Guns, self-defense and Christians

[Singalphile]

dwilkins, you have some interesting ideas. I look forward to reading more about them in the future.

MMathis wrote:
For those who say ",...but kill them?...I would say this. If you are ever confronted in your home, I hope you have all this worked out ahead of time, because it will be over before you can think.

Aim for center of mass, and try not to jerk the trigger.

Heh. That's darkly humorous, and true! I went target shooting with pistols once as a teen, and I couldn't hit anything, and that was on a calm, sunny day with friends.

[dwilkins]

I don't have a completely formulated position yet. But, I think it's fascinating that Jesus ordered his disciples to buy swords in anticipation of the danger they were about to be placed in. In that context, it seems to me that it's possible that when Peter cut off the servant's ear that Jesus' point was basically, "Don't fight them, they will kill anyone who fights them (right now)." This might have been because the disciples were obviously outmatched and needed to run away instead, in that moment. Later on, I see a more consistent non-violent approach by the disciples. So, just as Jesus changed his mind about his advice in order for the disciples to arm themselves maybe he let them know after a certain point that they weren't supposed to do so any more. If so, scripture is silent on that conversation other than the circumstantial evidence.

The reality is that the same God who advocated genocide (at least in certain situations, though he criticized Israelites in other circumstances for being unnecessarily violent and cruel) in the Old Testament is the same one who suggested non-violence (at least in certain situations, though he was promising to bring another genocidal war against the apostate Israelites in the near future) in the New Testament. The question is whether or not these simplistic positions (violent OT God, non-violent NT God) represent a titanic shift in policy at the introduction of Christ in the narrative, or if we are simply seeing situations that required violence in the Old Testament and situations that required non-violence in the New Testament, though theoretically the opposite might be true in a given circumstance before and after Christ. Also, keeping mind that it's important only to bless those that curse you, and that you must always show love to your enemies, I think it's interesting that Paul occasionally uses some pretty strident language that I think most people would characterize as "unloving." For instance, when confronted by his enemies, the Judaizers, who were trying to get people to come to God by joining the Old Covenant nation of Israel instead of by faith like Abraham did, Paul wishs that the next time they are circumcising someone that they'd slip and cut off their own penises instead. That's not very nice.

Maybe the problem is that the combination of scientific thought in our culture married up with the attempt to turn systematic theology into a giant algorithm leaves us unable to appreciate exaggeration or hyperbole in Biblical language. The trend started early after the adoption of Christianity by Greek philosophers when Origen took the Sermon on the Mount too literally and castrated himself. But, I think you see the dynamic intensify towards the Reformers who treat soteriology as a sort of Pythagorean theorem.

[Paidion]

I don't have a completely formulated position yet. But, I think it's fascinating that Jesus ordered his disciples to buy swords in anticipation of the danger they were about to be placed in. In that context, it seems to me that it's possible that when Peter cut off the servant's ear that Jesus' point was basically, "Don't fight them, they will kill anyone who fights them (right now)."

After having carefully instructed his disciples not to resist evil, and to turn the other cheek, I doubt that Jesus was then telling them to be prepared to fight. Jesus wasn't schizophrenic. Indeed, He rebuked Peter for cutting off the servan't ear with his sword. Is it possible that Jesus told them to buy swords in order to test them—whether they would carry out His previous instructions of non-resistance?
For He reinforced His previous instructions by saying to Peter, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." I think He was stating a general principle, not intructions for this specific situation. In order words, He was saying, "Don't return violence for violence. But return good for evil."

If Jesus had intended them to prepare for fighting, why would He have said that two swords were enough?

I don't think the Father is schizophrenic either. Jesus is exactly like the Father, "the exact imprint of [the Father's] essence" [Heb 1:3]. So the Father advocates non-resistance, too. It is possible that "the violent OT God" didn't exist, but that the God which did exist was misunderstood by the ancient Hebrews.

I agree that Paul was "not very nice" in expressing his strong animosity toward the Judaizers in graphic terms. But that doesn't mean that Paul would have picked up a sword and cut off their leader's head. I've had some "not very nice" things said to me, but I doubt that those who said them would try to kill me.

Paul was bold. When the high priest, Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike Paul on the mouth, Paul responded by saying, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!" But Paul didn't try to kill him. John the baptizer called the Pharisees a generation of snakes. But he didn't try to kill them. Jesus referred to Herod as a "fox", and told the pharisees what to say to him, but He didn't order anyone to attack him. Christians don't necessarily have to be "nice", but they must respect the lives of others.

[dwilkins]

I don't think that God is schizophrenic either, but from your use of the term I wonder if you know what it means. A quick check of wikipedia gives us this,

"Schizophrenia (/ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by poor emotional responsiveness[clarify].[1] Common symptoms include auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking, and it is accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction. The onset of symptoms typically occurs in young adulthood, with a global lifetime prevalence of about 0.3–0.7%.[2] Diagnosis is based on observed behavior and the patient's reported experiences."

Just because God reacts differently depending on the circumstances doesn't mean he's mentally ill. He gets mad when people do wrong and he's glad when people do right. To do otherwise would actually approach the definition above.

I can appreciate that you want what Jesus said to Peter to be a general principle, but you are asserting that without any strong evidence. And, the claim that Jesus ordered the Disciples to sin just to test them (presuming it would be a sin to buy a sword or gun for self defense) is probably the most theologically disturbing assertion in your post. Can we find any other evidence of Jesus ordering them to sin just to see if they'll do it?

Regardless of when you think the Olivet Discourse is fuflilled the bottom line is that the events of the Olivet Discourse are the days of vengeance by God against his enemies per Luke 21. Your definition of God seems to preclude this as even a possibility.

Doug

[Paidion]

I don't think that God is schizophrenic either, but from your use of the term I wonder if you know what it means. A quick check of wikipedia gives us this,

I had checked with Wikipedia before posting, and noted its definitions of the word. I actually considered changing the word to "bipolar". But that word doesn't exactly describe what I had in mind either. So I went back to schizophenic and its older definition which better corresponds to its etymology.

Wikipedia does indicate the two Greek words which form a conjunct for the English word "schizophrenia": "σχιζω" (I split) and "φρην" (mind, brain). During the earlier part of my life (I'm now 75), the word meant having a split personality.

Here is a website which gives a second definition coinciding with the classic definition, namely: "A state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Schizophrenia

[dwilkins]

I fail to see what difference the two definitions make. It is not abnormal (or double minded) for someone to have one thought or emotion at one moment and then a different thought or emotion in a different moment. I will admit that you are probably taking Augustinian theology (specifically, strong immutability and impassibility) to its logical conclusion, which is that God is essentially an unblinking singularity without any changing thought or emotion. But, this is not the way scripture portrays him. In scripture God is made when the Israelites mess up and happy when they obey. Christ cries. I don't take this as hyperbole or some indication that the authors are lying about the real nature of God.

But, getting back to the point of the thread, it seems to me that God's approach to violence is high contextual. There does seem to be a time for everything under heaven. Though I'd agree that Jesus upgraded the expectation of the Law for righteousness, the bottom line is that God loved mercy in the Old Testament. But, sometimes there was a need for a sword, just as Christ predicted there would be when he said he'd come in vengeance against his enemies at some point in his future. This isn't a mental disorder. It's normal thinking.

Doug

[Paidion]

I fail to see what difference the two definitions make. It is not abnormal (or double minded) for someone to have one thought or emotion at one moment and then a different thought or emotion in a different moment.

No, not at all abnormal. But that 's not what we're dealing with here. We are not dealing the fact that God has a variety of thoughts and emotions. We're dealing with the presumption that God's basic character includes polar opposites. God is love and God is hate. God is merciful and God is vengeful. God asks us to love our enemies, but He destroys His enemies.

I will admit that you are probably taking Augustinian theology (specifically, strong immutability and impassibility) to its logical conclusion, which is that God is essentially an unblinking singularity without any changing thought or emotion.

Actually, I strongly oppose Augustinian theology.

But, this is not the way scripture portrays him. In scripture God is made when the Israelites mess up and happy when they obey. Christ cries. I don't take this as hyperbole or some indication that the authors are lying about the real nature of God.

I am in total agreement with these assertions.

But, getting back to the point of the thread, it seems to me that God's approach to violence is high contextual. There does seem to be a time for everything under heaven. Though I'd agree that Jesus upgraded the expectation of the Law for righteousness, the bottom line is that God loved mercy in the Old Testament. But, sometimes there was a need for a sword, just as Christ predicted there would be when he said he'd come in vengeance against his enemies at some point in his future. This isn't a mental disorder. It's normal thinking.

If an ordinary person had a reputation for loving his enemies and praying for them, would you consider it "normal thinking" if he, at times, killed his enemies? I'd say that was abnormal thinking, that the man might be a schizophenic.

You think that Jesus will destroy His enemies in the future with a sword? Where do you get that? Are you thinking to the following verse?

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34 ESV

But it is clear that He is not talking here about a literal sword, but a "sword" of division. For He follows this with:

For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. (verses 35,36)

The natural consequence of being a disciple of Christ, giving your whole life over to His service, is the alienation of your non-Christian relatives. This is the "sword" which Jesus brings.

Or maybe you had in mind these verses in Revelation:

From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Revelation 19:15)

And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh. (Revelation 19:21)

But will a literal sword come out of His mouth? I took this to be the word which He will speak. That word isn't meant to kill, but to be words of life. But to those who oppose Him, they are words of death.

[Homer]

Doug,

You wrote;

But, getting back to the point of the thread, it seems to me that God's approach to violence is high contextual.

As I recall Joachim Jeremias wrote in one of his books that every statement Jesus made about not using force to defend yourself was in the context of being persecuted for your faith.

It seems to me that failure to use force would not be the loving thing to do in certain cases. If you were in a position to use force to prevent a crime it is conceivable you could save the poterntial victim and also save the criminal from the consequences of a more serious crime. If that is so, why couldn't a person defend himself against a criminal? If we are to love our neignbor as ourself it would seem appropriate to love ourself with the same defense we would employ on behalf of another.

[dwilkins]

I don't want to derail this discussion with too much eschatology, but from the point of view of the ministry of Christ I think we can all agree that certain things were future. One of the most important was Isaiah 65-66. In those chapter God talks about finally putting the apostate members of Israel to the sword and making them an ignominious example for the rest of mankind. This, and the vengeance reference in Deuteronomy 32, is the source of the concept in Luke 21 that the Olivet Discourse is all about God taking vengeance on his enemies. But, these passages are also tied into the idea of Christ returning to punish the wicked. Again, without debating the exact interpretation of these passages, the basic dynamic is clear that Jesus is personally involved in putting his enemies to the sword (though arguably through an intermediary like the Romans), which I think probably strikes some as unloving. God is long suffering, but that doesn't last forever. He has a full range of expressions in his personality without deviating into mental illness.

Doug

[dwilkins]

Doug,

You wrote;

It seems to me that failure to use force would not be the loving thing to do in certain cases. If you were in a position to use force to prevent a crime it is conceivable you could save the poterntial victim and also save the criminal from the consequences of a more serious crime. If that is so, why couldn't a person defend himself against a criminal? If we are to love our neignbor as ourself it would seem appropriate to love ourself with the same defense we would employ on behalf of another.

The issue of using force to subdue a violent third party who is not being violent out of religious intolerance is an interesting one. It might be one thing to willingly take a bullet if a mob of Muslims showed up at your doorstep wanting to kill you for evangelizing them. I might be another to take a bullet when stumbling onto a 7-11 robber at 3 a.m. When do we start to talk seriously about the other side of Paul's coin when he says when at all possible to be at peace with all men?