Back on the Internet after a few days with a fried modem. Posted most of this on the RH forum a couple of weeks ago, pretty much sums up my stance on an issue that's important to me. If the fact that it is scandalises you or fills you with contempt, convince me of my error or stay out of my hair. I'm willing to learn, but not to engage in empty invective, and maybe it's not so unthinkable that I could possibly be learned from on a point or two. It's amazing how many people will line up either to lambast me as a bloodthirsty warmonger because I believe in the God-given right to defend oneself or (especially) others, or to deride me as a limpwristed fence-rider because I'm not itching to pull a trigger at the merest hint of a threat. Stuff them all. They aren't living my life or addressing my responsibilities. I am.
So...
If Christ meant "turn the other cheek" to forbid defence as well as revenge, then the Christian response to all forms of evil is non-resistance. On a personal level, that means to let the pedophile have his way with your child, let the rapist enjoy your sister or daughter or wife, let the assailant do what he will with you. On a national scale, that means no police, no military, no defencive capabilities of any kind for a nation that calls itself Christian. How long would such a nation last in this world?
If obedience to this precept precludes the use of any sort of violence, then Christians have no place in the military or police. If this is true, then my brother-in-law, several good friends, and God alone knows how many more professing Christians are not only walking in sin, but making a living off of it and in some cases leading others into it. Also, were all Christians to take this view to heart and leave such professions, then that means in the case of the United States that everyone who pulls a trigger, drops a bomb, or drives a warship (or issues orders to those who do) answers to no higher authority than Uncle Sam. Am I the only one shuddering at that prospect?
This also raises the question of why Jesus commended a Roman centurion (a senior NCO in the Roman army who likely had spilled a great deal of blood in his day) for faith that put that of all Israel in the shade, yet made no recorded attempt to urge repentance in the form of leaving the legions. Also, if my understanding of history is correct, the soldiers who questioned John the Baptist on what true repentance meant for them in practical terms were likely Roman, i.e., armed agents of a rapacious pagan empire. Yet John (who was Spirit-filled from birth) never suggested that they leave the service of Rome, only that they conduct themselves therein in a manner that reflected the fear of God and love for those He loves.
As an aside, I find it telling that although police organisations tend to favour gun control, individual officers (and I know two well enough to call family) tend to be some of our nation's most ardent supporters of the Second Amendment. Yet perhaps no demographic is at greater risk of injury or death by a firearm in the hands of a private citizen. They simply make the distinction between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal. It's a judgment of actions, not heart or human worth.
Just to be clear, let me state my own position:
I do not own firearms because I fear death. I don't. I know where I'm going, and frankly, the sooner the better. I own firearms because they expand my options in the face of unrestrained evil. They are by no means my only options, or even my first. I will avoid trouble if at all reasonably possible. I will pursue peace with all as much as it depends on me, though sometimes peace is achieved because the one who would gladly and callously break it chooses not to because they don't want a load of 00 buckshot in their thorax. I will risk my own life tremendously to defuse a confrontation with someone who wishes harm to myself or those I love without violence. I will never pull a trigger or even brandish a weapon if there is the merest hint of any other reasonable option. I will never, ever take or even threaten a life to preserve mere money or property. I would vastly prefer to deter aggression than engage it, but if armed I am much better equipped to do either. I am prepared to face evil unarmed, but I don't want that to be my only option.
And honestly, I don't know how someone can love an enemy and shoot him to death at the same time, except that an evildoer can make a choice that leaves no other reasonable option for he who would act in love. C. S. Lewis, a former WWI infantry officer, went into much greater depth on this issue in his essay Why I Am Not A Pacifist, from his collection The Weight Of Glory. I tend to trust the perspective of those who have been there, because frankly, I'll be happy if I never do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Loophole: He said if someone strikes you on YOUR cheek, turn the other. He did NOT say if someone strikes down someone you love, turn your back. Important distinction.
That being said, be sure the protection has truly been warranted and has not just been an artifact of flawed perception. Many people fly off the handle when they perceive a loved one to be "attacked" and often the "attacker" has only been trying to address the fact that your precious loved one has actually done THEM harm. Personal prejudices should not dictate action, only righteous unbiased assessment of need.
Of course being a demoniac and a predator, what would this one know.
M, you know a hell of a lot more than many self-anointed defence "experts".
The ones I trust enough to learn from are the ones who teach avoidance, de-escalation and situational awareness as much as, or more than, tactics and weapons handling. It grieves me to see how few people, Christian or not, who share my affinity for the art and science of weaponry value restraint, moderation and forethought as much as such a subject demands.
Post a Comment