Ethics of Life

All right, good morning, everyone.

Welcome to week six of our class on the ethics of life,

! where we've been exploring the meaning and implications of the sixth commandment,

! which is, you shall not murder.

Let me give just a quick review before we dive in this morning.

We spent the first two weeks of our class

looking at the kind of biblical principles behind this commandment.

And we said there in those classes that one of the implications

of this sixth commandment was that the church was to become more and more

through the gospel a community of honor and dignity for all people,

a community of hope, and a community of reconciliation.

Then we spent two weeks kind of discussing some of the practical implications of the sixth commandment,

and we started at the very earliest stages of human life,

specifically looking at the topic of abortion.

And we saw that across numerous biblical passages,

the Bible makes no distinction between the dignity of human life inside and outside the womb.

And so we argued that abortion is morally wrong.

Then, just last week, we discussed capital punishment,

and we noticed that Christians have understood

and applied those biblical texts differently on this question.

And I think it's safe to say that what we observed was that capital punishment

was both permitted and commanded by God in the Old Testament.

And we saw that in a passage like Romans 13,

capital punishment by civil authority seems also to be permitted in the New Testament.

But we also gave some thought and considered that,

given the different contexts in which we live today,

perhaps not everything that is permissible is fruitful or prudent.

So we noticed that there are different approaches among Christians

as to how best to handle that question today.

Now, our original plan, if you were here last week,

was to discuss the topic of war today.

But we needed to make a schedule change

because I realized I'm going to be out of town next week.

So Tom was gracious enough to swap weeks with me.

So next week, Tom is going to lead us in a consideration of Christian approaches to war

and pacifism and just war.

Today, we're going to talk about self-defense.

Self-defense in light of the Sixth Commandment.

So the question before us this morning is this.

Does Scripture prohibit the use of physical force

to defend oneself against a physical attack?

If we're being attacked, if our life is threatened,

or if the life of a loved one is being threatened,

are we permitted to use physical force, even lethal force,

to defend ourselves or others?

And if so, is it right for a Christian to own and use a weapon,

such as a gun, for that purpose?

Now, we're talking about individual citizens, Christians.

We're not talking about the state or police forces today.

I think we looked at Romans 13 last week, and we'll look at it again next week,

where we saw that there is a place for state and for governmental authorities

to use that kind of force.

But we're asking about us personally.

Now, again, as we saw last week concerning capital punishment,

and what we'll see this week with respect to war,

or next week with respect to war,

is that faithful Christians do take differing views on this question.

But I think the best place to begin

as we think about this question of self-defense

is with Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount.

So, if you turn to Matthew 5, verses 38 through 48,

Matthew 5:38–48

we'll begin our reflections there.

So, Matthew 5, 38 through 48.

Jesus says this.

He says,

You have heard that it was said,

an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil.

But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek,

turn to him the other also.

And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,

let him have your cloak as well.

And if anyone forces you to go one mile,

go with him two miles.

Give to the one who begs from you,

and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said,

you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.

But I say to you, love your enemies,

and pray for those who persecute you,

so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.

For he makes his son to rise on the evil and on the good,

and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if you love those who love you,

what reward do you have?

Do not even the tax collectors do the same.

And if you greet only your brothers,

what more are you doing than others?

Do not even the Gentiles do the same.

You, therefore, must be perfect,

as your heavenly Father is perfect.

All right, let's pray.

Father, we thank you for this morning.

Thanks that we can gather together as your people,

Lord, and come to your word,

and ask for your wisdom and guidance.

And we thank you that through your Spirit,

you do offer that to us.

Lord, thank you that we as your people can live

according to your word by the power of your Spirit.

And God, thank you that through your Spirit,

you give us charity as we wrestle with these tricky issues together.

So God, we pray that as a result of our meditation on your word this morning,

we'd come away with a richer sense of your goodness,

and your power, and your beauty,

and a deeper sense of living for you,

living faithfully unto you.

We pray this in Jesus' name.

Amen.

Okay, so some Christians would certainly understand Jesus

to be prohibiting all forms of self-defense here, right?

Jesus says, don't resist the one who's evil,

but if anyone slaps you on the right cheek,

turn to him the other also.

Now, often this interpretation of Jesus' words,

if one takes that interpretation,

is part of a larger interpretation of Scripture

that sees all use of physical force or violence as wrong and evil,

whether by individuals or by the state.

So, for example, the Anabaptist tradition

has been especially known for its commitment

to this sort of total nonviolence.

Now, other Christians would say

that Jesus here isn't really speaking about self-defense

in the way that we usually mean it.

The slap on the right cheek, it's argued,

is not actually a form of physical violence or a lethal attack,

nor is it kind of physical abuse.

Rather, in the context of the ancient world,

the slap on the cheek was actually what we might call an insult.

It was a form of social humiliation and contempt.

It didn't threaten your life.

It actually threatened your reputation and your dignity.

And in response to that, Jesus says, don't retaliate.

Rather than returning insult for insult,

rather than kind of brooding over how you're going to get them back

and make them pay, Jesus says, turn the other cheek.

Let their insults fly.

In fact, the greater strength in that moment

isn't hurling your insults back at them.

It's breaking the cycle of retaliation

and refusing to respond in kind.

Even if that means you receive more insults in the process.

Okay, so we've got these sort of two broad readings of this text.

Now, I think exegetically, putting this passage in context,

I think that second reading of Jesus's words in Matthew 5

is actually more accurate than the first.

I don't think Matthew 5 is speaking directly

to the question of whether Christians can justly defend themselves

against a violent attacker.

I think Jesus is giving an example of how it would be easy to retaliate

and escalate a conflict,

and as his followers were not to respond in that way.

Rather, as children of our heavenly Father,

we're called to love our enemies,

to pray for those who persecute us,

and to do good to those who are unjust

and who may seek to do us wrong.

But,

if Jesus isn't speaking directly

to our kind of particular question about self-defense here,

are there not still principles in what Jesus is teaching

that could and should apply to that situation?

Well, I think the answer to that is yes.

But in order to do that rightly,

we need to consider this passage

along with some other passages in Scripture

that might apply to this same question.

So, let's do that.

Let's look at some other passages.

First, I think we should consider

that Jesus' clear teaching about non-retaliation

and love of enemy

does not mean

that Christians should never remove themselves from danger.

In fact, I think there's plenty of scriptural precedent

to suggest just the opposite.

There are passages that seem to clearly encourage

escaping from danger.

Right?

Think about 1 Samuel 19, 9-10

where David flees from Saul.

Here's the passage from 1 Samuel.

It says,

Then a harmful spirit from the Lord came upon Saul

as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand

and David was playing the liar.

And Saul sought to pin David to the wall with the spear.

But he eluded Saul

so that he struck the spear into the wall

and David fled and escaped that night.

Right?

So, here's an example of David.

His life is at danger

and he runs away.

And the scriptures seem to say,

That's probably a good idea.

Right?

Get yourself out of danger.

Interestingly,

as we follow the story of David and Saul

in 1 Samuel,

even though Saul repeatedly tries to kill David,

David never retaliates against him.

In fact,

David refused to kill Saul

in what we might call self-defense

even when David has numerous opportunities to do so

because Saul is the Lord's anointed.

Right?

David says he has no right to lift his hand

against the Lord's anointed.

So, at least in this example,

David's treatment of Saul

seems to support Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5

that we should refuse to retaliate when wronged.

But Jesus kind of applies that principle

to all of our relationships.

Okay, we see another example of escaping from danger

in the New Testament as well.

In 2 Corinthians 11, 32 through 33,

Paul says,

So when facing physical violence,

Christians should certainly seek,

if possible,

to remove themselves from danger.

Jesus' teaching about loving our enemies

and turning the other cheek

and not retaliating

doesn't mean we should keep ourselves

in the position

where others can persist in harming us.

Okay?

All right, second.

Second thing.

Jesus' teaching about non-retaliation

doesn't mean

that we shouldn't take lawful means

to prevent violence and unjust treatment.

Right?

Even though Jesus has turned the other cheek,

that doesn't mean we shouldn't take lawful means

to prevent violence and unjust treatment.

And the New Testament offers numerous examples

of the apostles verbally and legally

defending themselves and others

before the sort of violent courts

and authorities of their day.

Just to rattle off a few examples,

in Acts 4,

Peter and John are arrested by the Sanhedrin

and they speak boldly in their defense.

In Acts 5,

the apostles again defend themselves

before the Sanhedrin.

In Acts 7,

Stephen gives a long and bold verbal defense

before his martyrdom.

The apostle Paul likewise

defends himself numerous times.

In Acts 16,

he defends himself

to the Roman city authorities in Philippi.

And at the end of Acts,

in chapters 22 through 26,

we have a series of legal defenses

that Paul makes before Roman centurions

and crowds and Jewish courts

and Roman rulers.

And then when we turn to Paul's letters,

we see Paul defending himself

and his ministry

against a number of accusations.

Okay, so what's the lesson here?

Following Jesus' teaching

about non-retaliation

doesn't mean

that we cannot give a clear,

truthful,

even bold,

verbal,

and legal defense

against accusation

or even against the threat

of physical violence.

We're meant to take

those lawful means

to protect ourselves

and others.

Now, third thing to keep in mind,

one of those lawful means

to which Christians

can and should appeal

are the God-given

civil authorities.

Okay, let me read

Romans 13,

1 through 7.

And if you'd like to turn there,

this is a little bit

of a longer one.

You can follow along there.

Romans 13,

1 through 7.

So as we seek to follow

the principle of Jesus' command

that we're not to retaliate

when others do us wrong,

we see that it's

quite permissible

to remove ourselves

from danger.

It's quite permissible

to take lawful means

to prevent it.

And here we're going to see

that one of those lawful means

to which we can appeal

are the God-given

civil authorities

who are entrusted by God

with the right use

of physical force.

Let me read Romans 13,

1 through 7.

Paul says,

Let every person be subject

to the governing authorities.

For there's no authority

except from God,

and those that exist

have been instituted by God.

Therefore,

whoever resists

the authorities

resists what God

has appointed,

and those who resist

will incur judgment.

For rulers are not a terror

to good conduct,

but to bad.

Would you have no fear

of the one who is in authority?

Then do what is good,

and you will receive

his approval.

For he is God's servant

for your good.

But if you do wrong,

be afraid.

For he does not bear

the sword in vain.

For he is the servant of God,

an avenger who carries out

God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Therefore,

one must be in subjection

not only to avoid God's wrath,

but also for the sake

of conscience.

For because of this,

you also pay taxes

for the authorities

or ministers of God

attending to this very thing.

Pay to all what is owed to them,

taxes to whom taxes are due,

revenue to whom revenue is owed,

respect to whom respect is owed,

honor to whom honor is owed.

So in this passage,

we see that Paul affirms

the role of rightful

government authority

to use physical force

to stop evil

and to punish evildoers.

Paul says,

they do not bear

the sword in vain.

Now, of course,

the New Testament

knows very well

that human governments

can become corrupt,

that human governments

can themselves

become instruments

of wrongdoing and evil.

But nonetheless,

this passage teaches

that God institutes

and appoints

certain human authorities,

what we will call today

the state

or the governing authorities,

in part to administer

his justice

by punishing wrongdoing.

So when we see governments

acting unjustly

or corruptly,

our response isn't

to tear them all down,

but to reform them

and to change them

and to call them

to justice, right?

So what does this mean then?

Jesus' words

about non-retaliation

and loving our enemies

do not exclude

calling the police

when you or your loved ones

are in danger.

Now, I know that sounds

kind of obvious to us,

but I think there is

very good biblical precedent

for it.

In fact,

this is exactly

what you should do

when you are facing

physical attack

or experiencing

physical abuse

or imminent danger.

Remove yourself

from harm as quickly

as possible

and call the authorities.

In fact,

this act of removing

yourself from harm

and calling the police

as it were,

is I think a clear way

to obey Jesus' command

not to retaliate

and to love our enemies.

Allowing someone

to do wrong to us

and do sin against us

is actually not loving them.

It is loving

to stop the violence

from being done,

to stop the sin

from being committed

as much as we're able.

Okay.

But what if,

what if,

again,

in this sort of question

that we're considering

about self-defense,

what if,

what if the attack

happens suddenly?

What if you aren't able

to escape

or help the person

in danger to escape?

What if you call the police

but they won't arrive

in time to stop the attack?

What if,

what if you don't have

the means to contact

the police in that moment?

Is using force

or even lethal force

as a means of self-defense

justified

in those instances?

Well,

I think there are

a few passages

that seem to point

in the direction

of saying

that God

does allow

the use

of some degree

of force

to stop harm

and defend oneself.

The one that is perhaps

most relevant

is from the Mosaic case law

in Exodus 22.

So in Exodus 22,

two through three,

Exodus 22,

two through three,

the case law

of Moses

says this.

It says,

if a thief

is found

breaking in

and is struck

so that he dies,

there shall be

no blood guilt

for him.

But

if the sun

has risen

on him,

there shall be

blood guilt

for him.

Okay,

what is it?

What is this law

describing?

What is the scenario

here?

So this law

seems to be

assuming

that

if someone,

say,

breaks into

your home

at night,

you will be

startled

and you will

defend yourself

against them.

And if in the

act of defending

yourself at night,

you happen

to kill them,

the Mosaic law

says there is

no blood guilt

for that.

In other words,

you are not going

to be held

guilty

for his death.

As we would

say,

it was an

act of

self-defense.

But

interestingly,

the Mosaic law

says if the

theft happens

during the day

and you kill

him,

you are

guilty.

The presumption

seems to be

that if the sun

has risen,

less lethal

remedies,

including help

from others,

are available.

and the

availability

of such

alternate

remedies

in a case

like that

or in an

analogous

case,

well,

that would

be subject

for deliberation

in court

as judges

are asked

to assign

levels of

guilt.

So remember,

this passage

is case law.

It's giving

examples that

then the judges

of Israel

would need

to apply

to actual

situations.

So it

would seem

that in

this instance,

the Mosaic

law permits

an individual

to defend

themselves.

And that

the judges

would have

to determine

whether it

was indeed

a valid

case of

self-defense.

But notice

that this

law also

puts limits

on it as

well.

Right?

And those

limits, I

think,

serve a few

purposes.

I think

the first

purpose that

that limit

puts is

that even

in the

Mosaic

law,

God's

people were

called to

love their

neighbors as

themselves and

to refrain

from unlawful,

unjust,

and unnecessary

taking of

another human's

life.

In other

words, just

because someone

was acting in

self-defense

doesn't mean

that all bets

are off and

anything goes.

John Frame,

who's a Christian

theologian and

ethicist,

puts it this

way in his

reflection on

this passage

from Exodus

22.

He says,

the law of

love limits

our response

even to a

home invader.

But at the

same time,

John Frame

says,

the law of

love does

not forbid

us to

defend our

lives and

our families

by force

to the extent

that it is

necessary.

So you see,

there's a

balance there.

Okay, so

how ought we

to kind of

synthesize this

biblical material

then?

First, I do

think on the

basis of the

principles in

Exodus 22,

Christians are

permitted to

act in self-defense

in extreme

cases.

Sometimes an

act of force

may be

necessary to

protect oneself

from harm or

to protect a

loved one from

harm.

However, the

New Testament

also prevents

us from

seeing retaliatory

violence as the

immediate and

proper answer

to every

criminal

wrongdoing and

physical attack.

Listen to what

Paul writes in

Romans 12,

14 through

21.

And this is

before the

passage in

Romans 13 that

we read where

he talks about

the sort of

rightful authority,

right?

Paul writes in

Romans 12,

starting in

verse 14,

bless those who

persecute you,

bless and do

not curse them,

rejoice with

those who rejoice,

weep with those

who weep,

live in harmony

with one another,

do not be haughty

but associate with

the lowly,

never be wise in

your own sight,

repay no one evil

for evil but get

thought to do what

is honorable in the

sight of all,

if possible so far

as it depends on

you live peaceably

with all,

beloved never

revenge yourselves

but leave it to

the wrath of God

for it is written

vengeance is mine,

I will repay

says the Lord,

to the contrary

if your enemy is

hungry feed him,

if he's thirsty

give him something

to drink,

for by so doing

you will heap

burning coals

on his head

and Paul's

quoting our

proverb,

and then he

sums it up

with this,

do not be

overcome by

evil but

overcome evil

with good,

so while I

don't think

that this

passage completely

excludes self-defense

in every instance,

I do think

that it ought

to remind us

of the appropriate

posture of our

hearts towards

those who may

do us wrong,

even attack us,

right?

Let us not forget

that the New Testament

tells us again

and again that as

Christians we will

be persecuted

and some of us

will be put to

death and the

consistent response

to such violence

in the New Testament

is not,

self-defense is

permitted so be

ready to attack

them back.

What is it?

The Apostle Peter

talks about this

again and again

in his first

letter in 1 Peter

4.19 for example,

he says,

let those who

suffer according

to God's will

entrust their

souls to a

faithful creator

while doing

good.

Now contrast

that, I think,

very straightforward,

albeit very hard,

biblical position.

Contrast that

with the words

of, say,

a former

Christian college

president.

In 2015,

who in response

to terrorist

activity,

spoke to the

student body

at the college

and chapel

service.

And this

particular

Christian college

president,

after implying

that he had a

gun in his

back pocket,

said,

I just want

to take this

opportunity

to encourage

all of you

to get your

permit.

We offer a

free course.

And let's

teach them a

lesson if they

ever show up

here.

Is that

the message

of the

New Testament?

Let's

teach them

a lesson

if they

ever show

up here.

Consider

how that

same kind

of mindset

can trickle

into other

areas of

life,

not just

to protection

against the

hypothetical

lethal threat

of a

terrorist.

A different

Christian

theologian

who advocates

very strongly

for self-defense

and gun

ownership

goes on

in his

reflections

on self-defense

to advocate

that we

teach our

children to

fight back

against bullies

because,

this is a

quote,

otherwise,

the failure

to oppose

physically harmful

attacks with

physical force

will often

lead to

more harmful

attacks and

more wrong

being done.

And then he

says,

and that

Christian

children who

are not

taught to

defend

themselves

with physical

force can

often be

harmed repeatedly

and because

of that can

internalize deep

feelings of

injustice and

despair.

No parent

should allow

this to

happen to

his or her

children.

Okay,

so you see

where we've

come now.

So no longer

are we talking

about extreme

situations of

life and

death,

but we're

teaching our

children to

fight fire

with fire on

the playground

because they

might internalize

deep feelings

of injustice

and despair.

Is that

the way

of Jesus?

That same

theologian

argues that

in situations

of violent

harm by

criminals,

he says,

if it's

morally right

to call

the police

who would

use firearms

to protect

us in

such circumstances,

then it

seems to me

morally right

to use a

weapon if

necessary

before the

police can

arrive.

Then he

clarifies,

not for

vengeance,

but for

self-defense.

But friends,

isn't that a

deeply problematic

line of

reasoning?

I mean,

one of the

major points

of Romans

13 and

the Mosaic

Law is

that not

every citizen

has the

right to

act in

the stead

of the

governing

authorities.

You don't

have the

right to

act in

the same

way as

the police

before the

police get

there.

Now,

again,

I'm not

saying that

Christians are

totally forbidden

to use

various forms

of self-defense

in extreme

situations,

but what I

am saying

is that it's

very easy

to slide

into worldly

and fleshly

thinking when it

comes to this

question.

And suddenly,

we Christians

don't sound at

all like those

who truly believe

that God is

in control,

that vengeance

is his,

that God's

kingdom doesn't

advance through

the sword,

and that

peace and

not violence

is the way

of Christ,

actually is

the way

of courage

and wisdom,

and that our

weapons are

not the

weapons of

this world.

Okay,

lastly,

and then we'll

pause for some

questions.

Let me say a bit

about Christians

and gun

ownership,

as if we're

not talking

about something

controversial

enough.

Let's talk

about guns.

Here we are.

You know,

some have

argued,

okay,

so some have

argued that

on the basis

of Jesus'

words in

Luke 22,

Christians

should be

encouraged,

not just

permitted,

but encouraged

to own

weapons for

self-defense.

In Luke 22

Luke 22:35–38

verses 35

through 38,

you can look

that up if

you'd like,

Luke 22,

35 through

38,

Luke records

these words

of Jesus

after Jesus

shares the

Last Supper

with his

disciples.

Okay,

so Luke

22,

35 through

38,

and Jesus

said to

them,

when I

sent you

out with

no money

bag or

knapsack or

sandals,

did you

lack

anything?

Jesus

is referring

here back

to their

earlier

ministry

in Galilee.

Did you

lack

anything?

They said

nothing.

He said

to them,

but now

let the

one who

has a

money

bag

take it

and likewise

a knapsack

and let

the one

who has

no sword

sell his

cloak

and buy

one.

For I

tell you

that scripture

must be

fulfilled in

me.

And he

was numbered

with the

transgressors

for what

is written

about me

has its

fulfillment.

And they

said,

look,

Lord,

here are

two swords.

And he

said to

them,

it's

enough.

When I

was in

seminary,

this passage

actually came

up on my

final exam

in New

Testament

one.

Where does

Jesus tell

his disciples

to buy

a sword?

Luke 22,

there it

is.

So the

argument runs

something like

this.

Jesus knew

trouble was

coming for

his disciples.

So he

tells them

to buy

swords for

self-defense.

Therefore,

Christians

today should

be equipped

with the

modern-day

equivalent of

self-defense,

which is a

handgun.

Okay.

I think

John Piper's

right when

he responds

to this line

of thinking

in this

way.

John

Piper,

who's a

pastor and

theologian,

has reflected

a lot on

Jesus'

words in

the Gospels,

wrote his

PhD dissertation

on Jesus'

love command,

and pastored

for many,

many years,

and lived

in the inner

city where

he pastored.

He writes

this.

He says,

I do not

think that

Jesus means

in verse

36 that

his disciples

were to

henceforth be

an armed band

of preachers

ready to

use violence

to defend

themselves

from persecution.

If that

is the

correct

interpretation

of this

text,

my question

is,

why did

none of

his disciples

in the New

Testament

ever do

that?

The probable

answer is

that Jesus

did not

mean for

them to

think in

terms of

armed defense

for the rest

of their

ministry.

Jesus'

abrupt words

at the end

of the

paragraph,

when the

disciples

produced

two

swords,

were not,

well,

you need

to get

nine more.

He said,

rather,

it's enough,

or that's

plenty.

This may

well signify

that the

disciples have

given a

mistaken

literal meaning

to a

figurative

intention.

In other

words,

Jesus was

speaking

figuratively.

And indeed,

New Testament

scholar Daryl

Bach also

writes about

this passage.

He says,

the church's

nonviolent

response to

persecution

in the

book of

Acts shows

that the

church is

armed only

with prayer

and faith

in God.

Luke 22

36 then

sees the

sword as

a symbol

of preparation

for persecution

since Jesus'

rebuke of a

literal interpretation

shows that a

symbol is

meant.

In other

words,

it points

to readiness

not to

revenge.

Okay,

so if

Jesus isn't

literally telling

his disciples

to arm

themselves in

this passage,

does that

mean Christians

should not

own guns?

Should

Christians not

have conceal

and carry

licenses?

Well,

just because

that's not

what this

passage is

about,

I don't

think that

means that

Christians

should not

own guns.

Right?

Ultimately,

I do

think this

is a

matter of

conscience

for Christians.

I genuinely

do.

I know

faithful

Christian

brothers and

sisters who

have conceal

and carry

licenses,

and I'm

not going

to rebuke

them,

and the

elders are

not going

to bring

them under

church

discipline.

In fact,

I think we

should be

more concerned

about our

attitudes and

our hearts

when it

comes to

these things.

In other

words,

whatever our

decision is,

are we

promoting a

cavalier

approach to

violence?

Are we

promoting a

culture where

guns are

the supposed

answer to

bring peace?

Is our

hope for

security and

safety in a

gun?

Are we

falling into

a mindset

that says

let's teach

them a

lesson if

they ever

show up

here?

Now,

look,

I'm not

saying that

owning a

gun

automatically

leads to

that

mindset.

Right?

In fact,

the Christians

I know

who have

conceal and

carry lysis

don't have

that mindset

as far as

I know.

But we

have to be

very careful

that we

are not

at the

same time

giving way

to these

anti-Christian

attitudes and

beliefs.

The question

of gun

ownership

for self-defense

I think

kind of sits

between two

theological

poles.

On the

one hand,

there is

very real

evil in

the world.

There is

violence

and there

is

wickedness

and Christians

are called

to protect

the vulnerable.

But on the

other hand,

we also have

to balance

that with

the sort

of culture

that we

want to

promote

and create.

Is the

proliferation

of guns

and other

instruments of

death the

sort of

society we

want to

build?

Is

promoting

the answering

of violence

with violence

the path

toward the

sort of

culture

that honors

the Lord

Jesus Christ?

And I think

both of those

poles are

real and I

don't think

there are

easy answers.

Personally,

I don't own

a gun for

self-defense.

I don't

ever intend

to get

one.

But I also

respect Christians

who've chosen

differently than

me.

And as a

church,

we want to

have hearty

conversations

about these

things and

still love

each other

if we

disagree.

Okay,

all right,

let's stop

there and

let's open

it up for

questions.

What

questions do

you have on

this thorny

topic?

Yeah,

go ahead,

Brent.

this. Yeah.

Ezekiel 33, 11

stated in, as I live,

I have no

pleasure in the death of the wicked.

The wicked turn to his way and live.

Turn back and back

to evil ways.

I serve on military.

I think

there's a place for

defense. There's not

a place for gloat.

Yeah.

No taking pleasure

to death.

If God doesn't take pleasure

to death,

nor should I.

Yeah.

That's well said, Brent.

Yeah. I'm just going to repeat that

so it ends up on the recording.

In Ezekiel, there's a very clear

passage where God says,

I don't delight in the death of the wicked.

And if that's true of our Lord,

neither should we.

Yeah, that's right.

Even if there's an appropriate time

for defense.

That's right. Thanks, Brent.

Yeah.

Yeah, Susan.

I think you could make that.

I wrote some stuff for

training in martial arts

where you have

the ability to

dishonor or screen someone.

Yeah, that's right.

That's right.

Yeah, and you know that,

so I went to a,

the undergraduate college

that I went to

was out of the Anabaptist tradition.

So it was a peace tradition.

So,

this was kind of a question

we talked about a lot.

And what's interesting

is that in the peace tradition,

it's,

the response to

the kind of imminent threat

is not,

well, you just end up,

you just end up,

you just end up dead,

right?

But it's actually,

okay,

how do we creatively engage here,

courageously engage?

And sometimes that does

require some kind of restraint,

right?

You know,

now,

I don't think our Mennonite

brothers and sisters

are taking Taekwondo.

But I think you're making

a good point, Susan.

There's other ways to respond

that are not lethal,

right?

If you're trained to.

If you're trained,

yeah, exactly,

exactly.

Yeah, that's right.

That's right.

Ivor,

did you want to jump in?

Go ahead.

There's been several churches

that have been attacked.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And several were saved

by a member having

a concealed weapon

that saved lives.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Is that appropriate?

That's a really good question.

We've talked about this

some as leadership,

right?

So Ivor's saying

there have been,

you know,

instances where churches

have been attacked

and someone with a

conceal and carry license

was actually able to

sort of kill that person

and then presumably

save more lives.

We've actually talked

to local law enforcement

about this question

and what they've actually

strongly recommended to us

is that we do not

encourage people

with conceal and carry licenses

to try to

respond in those situations

of mass shooting.

And they said that

for a couple of reasons.

One is

most people,

even with conceal and carry licenses

with the appropriate

training and licensing

and practice

that it takes to get that

are actually not equipped

to respond in moments

of that kind of high intensity

with lots of other

civilians around.

That their sense was

is that more often than not,

more innocent people

will be hurt

than less.

Second,

when the police

do show up,

which by the way,

we have a system

at Trinity

to call the police

very, very quickly

if anything happens,

if we need that,

that when they do show up,

they actually don't know

who's the bad guy

and who's the good guy,

so to say.

What they recommended

we do is

grab something

really heavy

like the fire extinguisher

and swing as hard

as you can.

So,

use physical force

but don't

have an untrained

individual pull

another gun

in that situation

and cause more

chaos and mayhem.

Now,

that's very different

than if there's someone

in the church

who's a trained

law enforcement officer

or a trained member

of the military.

They have the kind

of training

to respond appropriately

in those situations.

So,

but thank you for that,

Ivor.

Yeah,

this is what makes it

a complicated issue,

right?

Yeah.

Yeah,

Giovanni.

Yeah,

so,

I do agree

that this is

a conscious decision

with each one of us

as Christians

but I wonder

how do we

balance the attention

between like

the individual

and the collective

problem

with these.

Yeah,

yeah.

So,

yeah,

I agree

in theory

that Christians

are allowed

to have guns

but should we

be like

advocating

for

proliferation

of guns

because

like the data

shows

kind of

very clearly

that that's a problem

that creates

more violence

on average

and more mortality

on average.

So,

how do we deal

with like

our

individual

freedom

and the collective

quality?

I agree,

Giovanni,

and this is a bit

of what I was trying

to get at

by thinking

about that poll

of like

what kind

of culture

do we want

to create

as Christians,

right?

Because we are

as Christians

and as churches

creating the culture

we live in,

right?

As humans,

God created us

to be culture

makers.

We can't

not do that.

So,

the actions

that we make

aren't just

for our own selves

but they do

have broader impact.

So,

I think we have

to weigh that

very seriously.

Now,

I'll speak

off the record.

I'm not speaking

on behalf

of the elders.

I'm just speaking

on me personally.

I think

that there are

certain kind

of guns

that a civilian

can buy

in the United States

that they should

not be able

to purchase.

I think

any kind

of assault

style weapon

should not

be allowed

to be owned

by a civilian

because they

can cause

massive amounts

of death

in a very

short amount

of time.

And I just

don't think