Okay, so what's the lesson here?
Following Jesus' teaching
about non-retaliation
doesn't mean
that we cannot give a clear,
truthful,
even bold,
verbal,
and legal defense
against accusation
or even against the threat
of physical violence.
We're meant to take
those lawful means
to protect ourselves
and others.
Now, third thing to keep in mind,
one of those lawful means
to which Christians
can and should appeal
are the God-given
civil authorities.
Okay, let me read
Romans 13,
1 through 7.
And if you'd like to turn there,
this is a little bit
of a longer one.
You can follow along there.
Romans 13,
1 through 7.
So as we seek to follow
the principle of Jesus' command
that we're not to retaliate
when others do us wrong,
we see that it's
quite permissible
to remove ourselves
from danger.
It's quite permissible
to take lawful means
to prevent it.
And here we're going to see
that one of those lawful means
to which we can appeal
are the God-given
civil authorities
who are entrusted by God
with the right use
of physical force.
Let me read Romans 13,
1 through 7.
Paul says,
Let every person be subject
to the governing authorities.
For there's no authority
except from God,
and those that exist
have been instituted by God.
Therefore,
whoever resists
the authorities
resists what God
has appointed,
and those who resist
will incur judgment.
For rulers are not a terror
to good conduct,
but to bad.
Would you have no fear
of the one who is in authority?
Then do what is good,
and you will receive
his approval.
For he is God's servant
for your good.
But if you do wrong,
be afraid.
For he does not bear
the sword in vain.
For he is the servant of God,
an avenger who carries out
God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore,
one must be in subjection
not only to avoid God's wrath,
but also for the sake
of conscience.
For because of this,
you also pay taxes
for the authorities
or ministers of God
attending to this very thing.
Pay to all what is owed to them,
taxes to whom taxes are due,
revenue to whom revenue is owed,
respect to whom respect is owed,
honor to whom honor is owed.
So in this passage,
we see that Paul affirms
the role of rightful
government authority
to use physical force
to stop evil
and to punish evildoers.
Paul says,
they do not bear
the sword in vain.
Now, of course,
the New Testament
knows very well
that human governments
can become corrupt,
that human governments
can themselves
become instruments
of wrongdoing and evil.
But nonetheless,
this passage teaches
that God institutes
and appoints
certain human authorities,
what we will call today
the state
or the governing authorities,
in part to administer
his justice
by punishing wrongdoing.
So when we see governments
acting unjustly
or corruptly,
our response isn't
to tear them all down,
but to reform them
and to change them
and to call them
to justice, right?
So what does this mean then?
Jesus' words
about non-retaliation
and loving our enemies
do not exclude
calling the police
when you or your loved ones
are in danger.
Now, I know that sounds
kind of obvious to us,
but I think there is
very good biblical precedent
for it.
In fact,
this is exactly
what you should do
when you are facing
physical attack
or experiencing
physical abuse
or imminent danger.
Remove yourself
from harm as quickly
as possible
and call the authorities.
In fact,
this act of removing
yourself from harm
and calling the police
as it were,
is I think a clear way
to obey Jesus' command
not to retaliate
and to love our enemies.
Allowing someone
to do wrong to us
and do sin against us
is actually not loving them.
It is loving
to stop the violence
from being done,
to stop the sin
from being committed
as much as we're able.
Okay.
But what if,
what if,
again,
in this sort of question
that we're considering
about self-defense,
what if,
what if the attack
happens suddenly?
What if you aren't able
to escape
or help the person
in danger to escape?
What if you call the police
but they won't arrive
in time to stop the attack?
What if,
what if you don't have
the means to contact
the police in that moment?
Is using force
or even lethal force
as a means of self-defense
justified
in those instances?
Well,
I think there are
a few passages
that seem to point
in the direction
of saying
that God
does allow
the use
of some degree
of force
to stop harm
and defend oneself.
The one that is perhaps
most relevant
is from the Mosaic case law
in Exodus 22.
So in Exodus 22,
two through three,
Exodus 22,
two through three,
the case law
of Moses
says this.
It says,
if a thief
is found
breaking in
and is struck
so that he dies,
there shall be
no blood guilt
for him.
But
if the sun
has risen
on him,
there shall be
blood guilt
for him.
Okay,
what is it?
What is this law
describing?
What is the scenario
here?
So this law
seems to be
assuming
that
if someone,
say,
breaks into
your home
at night,
you will be
startled
and you will
defend yourself
against them.
And if in the
act of defending
yourself at night,
you happen
to kill them,
the Mosaic law
says there is
no blood guilt
for that.
In other words,
you are not going
to be held
guilty
for his death.
As we would
say,
it was an
act of
self-defense.
But
interestingly,
the Mosaic law
says if the
theft happens
during the day
and you kill
him,
you are
guilty.
The presumption
seems to be
that if the sun
has risen,
less lethal
remedies,
including help
from others,
are available.
and the
availability
of such
alternate
remedies
in a case
like that
or in an
analogous
case,
well,
that would
be subject
for deliberation
in court
as judges
are asked
to assign
levels of
guilt.
So remember,
this passage
is case law.
It's giving
examples that
then the judges
of Israel
would need
to apply
to actual
situations.
So it
would seem
that in
this instance,
the Mosaic
law permits
an individual
to defend
themselves.
And that
the judges
would have
to determine
whether it
was indeed
a valid
case of
self-defense.
But notice
that this
law also
puts limits
on it as
well.
Right?
And those
limits, I
think,
serve a few
purposes.
I think
the first
purpose that
that limit
puts is
that even
in the
Mosaic
law,
God's
people were
called to
love their
neighbors as
themselves and
to refrain
from unlawful,
unjust,
and unnecessary
taking of
another human's
life.
In other
words, just
because someone
was acting in
self-defense
doesn't mean
that all bets
are off and
anything goes.
John Frame,
who's a Christian
theologian and
ethicist,
puts it this
way in his
reflection on
this passage
from Exodus
22.
He says,
the law of
love limits
our response
even to a
home invader.
But at the
same time,
John Frame
says,
the law of
love does
not forbid
us to
defend our
lives and
our families
by force
to the extent
that it is
necessary.
So you see,
there's a
balance there.
Okay, so
how ought we
to kind of
synthesize this
biblical material
then?
First, I do
think on the
basis of the
principles in
Exodus 22,
Christians are
permitted to
act in self-defense
in extreme
cases.
Sometimes an
act of force
may be
necessary to
protect oneself
from harm or
to protect a
loved one from
harm.
However, the
New Testament
also prevents
us from
seeing retaliatory
violence as the
immediate and
proper answer
to every
criminal
wrongdoing and
physical attack.
Listen to what
Paul writes in
Romans 12,
14 through
21.
And this is
before the
passage in
Romans 13 that
we read where
he talks about
the sort of
rightful authority,
right?
Paul writes in
Romans 12,
starting in
verse 14,
bless those who
persecute you,
bless and do
not curse them,
rejoice with
those who rejoice,
weep with those
who weep,
live in harmony
with one another,
do not be haughty
but associate with
the lowly,
never be wise in
your own sight,
repay no one evil
for evil but get
thought to do what
is honorable in the
sight of all,
if possible so far
as it depends on
you live peaceably
with all,
beloved never
revenge yourselves
but leave it to
the wrath of God
for it is written
vengeance is mine,
I will repay
says the Lord,
to the contrary
if your enemy is
hungry feed him,
if he's thirsty
give him something
to drink,
for by so doing
you will heap
burning coals
on his head
and Paul's
quoting our
proverb,
and then he
sums it up
with this,
do not be
overcome by
evil but
overcome evil
with good,
so while I
don't think
that this
passage completely
excludes self-defense
in every instance,
I do think
that it ought
to remind us
of the appropriate
posture of our
hearts towards
those who may
do us wrong,
even attack us,
right?
Let us not forget
that the New Testament
tells us again
and again that as
Christians we will
be persecuted
and some of us
will be put to
death and the
consistent response
to such violence
in the New Testament
is not,
self-defense is
permitted so be
ready to attack
them back.
What is it?
The Apostle Peter
talks about this
again and again
in his first
letter in 1 Peter
4.19 for example,
he says,
let those who
suffer according
to God's will
entrust their
souls to a
faithful creator
while doing
good.
Now contrast
that, I think,
very straightforward,
albeit very hard,
biblical position.
Contrast that
with the words
of, say,
a former
Christian college
president.
In 2015,
who in response
to terrorist
activity,
spoke to the
student body
at the college
and chapel
service.
And this
particular
Christian college
president,
after implying
that he had a
gun in his
back pocket,
said,
I just want
to take this
opportunity
to encourage
all of you
to get your
permit.
We offer a
free course.
And let's
teach them a
lesson if they
ever show up
here.
Is that
the message
of the
New Testament?
Let's
teach them
a lesson
if they
ever show
up here.
Consider
how that
same kind
of mindset
can trickle
into other
areas of
life,
not just
to protection
against the
hypothetical
lethal threat
of a
terrorist.
A different
Christian
theologian
who advocates
very strongly
for self-defense
and gun
ownership
goes on
in his
reflections
on self-defense
to advocate
that we
teach our
children to
fight back
against bullies
because,
this is a
quote,
otherwise,
the failure
to oppose
physically harmful
attacks with
physical force
will often
lead to
more harmful
attacks and
more wrong
being done.
And then he
says,
and that
Christian
children who
are not
taught to
defend
themselves
with physical
force can
often be
harmed repeatedly
and because
of that can
internalize deep
feelings of
injustice and
despair.
No parent
should allow
this to
happen to
his or her
children.
Okay,
so you see
where we've
come now.
So no longer
are we talking
about extreme
situations of
life and
death,
but we're
teaching our
children to
fight fire
with fire on
the playground
because they
might internalize
deep feelings
of injustice
and despair.
Is that
the way
of Jesus?
That same
theologian
argues that
in situations
of violent
harm by
criminals,
he says,
if it's
morally right
to call
the police
who would
use firearms
to protect
us in
such circumstances,
then it
seems to me
morally right
to use a
weapon if
necessary
before the
police can
arrive.
Then he
clarifies,
not for
vengeance,
but for
self-defense.
But friends,
isn't that a
deeply problematic
line of
reasoning?
I mean,
one of the
major points
of Romans
13 and
the Mosaic
Law is
that not
every citizen
has the
right to
act in
the stead
of the
governing
authorities.
You don't
have the
right to
act in
the same
way as
the police
before the
police get
there.
Now,
again,
I'm not
saying that
Christians are
totally forbidden
to use
various forms
of self-defense
in extreme
situations,
but what I
am saying
is that it's
very easy
to slide
into worldly
and fleshly
thinking when it
comes to this
question.
And suddenly,
we Christians
don't sound at
all like those
who truly believe
that God is
in control,
that vengeance
is his,
that God's
kingdom doesn't
advance through
the sword,
and that
peace and
not violence
is the way
of Christ,
actually is
the way
of courage
and wisdom,
and that our
weapons are
not the
weapons of
this world.
Okay,
lastly,
and then we'll
pause for some
questions.
Let me say a bit
about Christians
and gun
ownership,
as if we're
not talking
about something
controversial
enough.
Let's talk
about guns.
Here we are.
You know,
some have
argued,
okay,
so some have
argued that
on the basis
of Jesus'
words in
Luke 22,
Christians
should be
encouraged,
not just
permitted,
but encouraged
to own
weapons for
self-defense.
In Luke 22
verses 35
through 38,
you can look
that up if
you'd like,
Luke 22,
35 through
38,
Luke records
these words
of Jesus
after Jesus
shares the
Last Supper
with his
disciples.
Okay,
so Luke
22,
35 through
38,
and Jesus
said to
them,
when I
sent you
out with
no money
bag or
knapsack or
sandals,
did you
lack
anything?
Jesus
is referring
here back
to their
earlier
ministry
in Galilee.
Did you
lack
anything?
They said
nothing.
He said
to them,
but now
let the
one who
has a
money
bag
take it
and likewise
a knapsack
and let
the one
who has
no sword
sell his
cloak
and buy
one.
For I
tell you
that scripture
must be
fulfilled in
me.
And he
was numbered
with the
transgressors
for what
is written
about me
has its
fulfillment.
And they
said,
look,
Lord,
here are
two swords.
And he
said to
them,
it's
enough.
When I
was in
seminary,
this passage
actually came
up on my
final exam
in New
Testament
one.
Where does
Jesus tell
his disciples
to buy
a sword?
Luke 22,
there it
is.
So the
argument runs
something like
this.
Jesus knew
trouble was
coming for
his disciples.
So he
tells them
to buy
swords for
self-defense.
Therefore,
Christians
today should
be equipped
with the
modern-day
equivalent of
self-defense,
which is a
handgun.
Okay.
I think
John Piper's
right when
he responds
to this line
of thinking
in this
way.
John
Piper,
who's a
pastor and
theologian,
has reflected
a lot on
Jesus'
words in
the Gospels,
wrote his
PhD dissertation
on Jesus'
love command,
and pastored
for many,
many years,
and lived
in the inner
city where
he pastored.
He writes
this.
He says,
I do not
think that
Jesus means
in verse
36 that
his disciples
were to
henceforth be
an armed band
of preachers
ready to
use violence
to defend
themselves
from persecution.
If that
is the
correct
interpretation
of this
text,
my question
is,
why did
none of
his disciples
in the New
Testament
ever do
that?
The probable
answer is
that Jesus
did not
mean for
them to
think in
terms of
armed defense
for the rest
of their
ministry.
Jesus'
abrupt words
at the end
of the
paragraph,
when the
disciples
produced
two
swords,
were not,
well,
you need
to get
nine more.
He said,
rather,
it's enough,
or that's
plenty.
This may
well signify
that the
disciples have
given a
mistaken
literal meaning
to a
figurative
intention.
In other
words,
Jesus was
speaking
figuratively.
And indeed,
New Testament
scholar Daryl
Bach also
writes about
this passage.
He says,
the church's
nonviolent
response to
persecution
in the
book of
Acts shows
that the
church is
armed only
with prayer
and faith
in God.
Luke 22
36 then
sees the
sword as
a symbol
of preparation
for persecution
since Jesus'
rebuke of a
literal interpretation
shows that a
symbol is
meant.
In other
words,
it points
to readiness
not to
revenge.
Okay,
so if
Jesus isn't
literally telling
his disciples
to arm
themselves in
this passage,
does that
mean Christians
should not
own guns?
Should
Christians not
have conceal
and carry
licenses?
Well,
just because
that's not
what this
passage is
about,
I don't
think that
means that
Christians
should not
own guns.
Right?
Ultimately,
I do
think this
is a
matter of
conscience
for Christians.
I genuinely
do.
I know
faithful
Christian
brothers and
sisters who
have conceal
and carry
licenses,
and I'm
not going
to rebuke
them,
and the
elders are
not going
to bring
them under
church
discipline.
In fact,
I think we
should be
more concerned
about our
attitudes and
our hearts
when it
comes to
these things.
In other
words,
whatever our
decision is,
are we
promoting a
cavalier
approach to
violence?
Are we
promoting a
culture where
guns are
the supposed
answer to
bring peace?
Is our
hope for
security and
safety in a
gun?
Are we
falling into
a mindset
that says
let's teach
them a
lesson if
they ever
show up
here?
Now,
look,
I'm not
saying that
owning a
gun
automatically
leads to
that
mindset.
Right?
In fact,
the Christians
I know
who have
conceal and
carry lysis
don't have
that mindset
as far as
I know.
But we
have to be
very careful
that we
are not
at the
same time
giving way
to these
anti-Christian
attitudes and
beliefs.
The question
of gun
ownership
for self-defense
I think
kind of sits
between two
theological
poles.
On the
one hand,
there is
very real
evil in
the world.
There is
violence
and there
is
wickedness
and Christians
are called
to protect
the vulnerable.
But on the
other hand,
we also have
to balance
that with
the sort
of culture
that we
want to
promote
and create.
Is the
proliferation
of guns
and other
instruments of
death the
sort of
society we
want to
build?
Is
promoting
the answering
of violence
with violence
the path
toward the
sort of
culture
that honors
the Lord
Jesus Christ?
And I think
both of those
poles are
real and I
don't think
there are
easy answers.
Personally,
I don't own
a gun for
self-defense.
I don't
ever intend
to get
one.
But I also
respect Christians
who've chosen
differently than
me.
And as a
church,
we want to
have hearty
conversations
about these
things and
still love
each other
if we
disagree.
Okay,
all right,
let's stop
there and
let's open
it up for
questions.
What
questions do
you have on
this thorny
topic?
Yeah,
go ahead,
Brent.
this. Yeah.
Ezekiel 33, 11
stated in, as I live,
I have no
pleasure in the death of the wicked.
The wicked turn to his way and live.
Turn back and back
to evil ways.
I serve on military.
I think
there's a place for
defense. There's not
a place for gloat.
Yeah.
No taking pleasure
to death.
If God doesn't take pleasure
to death,
nor should I.
Yeah.
That's well said, Brent.
Yeah. I'm just going to repeat that
so it ends up on the recording.
In Ezekiel, there's a very clear
passage where God says,
I don't delight in the death of the wicked.
And if that's true of our Lord,
neither should we.
Yeah, that's right.
Even if there's an appropriate time
for defense.
That's right. Thanks, Brent.
Yeah.
Yeah, Susan.
I think you could make that.
I wrote some stuff for
training in martial arts
where you have
the ability to
dishonor or screen someone.
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
Yeah, and you know that,
so I went to a,
the undergraduate college
that I went to
was out of the Anabaptist tradition.
So it was a peace tradition.
So,
this was kind of a question
we talked about a lot.
And what's interesting
is that in the peace tradition,
it's,
the response to
the kind of imminent threat
is not,
well, you just end up,
you just end up,
you just end up dead,
right?
But it's actually,
okay,
how do we creatively engage here,
courageously engage?
And sometimes that does
require some kind of restraint,
right?
You know,
now,
I don't think our Mennonite
brothers and sisters
are taking Taekwondo.
But I think you're making
a good point, Susan.
There's other ways to respond
that are not lethal,
right?
If you're trained to.
If you're trained,
yeah, exactly,
exactly.
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
Ivor,
did you want to jump in?
Go ahead.
There's been several churches
that have been attacked.
Yeah.
And several were saved
by a member having
a concealed weapon
that saved lives.
Yeah.
Is that appropriate?
That's a really good question.
We've talked about this
some as leadership,
right?
So Ivor's saying
there have been,
you know,
instances where churches
have been attacked
and someone with a
conceal and carry license
was actually able to
sort of kill that person
and then presumably
save more lives.
We've actually talked
to local law enforcement
about this question
and what they've actually
strongly recommended to us
is that we do not
encourage people
with conceal and carry licenses
to try to
respond in those situations
of mass shooting.
And they said that
for a couple of reasons.
One is
most people,
even with conceal and carry licenses
with the appropriate
training and licensing
and practice
that it takes to get that
are actually not equipped
to respond in moments
of that kind of high intensity
with lots of other
civilians around.
That their sense was
is that more often than not,
more innocent people
will be hurt
than less.
Second,
when the police
do show up,
which by the way,
we have a system
at Trinity
to call the police
very, very quickly
if anything happens,
if we need that,
that when they do show up,
they actually don't know
who's the bad guy
and who's the good guy,
so to say.
What they recommended
we do is
grab something
really heavy
like the fire extinguisher
and swing as hard
as you can.
So,
use physical force
but don't
have an untrained
individual pull
another gun
in that situation
and cause more
chaos and mayhem.
Now,
that's very different
than if there's someone
in the church
who's a trained
law enforcement officer
or a trained member
of the military.
They have the kind
of training
to respond appropriately
in those situations.
So,
but thank you for that,
Ivor.
Yeah,
this is what makes it
a complicated issue,
right?
Yeah.
Yeah,
Giovanni.
Yeah,
so,
I do agree
that this is
a conscious decision
with each one of us
as Christians
but I wonder
how do we
balance the attention
between like
the individual
and the collective
problem
with these.
Yeah,
yeah.
So,
yeah,
I agree
in theory
that Christians
are allowed
to have guns
but should we
be like
advocating
for
proliferation
of guns
because
like the data
shows
kind of
very clearly
that that's a problem
that creates
more violence
on average
and more mortality
on average.
So,
how do we deal
with like
our
individual
freedom
and the collective
quality?
I agree,
Giovanni,
and this is a bit
of what I was trying
to get at
by thinking
about that poll
of like
what kind
of culture
do we want
to create
as Christians,
right?
Because we are
as Christians
and as churches
creating the culture
we live in,
right?
As humans,
God created us
to be culture
makers.
We can't
not do that.
So,
the actions
that we make
aren't just
for our own selves
but they do
have broader impact.
So,
I think we have
to weigh that
very seriously.
Now,
I'll speak
off the record.
I'm not speaking
on behalf
of the elders.
I'm just speaking
on me personally.
I think
that there are
certain kind
of guns
that a civilian
can buy
in the United States
that they should
not be able
to purchase.
I think
any kind
of assault
style weapon
should not
be allowed
to be owned
by a civilian
because they
can cause
massive amounts
of death
in a very
short amount
of time.
And I just
don't think
that's appropriate.
I do think
that's different
than a handgun
for self-defense.
You know?
It's much harder
to kill
dozens and dozens
of,
I know that I'm
speaking very
bluntly about this.
It's a very serious
and sad issue
but it's very hard
to use that kind
of instrument
of death
to kill
massive amounts
of people
than it is
some of these
other weapons
that in our
American culture
one can purchase
seemingly pretty easily
compared to other
parts of the world.
So,
I think the issue
of gun control
in the United States
is a very important one
and I think
Christians need to
yes,
respect the
Constitution
that talks about
a right to bear arms
but we also have to
consider the fact
that our technological
advances mean
that the arms
that we can bear
can create
massive amounts
of death
and mayhem
in ways that
that probably
wasn't possible
in the 18th century
when the framers
of our Constitution
put it together.
One could not
do the mass
kind of shootings
that we are
so tragically hearing
about way too
regularly in our
culture
with a single
shot musket
rifle.
Yeah, Alex.
Do you think
it's the case
that this particular
issue is kind of
like a marriage
of Christians?
It might be.
Yeah.
Do you think
in any way
that sort of
shapes
just the way
Christians sort of
have these conversations
giving us
a little bit
less of a perspective
or kind of like
maybe our
sometimes eyes
are visions
a little bit blurry?
Yeah.
Oh, I'm sure it does.
I'm sure it does.
So Alex was saying
that
doesn't our location
in America
with a certain culture
around firearms
and self-defense
doesn't that shape
how we as Christians
approach this issue?
I'm sure it does.
Which is why
Giovanni mentioning
hey, in other cultures
maybe there isn't
the same sort of problem
that we're having.
I think as Christians
and as a church
we need to listen to that
and we need not be
so tied
to our
citizenship
in the United States
that that overrides
our citizenship
in heaven
and our citizenship
in heaven
is the thing
that's determining
how we live
as citizens
of this world.
So, you know
Alex, I'm very well
to be challenged
and be like
brother
if you lived
in a different country
you would come down
in a very different
place on this.
I might actually
and I think
we need the church.
In the very first class
we talked about
how we need
to be having
these ethical conversations
with the historic church
and the global church.
to be coming
to good conclusions.
So I think this is
a great example of that.
Thank you.
Yeah.
I really appreciate that
because I think
our culture
encourages
not just
the violence
but generally
the thing.
So this morning
I was trying to deliver
three commercials
for law officers
that can get me more.
If somebody
makes a mistake
and hits my car
I can get more
if I go to them.
If you're hurt
get burnt, right?
Yeah.
It's just
as someone
who's old enough
to have lived
before this
highly detentious
period of time
I'm
we are just
playing
with
don't just
get that
Yeah.
How counterculture
is it that Paul says
why not rather
be defrauded?
Could you imagine?
It's almost laughable
you know
we took a family
road trip this summer
and you know
we get so used
to the lawyer billboards
around us
you know
we could all
rattle them all off
but it's true
everywhere in the United States
we were in the deep south
and it's like
we knew every single
lawyer we could hire
down there
if anyone
so much has got
close to us
we had their numbers
blasting at us
Yeah.
Every number one
is okay
to go after
your danger
Sure.
if you can't
afford to fix your car
the other person
Sure.
Yeah.
Zerian
did you want to jump in?
Oh
I know that
you don't
personally
own a gun
but like
why do you think
a Christian
wouldn't
purchase
or own a gun
Yeah.
What would be
the reason for that?
I'm not going to
turn this out
to the audience
and say
who here owns a gun
tell us why
I think
to try to be
as charitable
as possible
I think it would be
the rationale
would go something
like this
we live in a
deeply fallen world
where there's real
evil and wickedness
and
if
I'm in a situation
where
someone
is taking
criminal advantage
of someone
who's vulnerable
this is a way
to neutralize that
right
immediately
and stop harm
being done
right
there are ways
of
you know
I think
that's the rationale
right
so it's
sort of
acknowledging
the wickedness
in the world
right
which will be there
until Jesus returns
right
and as a means
of trying to say
and yet
if a responsible
use of this instrument
can prevent that
from happening
in extreme situations
then that's what
I want to do
yeah
yeah Peter
to more clarify
what I think
what you're saying
it's more about
the necessity
to protect others
as opposed to
protecting yourself
necessarily
I think for some
it could be
I
my sense is that
it's
from
people I know
or from conversations
I've heard about this
I think it's
I think it is both
you know
I think
some of it is both
that you know
if someone's attacking me
like
I have a right
to be able to
prevent that
right
so
yeah
it's not
about Ephesians
chapter 6
when Paul says
that
our
we wrestle against
not against
questions
right
and at the end
of that
passage
after saying
put on the whole
armor of God
prayer
yeah
that's right
I try to remind myself
that
with all the stuff
that I see happening
in the world
all of the
advances
that our enemies
are making
around the world
that
for the believer
the most powerful
weapon of the path
is prayer
yeah
that's right
yeah
praying against that
yeah
well and make most
make no mistake
the
the kingdom of God
does not advance
through the weapons
of this world
right
so
as much as it may be
a
temporary
emergency
sort of thing
to think about
owning it
and here
I'm
I don't want to
sit here and defend
gun ownership
to you all
but I do think
the important thing
to realize
is that we need
to be very
careful
that we don't
slip into a
mindset
where we think
that
the tools
and the weapons
of this world
is what's really
going to bring
peace and justice
and righteousness
right
if Jesus
thought that
he would
have not
gone to a
cross
and been
crucified
by the
Roman Empire
he would
have done
what so
many people
wanted him
to do
which was
raise an
army
and fight
and yet
from the
very first
that has
never been
the church's
response
and when the
church has
responded
that way
they have
been wrong
and it
has led
to
incredible
heartache
and tragedy
and it
has actually
besmirched
the gospel
and set
back the
kingdom of
God
and not
advanced
it
so
and I
think of
course
you know
to be
charitable
to those
who do
have
conceal and
carry
licenses
I think
they could
say
absolutely
I agree
with that
100%
like me
owning
this thing
is for a
very
narrow
thing
that the
Bible
does in
extreme
circumstances
permit
but I
don't think
that we
should
fire up
you know
a crusade
2.0
to conquer
lands with
swords
and think
that that's
going to
somehow
spread the
gospel
you know
sword point
conversions
are not
conversions
yeah
okay
maybe one
more
and then
we'll have
to break
yeah
go ahead
yeah
as far
as
a
candidate's
stance
on gun
control
is that
right
yeah
absolutely
yeah
well I
think
as we
move
from these
moral
positions
into
the
sphere
of
policy
and
into
the
sphere
of
voting
for
political
candidates
you know
as
Christians
we move
progressively
in the
realm
of
wisdom
right
so
and I
think
as we
move
out
from
sort
of
the
principle
to
the
policy
to
then
the
politician
that
we
vote
for
I
think
what's
important
to
say
is
that
different
Christians
are going
to weigh
those things
differently
right
I
think
living
in
Connecticut
given
what
happened
at
say
Sandy
Hook
it
would
be
completely
understandable
if
many
Christians
in
our
part
of
the
country
weighed
gun
control
very
highly
when we
went
to
the
polls
right
maybe
even
outweighing
some
other
Christian
moral
principles
right
and I
think
as
Christians
when we're
in that
realm of
politics
and who
to vote
for
we are
all
making
a
least
bad
choice
right
because
no
candidate
is going
to
perfectly
represent
how
we
weigh
those
issues
right
or
certainly
how
scripture
weighs
those
issues
so
I
think
we
have
to
give
each
other
a
lot
of
freedom
right
we
should
never
sort
of
say
if
you
vote
for
candidate
X
right
you're
clearly
wrong
right
I
think
that's
a
very
hard
statement
to
make
given
that
there
are
so
many
factors
that
are
being
weighed
out
as
we
vote
for
a
particular
candidate
so
I
can't
say
how
heavily
one
should
weigh
Honestly
I
really
can't
but
I
think
as
an
individual
Christian
if
it's
something
that
person
weighs
highly
I
think
that's
valid
right
yeah
okay
we do
have
to
break
because
it's
five
of
let
me
say
a
quick
prayer
and
we'll
go
Father
in
heaven
thank you
so much
for your
love
for your
care for
us
for your
protection
over us
God help
us to
be a
people
who
live
into
the
way
of
Jesus
where
you
God
remove
the
spirit
of
vengeance
and
retaliation
and
hatred
from
our
hearts
Lord
help us
to
love
even
those
who
are
enemies
because
you
have
loved
us
when
we
were
your
enemies
and
you've
made
us
your
friends
God help
us to
have that
deep
hope
in the
gospel
we pray
this in
Jesus name
amen