Self-Defense and Christ Followers – Greg Albrecht
Question:
We are seeing an increase in criminal activity in the area of the United States in which my family and friends live. I don’t own a firearm. My wife thinks I should have a handgun to defend the family should criminals attempt to enter our home and place the lives of family members at risk. I know Jesus protected Israel before the people rejected his rule in favor of human kings…so they could be like other nations. I have no desire to follow the crowd. I want our Father’s will to be done.
My family strives to yield to Christ’s authority over our lives, to yield to the Holy Spirit for understanding in all matters. I wonder if I should have a firearm for family protection. I question whether or not Jesus holds me accountable to do “my part,” whatever is proper, to safeguard my family.
Response:
Thanks for your question/comment/perspective. This is a topical, timely issue with which many Christians struggle – as crime increases and threatens us, how do we, indeed can we, according to the gospel of Jesus Christ, take steps to protect our family. The basic topic seems to be “Self-Defense and Christ Followers.”
What does Jesus say?
1. Jesus does not comment directly, nor do any New Testament writers, about whether it is appropriate or inappropriate, necessary or forbidden, for a Christ-follower to use force in self-defense.
2. That said, in response to this discussion of self-defense, many often cite Matthew 5:38-42 – “turn the other cheek.” A few thoughts:
a) this teaching appears as one of the six antithetical statements in chapter 5 of the Sermon on the Mount. In these statements Jesus compares and contrasts the old covenant, its teachings – what was said “before” – with his teachings of the new covenant.
b) in this particular oppositional statement Jesus contrasts his gospel with the old covenant law of retaliation – the morality of taking an eye for an eye – an old covenant law which attempted to avoid escalating violence by keeping retaliation within boundaries of “justice and fair play.” An eye for an eye was a legal measure about proportionate punishment for a crime.
c) Jesus is not speaking of a victim of a violent crime, but in this example he speaks of someone being hit on the cheek. This was an example of being insulted, in a rather extreme and physical manner.
d) Biblical scholars note Jesus said “right cheek” so that the reference may have been to the more common insult/put down of being slapped by the back of an assailant’s left hand. This was not a violent assault and battery, but an insult.
e) Jesus taught his followers should turn away from insults, rude behavior, road rage, angry comments, heated arguments – and not retaliate in kind.
3. This antithetical statement flows into the next (Matthew 5:43-47) which advises love in response for hatred, prayers for those who oppose us. This same theme is discussed by Paul in Romans 12: 17-21 where Paul says vengeance is not the business of a Christ-follower. Thus the gospel is a direct contrast, as you say, with the nation of Israel in the old covenant who battled their enemies in an endless chain of violence and brutalities, often in the name of God (but that is another subject).
4. When Peter took out a sword to defend Jesus, who was being arrested, (Matthew 26:47-52), Jesus told him to put it away for those who use a sword will die by the sword. Thoughts:
a) Peter was “carrying.” He was a disciple. Jesus apparently did not feel it necessary to tell Peter he should not carry a weapon.
b) Jesus teaching here, in the heat of the moment, was consistent — no revenge, no in kind response … however, this was a moment in time, the prelude to his crucifixion, the fulfillment of his life and ministry … so we should be careful not to say that having a weapon is “wrong” or using it to prevent an evil or wrong is “wrong.” Jesus is only saying that weapons invariably are not only used in response (defense) and to protect, they are used to initiate (offense) violence and inflict harm and death. In this example, when Peter drew his sword, he used it, cutting off the ear of one who would harm Jesus, and in response Luke’s gospel (22:50-51) tells us Jesus miraculously healed and restored the man’s ear. Good for evil.
5. My summary of Jesus’ teaching on violence, reprisal, aggression, revenge:
I see the Jesus Way as one of non-violence. I see his teachings leading to pacifism to the degree that one does not jeopardize the safety of friends and family. I do not see Jesus prohibiting his followers from serving in the military or police agencies where one is attempting to protect and defend. I do see Jesus teachings as opposed to aggression and bullying and intimidation and threats, and of course the violence that results from such behaviors. Serving in any military and attacking another nation, people group, race or religious entity because of hatred is not in keeping with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus taught his followers to defuse situations where tempers and emotions are unleashed, and walk away rather than escalate. In an earlier antithetical statement in Matthew 5 Jesus gave the principle of agreeing with one’s adversary quickly – de-escalate, defuse.
6. Self-defense and the Christ-follower. Nothing I see in the New Testament has the gospel of Jesus Christ overtly or even tacitly inferring Jesus’ followers must allow themselves to be beaten, robbed, raped, assaulted and brutalized. This is not what Jesus means by “turning the other cheek.” While the context of the tenth chapter of Matthew was not about violence, Jesus told his disciples that as they followed him they would live and minister and serve like sheep among wolves, and therefore they would be well advised to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16). So it would seem that Christ-followers are wise to anticipate and beware of and prepare against aggression to themselves and their families.
What does being wise and prepared mean in practical terms? We have no specifics that Jesus gave. But let’s move from one polarity of considerations regarding personal self-defense to another:
a) We are well served to avoid geographical locations that are prone to violence. Down through history many Christians who took pacifism and peace seriously, like the Anabaptists, moved from countries where warfare was either happening or on the horizon. Of course, where in the civilized world would one go to completely avoid violence?
b) Next we can prepare in non-violent ways – security alarms in our homes if we can afford them, devices that ward off would be assailants – whistles, horns, dogs barking (real or recorded), bright lights… flood lights with motion detectors.
c) Then one, as I understand the new covenant in Christ, is free in him to consider “weapons” of self-defense – pepper-spray, stun guns, pellet guns designed to injure but not kill. Always keeping in mind that having any kind of weapon like device means it may be captured and used against us.
d) Finally, as I understand the teachings of Jesus, one may own a gun which one determines to ward off those who intend to inflict violence, and in so doing one may remain faithful to Jesus and his teachings. However, of course, if one has a gun, then one is well advised that a gun may fall into the hands of someone even within one’s family who will use it for destructive purposes, or may have an accident inflicting harm on others, by accident. Thus gun ownership brings responsibilities. So, like driving a car or operating dangerous equipment or machinery, gun ownership is a responsibility, a potential liability … but nothing in the gospel, as I understand it, prohibits a Christ follower from owning a gun.
We hope that our articles and resources bring comfort, hope, encouragement, and healing to our readers. If you’re experiencing that, please subscribe freely, share freely, and, if you’re able, please consider donating freely toward paying it forward by clicking the blue giving at the top of your screen.
Plain Truth Ministries | Box 300 | Pasadena, CA 91129-0300
