Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?

[T.Lex]

I agree with him that the idea of 'let's teach them a lesson' does sound a lot like vengeance to me. Even if what they are doing is technically self defense, if they enter into it with a vengeful attitude then the technicalities don't matter. God is all about the heart.

So the internal intent of the action is important. It may not matter what it looks like; rather, at a religious level, it matters WHY a person is doing it.

Common ground. There it is.

 

[chipbennett]

He leads the article with this:

My main concern in this article is with the appeal to students that stirs them up to have the mindset: Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson if they come here. The concern is the forging of a disposition in Christians to use lethal force, not as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries.

The issue is not primarily about when and if a Christian may ever use force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends.There are significant situational ambiguities in the answer to that question. The issue is about the whole tenor and focus and demeanor and heart-attitude of the Christian life. Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage the attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket, so don’t mess with me”? My answer is, No.

I agree with him that the idea of 'let's teach them a lesson' does sound a lot like vengeance to me. Even if what they are doing is technically self defense, if they enter into it with a vengeful attitude then the technicalities don't matter. God is all about the heart.

He is assuming/projecting a vengeful attitude, where none exists. Note that, "I have the power to kill you in my pocket" comes from the author, not from those he is admonishing. Do you not see the assumption/projection in that phrasing? "I have the means and willingness to defend my life against someone who would attempt to threaten it" is absolutely not the same thing as "I have the power to kill you".

The "lesson" to be taught would-be perpetrators of violence is that, "I am not the victim you're looking for." There is nothing vengeful, or in any other way unchristian, about asserting the means and willingness to use armed self-defense against would-be perpetrators of violence. The author implies that the "lesson" is, "you deserve to die, and I'm going to be the one to make it happen." His entire argument is a straw man, supported by non-sequitur references to persecution for the faith.

 

[chipbennett]

So the internal intent of the action is important. It may not matter what it looks like; rather, at a religious level, it matters WHY a person is doing it.

Common ground. There it is.

The problem is that the author assumes/projects an intent of vengeance, where no such intent exists.

 

[steveh_131]

So the internal intent of the action is important. It may not matter what it looks like; rather, at a religious level, it matters WHY a person is doing it.

Only when that action is not specifically prohibited by God.

The "lesson" to be taught would-be perpetrators of violence is that, "I am not the victim you're looking for." There is nothing vengeful, or in any other way unchristian, about asserting the means and willingness to use armed self-defense against would-be perpetrators of violence. The author implies that the "lesson" is, "you deserve to die, and I'm going to be the one to make it happen." His entire argument is a straw man, supported by non-sequitur references to persecution for the faith.

The expression 'teach them a lesson' is always used in a punitive sense. If he hadn't meant it in that sense, he could have simply said 'Let's arm ourselves and be prepared to protect ourselves and our loved ones from any threats'.

If you're saying that you think he meant something other than what he said... then ok. Maybe Piper's arguments don't apply to him. Nevertheless, these are the words that he put out there and they are what we have to work with.

 

[chipbennett]

The expression 'teach them a lesson' is always used in a punitive sense. If he hadn't meant it in that sense, he could have simply said 'Let's arm ourselves and be prepared to protect ourselves and our loved ones from any threats'.

If you're saying that you think he meant something other than what he said... then ok. Maybe Piper's arguments don't apply to him. Nevertheless, these are the words that he put out there and they are what we have to work with.

Even if true, "Punitive" != "Vengeful".

The lesson intended to be taught is: don't try to attack us here; you will not be successful. There is nothing inherently vengeful or otherwise unchristian about such an intent.

 

[T.Lex]

Only when that action is not specifically prohibited by God.

But is not the difference between "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not murder" a question of intent?

Similarly, "Thou shalt have no gods before me" can be true in the intent of worship, even if the outward appearance suggests otherwise?

It is nigh impossible for a man to truly know what is in another man's heart. That is properly left to God's judgment.

 

[steveh_131]

Even if true, "Punitive" != "Vengeful".

Meh, same concept. Christian individuals are not to be in the business of punishing non-believers.

The lesson intended to be taught is: don't try to attack us here; you will not be successful. There is nothing inherently vengeful or otherwise unchristian about such an intent.

I interpreted his remarks differently. So did John Piper, obviously.

So regardless of the real intention of the 'teach them a lesson' comment, Piper was clearly not condemning all acts of self defense or lumping them all together with vengeance as you have suggested.

 

[steveh_131]

But is not the difference between "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not murder" a question of intent?

Similarly, "Thou shalt have no gods before me" can be true in the intent of worship, even if the outward appearance suggests otherwise?

It is nigh impossible for a man to truly know what is in another man's heart. That is properly left to God's judgment.

True. On the other hand, if your chosen methods of worship might cause others to stumble, then regardless of your intent, it should not be done.

Like if your outward appearance suggests that you are worshiping a mortal woman instead of God, and someone sees you doing it and thinks this is what they should do, then you've really messed up.

 

[T.Lex]

Meh, same concept. Christian individuals are not to be in the business of punishing non-believers.

Who said punishment of non-believers? I thought we were talking about punshiment of criminals?

Believers can be criminals. Even violent ones.

In the nature of "Christian Love" - shouldn't there be MORE punitive thoughts with regard to criminal believers?

 

[T.Lex]

True. On the other hand, if your chosen methods of worship might cause others to stumble, then regardless of your intent, it should not be done.

Like if your outward appearance suggests that you are worshiping a mortal woman instead of God, and someone sees you doing it and thinks this is what they should do, then you've really messed up.

Like I have any control over what you think or believe? haha

If you (not you, you, but just borrowing your construct) are that easily influenced by what you perceive, perhaps your faith is the one in jeopardy, not mine.

 

[steveh_131]

Who said punishment of non-believers? I thought we were talking about punshiment of criminals?

Believers can be criminals. Even violent ones.

In the nature of "Christian Love" - shouldn't there be MORE punitive thoughts with regard to criminal believers?

Yes, that was kind of my point. The Bible does give the church some authority to punish church members as fellow believers. Things like church discipline. That's why I specified.

 

[steveh_131]

Like I have any control over what you think or believe? haha

If you (not you, you, but just borrowing your construct) are that easily influenced by what you perceive, perhaps your faith is the one in jeopardy, not mine.

Very true. Paul agreed with this statement in Romans chapter 14. So even if a Catholic really is bowing to a statue of Mary and praying to her but insists that it does not hamper his relationship with the one true God, he needs to be conscious that it may hamper someone else's.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes, that was kind of my point. The Bible does give the church some authority to punish church members as fellow believers. Things like church discipline. That's why I specified.

Ok, but the reference caught me completely off guard. Apologies for missing the subtext. I thought chip was pretty specific in reference to people who would do harm, regardless of their Believer-status. IOW, it doesn't matter what that status is, the proper Christian attitude is to protect the innocent from whatever threat. An improper Christian attitude (again, irrespective of the Believer-status of the perpetrator) would be to seek vengeance for a prior act.

Now, IMHO, human nature being what it is, motivation is rarely entirely pure or entirely evil. But, as I think we can all agree, God knows what is truly in our hearts.

 

[T.Lex]

Very true. Paul agreed with this statement in Romans chapter 14. So even if a Catholic really is bowing to a statue of Mary and praying to her but insists that it does not hamper his relationship with the one true God, he needs to be conscious that it may hamper someone else's.

We each have our own cross to bear.

Somewhat like self-defense, I can't make decisions for someone else. Their protection - both in this world and the next - is their decision.

 

[steveh_131]

Ok, but the reference caught me completely off guard. Apologies for missing the subtext. I thought chip was pretty specific in reference to people who would do harm, regardless of their Believer-status. IOW, it doesn't matter what that status is, the proper Christian attitude is to protect the innocent from whatever threat. An improper Christian attitude (again, irrespective of the Believer-status of the perpetrator) would be to seek vengeance for a prior act.

Now, IMHO, human nature being what it is, motivation is rarely entirely pure or entirely evil. But, as I think we can all agree, God knows what is truly in our hearts.

While I agree with you, I'm not sure that a vengeful attitude is limited to prior acts. I think that you can be dwelling on vengful thoughts without the event even taking place. And I think that's what statements like "Teach them a lesson" encourages.

We each have our own cross to bear.

Somewhat like self-defense, I can't make decisions for someone else. Their protection - both in this world and the next - is their decision.

Paul strongly disagreed with this. 'It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.'

 

[T.Lex]

Paul strongly disagreed with this. 'It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.'

Funny the stuff that you quote, yet other stuff seems ignored.

Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them.

Or even, the full passage that you quoted.

[SUP] [SUP]21[/SUP] [/SUP]it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother or sister stumble. [SUP]22 [/SUP]The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God. Blessed are those who have no reason to condemn themselves because of what they approve. [SUP]23 [/SUP]But those who have doubts are condemned if they eat, because they do not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

The corollary seems true, too. Whatever proceeds from faith is not sin. Exercise of my faith, which might be different from yours, is my own "conviction before God."

We'd better be careful though, that this doesn't devolve into an OC/CC furor. That might get emotional.

 

[steveh_131]

The corollary seems true, too. Whatever proceeds from faith is not sin.

Noooooo. This corollary is Not true. Sin is sin. Worshiping anyone other than God is sin.

Now only your heart can decide if what you are doing is worship - I'll agree with you there. But you can't ignore the rest of that passage, which is telling us that we must be cautious in the way we embrace this freedom that God gives us because it could cause others to stumble. And there's a whole lot of people stumbling and worshiping statues of Mary.

Now to bring us back on topic, maybe people in Christian leadership positions need to be careful about making statements that could easily be interpreted as calls to a vengeful attitude - causing those following to stumble.

 

[T.Lex]

Noooooo. This corollary is Not true. Sin is sin. Worshiping anyone other than God is sin.

I don't disagree. Faith in God (like, our God), and that which proceeds from it, is not sinful.

As analogy to the OP, this relates back to the faith/trust in God's protection or will. Because we are armed does not mean we are not faithful. Rather, our sense of duty to act as instruments of God's will (I think) in the protection of that which is His, is our primary motivation. Or should be.

Now only your heart can decide if what you are doing is worship - I'll agree with you there. But you can't ignore the rest of that passage, which is telling us that we must be cautious in the way we embrace this freedom that God gives us because it could cause others to stumble. And there's a whole lot of people stumbling and worshiping statues of Mary.

God knows, not Catholics.

To momentarily continue the digression, though, if you invite me over for dinner on a Friday during Lent, taking Romans 14 to heart, ideally you would serve fish, so we both could partake. You would help me avoid the temptation. But, if you serve pork tenderloin wrapped in bacon, I would not be offended, and would hope that you would not be offended by my asking for seconds (or thirds) of the salad.

Likewise, if I invited you over for dinner on a Friday during Lent, I hope that you would not be offended if we served seafood. If you brought a Big Mac, that might be offensive, and contrary to the intent of Romans 14.

Somewhat bringing this back to the OP, my wife is uncomfortable with OC. For that reason, I would hope that you would not OC for this Friday night during Lent shindig. But again, a little politeness goes a long way. I think that is somewhat missing from that blogger's post. Following up on chip's themes, I think his approach somewhat departs from Romans 14, too.

Now to bring us back on topic, maybe people in Christian leadership positions need to be careful about making statements that could easily be interpreted as calls to a vengeful attitude - causing those following to stumble.

I'm still somewhat confused by the idea of vengeance for a future act, but that's a trivial issue - and mine alone, apparently.

 

[steveh_131]

As analogy to the OP, this relates back to the faith/trust in God's protection or will. Because we are armed does not mean we are not faithful. Rather, our sense of duty to act as instruments of God's will (I think) in the protection of that which is His, is our primary motivation. Or should be.

I agree.

Somewhat bringing this back to the OP, my wife is uncomfortable with OC. For that reason, I would hope that you would not OC for this Friday night during Lent shindig. But again, a little politeness goes a long way.

I agree, but not seeing the relevance.

I'm still somewhat confused by the idea of vengeance for a future act, but that's a trivial issue - and mine alone, apparently.

The act need not ever take place for thoughts of vengeance to enter the mind. Just like lustful thoughts can happen in the absence of any physical immorality. Neither should be encouraged.

 

[chipbennett]

Meh, same concept. Christian individuals are not to be in the business of punishing non-believers.

As said already: none of this has anything to do with believers vs non-believers. But I think that was probably an unintended mis-statement on your part.

As far as Christian individuals being in the business of punishing those who would perpetrate violence against them? Again, I agree. That said:

I interpreted his remarks differently. So did John Piper, obviously.

Piper inferred that "teach them a lesson" = "vengeance". You inferred that "teach them a lesson" = "punishment". So, the two of you don't even agree on the inference.

So regardless of the real intention of the 'teach them a lesson' comment, Piper was clearly not condemning all acts of self defense or lumping them all together with vengeance as you have suggested.

A more accurate description of my criticism of Piper is that he argued a straw man, using non sequitur - that is: it is wrong to act out of vengeful intent against those who would perpetrate violence against us, because the Bible speaks about enduring being persecuted for our faith.

"It is wrong to act out of vengeful intent against those who would perpetrate violence against us" is the straw man, because no such thing was ever suggested.

"...because the Bible speaks about enduring being persecuted for our faith" is a non sequitur, because being persecuted for our faith is completely separate from being victimized by a violent criminal.

And in the end, when addressing the hypothetical question about whether a husband can use deadly force against someone violently attacking his wife, and Piper comes to the conclusion, essentially, that "it depends", tells me everything I need to know about his viewpoint, and whether or not it is biblical.