| « Christians and Libertarianism | I Agree With Pat Robertson » |
OK, I Might be a Hypocrite
After all my online pro-life rants, I found myself posting this comment on Matt's blog:
If someone is hurting or taking my kids and my only way of stopping them is
to kill them, you can be sure I would – in a heartbeat. Not sure HOW I’d go
about doing that, but I would if I had to.
When I re-read what I'd written, I have to admit that I was taken aback. Had I just said I would kill someone? After proclaiming that killing someone is a sick act? I won't go into all the background behind this comment, but now I had some thinking to do. If you consider what Jesus taught; loving your enemies, praying for those who persecute you, and turning the other cheek; it's hard to reconcile even self-defense. I had never put much thought into the idea before and just assumed that defending yourself or others was justified. I know our court's and our culture justify self-defense, but does Christ? I don't know.
I did just a little online research to find what Christians had to say about this. I have to say, those who defended the idea of self-defense (or defense of others) had pretty weak arguments. They used mostly Old Testament passages - not that I think the OT is completely irrelevant, but it's annoying how people pick and choose OT scriptures which back up their ideas, but then choose to disregard 90% of the commandments in it. The New Testament passages were pretty vague. They pointed to one where Christ told the disciples to get themselves swords (don't know the complete context as I didn't have time to go back and read the entire passage) so he must have been condoning their right to self-defense. But there is some disagreement among Christians as to whether or not this was meant to be taken literally. One Christian writer even went so far as to say that it is immoral to stand by while someone is being raped or murdered and not defend them, but they gave no scriptural backing for this belief. I guess I think this is true too, we are called to help those in need. But does this extend to killing if need be? In one essay the writer even quoted Jesus in John 15:13 "The greatest love is shown when people lay down their lives for their friends." This was supposed to uphold the principle of using violence in defense of others. Yet it doesn't say "The greatest love is shown when you kill someone to save your friends." Just that you're willing to lay down your life. Jesus laid down his life and he didn't defend himself so this verse doesn't seem to make much sense in this argument. And then there was the whole, "If Christians lay down and let evil people win then the world will be run by evil people." There's definitely logic in that, but there was, once again, no scriptural backing for that mindset. And there are non-violent ways to resist our enemies without killing them.
The writers who expressed the opinion that it is wrong for Christians to kill under any circumstances gave much more compelling arguments. Not much more than the principles I stated earlier. How do you love your enemies by killing them? Jesus even instructed Peter to put back his sword when Peter was trying to defend Jesus. He went on to say that, "All who live by the sword will die by the sword." (Matt. 26:52) And it's hard to deny what Jesus is saying when he says,
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'But I tell
you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek,
turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic,
let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with
him two miles." (Mat.5:33-41).
And Paul says, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil... not "an eye for an eye". . . On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." in Romans 12.
There were actually more scriptures against violence, but I'm not going to take the time to post them all. I think the ones I've given are pretty convincing. And I actually went into this search hoping to find some defense of self-defense. I was surprised that I wasn't able to find it. And I hadn't remembered Jesus actually refuting the eye for an eye philosophy, but now that I found it I'm certainly going to remember it as I hear capital punishment advocates throw that one around quite a bit.
So what does all this mean? I have to admit that my world is a bit shaken. I'm grateful to have men and women in the military who are willing to give their lives to protect me, but can I condone their killing of our enemies? I don't know. I'd still kill someone to protect my kids if I had to. God and I will just have to hash that one out later if need be. Does that make me a hypocrite? Maybe so.
5 comments
"Paul's teaching in Romans 13 squares with his personal experience. Testifying before Festus, the Apostle certifies: "If...I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die."
i just don't see that as a ringing endorsement of the death penalty. is that the best he could come up with? if so, then his lack of new testament evidence seems to back up my point. all of his other scripture references are from the old testament. the scripture that almost all dp opponents would point to is the "let he who is without sin" verse. colson chooses to not even address this direct reference to the death penalty - by the big man himself - in the new testament and sticks with the old testament. he also chooses to ignore all of the new testament verses i used in my post on self-defense which clearly point to non-violence.
colson also makes reference to the quote by Jesus that he didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. he takes this to mean that Jesus supports the death penalty since it was part of the law. but if Jesus didn’t abolish the law, why don’t we still follow it? i’m sure even colson wouldn’t advocate following the law today - except for that death penalty part. this argument doesn’t make much sense to me.
here's some other excerpts from colson and my thoughts on them.
"I now see that government draws its authority less from the consent of the governed than from a sovereign God."
not completely sure what this means, but from the sounds of it, i'm sure i'd disagree. governments who are doing God's work are usually pretty frightening. i agree that individual's should hold God in higher authority than anything else, but how does a government get it's authority from God? i'm not crazy about a government interpreting the word of God and then enforcing it.
"Justice in God's eyes requires that the response to an offense - whether against God or against humanity - be proportionate. The lex talionis, the "law of the talion," served as a restraint, a limitation, that punishment would be no greater than the crime. Yet, implied therein is a standard that the punishment should be at least as great as the crime."
i'm not sure what the "law of the talion" is or where he gets it from. it might be scriptural, but he doesn't let us know - maybe he assumes we're smart enough to know what he's talking about. bad assumption in this case as i have no idea. but let's go along with the "law of the talion" and even assume it's bilbically based. he states that implied in the idea that punishment shouldn't be greater than the crime is that it should also be at least as great as the crime. i don't buy that implication, but even if i did that's a pretty tight rope to walk. punishments should be no greater but at least as great as the crime. how in the world do you do that unless you do to the person EXACTLY what they did to others? how do you serial kill a serial killer? and what do you do with child molesters? get old people to molest them? i guess i'd need more explanation on this one.
"What about mercy? someone is inclined to ask. My response is simple. There can be no mercy where justice is not satisfied. Justice entails receiving what we in fact deserve; we did in fact know better."
again, he doesn't inform where he gets this idea that there can be no mercy where justice is not served. is it scriptural? but let's go along with it for the sake of argument. who are WE to distribute justice. we are mere clueless mortals. i think God is perfectly capable of deciding who gets mercy and justice and then distributing it. i'm certainly not saying people shouldn't be punished, government is obligated to protect it's citizens so it must punish. i just believe that the ultimate punishment of taking a life is so far out of our ability to do it "justly" that i think we are sinful when we even try it.
"I am coming to see that mercy extended to offenders whose guilt is certain yet simply ignored creates a moral travesty which, over time, helps pave the way for collapse of the entire social order."
and
"The implication of Romans 13 is that by not punishing moral evil the authorities are not performing their God-appointed responsibility in society."
NO ONE is sayin that a person who is guilty of a crime (not a moral wrongdoing - or we'd all be doing time) should be ignored! of course our social order would collapse. we're talking about the death penalty vs. imprisonment.
i'm now realizing that i'm not going to have time to go through the entire thing with you. needless to say, i didn't find anything very convincing here. if there was some particular point or arguement that you found compelling and wanted to point out, please do. i'll end with colson's ending line:
"Fallible humans will continue to work for justice. But fallible as the system might be, part of the Christian's task is to remind surrounding culture that actions indeed have consequences - in this life and the life to come."
AMEN! and when we execute people, knowing there will likely be innocents killed in the process i'm sure there will be consequences for that too.
try this
Comment feed for this post