The Anarcho-Pacifist Case Against Lethal Self-DefenseChrist came to bring "peace on earth" (Luke 2:14). The Bible speaks of a day when we beat "swords into plowshares" (Isaiah 2; Micah 4). How do we get there from here? Some folks believe that day will not come until after Christ's "second coming." ("Premillennialists") I believe we have a moral obligation today to beat "swords into plowshares." Nobody I know is against "self-defense." If you have a shield, and some aggressor approaches you with a sword, there is no reason why you should not use your shield to defend yourself against the attacker's sword. But the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill." So if your attacker beats his sword against your shield until he tires and says, "I need to take a nap," you cannot use your shield to crack your attacker's skull open while he naps, and justify that as "self-defense." In addition to the commandment against killing, Jesus says "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:43-48). Suppose someone slips your son a mickey. Your son hallucinates that your wife is an attacker. Your son begins to attack your wife, acting in "self-defense" in the erroneous belief your wife is an attacker. Do you de-personalize and de-humanize your son and get out a gun and blow your son's brains out in "self-defense?" Of course not. You would try any number of other creative strategies to disarm your son and prevent the attack on your wife. Why? Because you love your son. You assume your son will come to his senses. You hold out the hope of redemption. Jesus says to treat an attacker with the same benefit of the doubt. Treat the attacker as if he will shortly become your cherished brother in the faith. More discussion here: How to Love Your Enemy. |
|
Peter Hammond shared a post. 57m |
Is Peter Hammond saying you have a duty to kill your son in defense of self or others?
I don't think he's saying that, but he does seem to be saying that you don't have a duty to love your enemy. We will never have "peace on earth" if we clutch a right to kill. Christians must repudiate lethal "self-defense." |
| In Genesis 9:5-6, God instituted capital punishment for murder. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.” This death penalty for murder was repeatedly restated (Exodus 21:12-15; Leviticus 24:17-22; Numbers 35:33; Matthew 5:17-18; Acts 25:11; Romans 13:1-4; Revelation 13:10). | Is Hammond saying that every individual has the right to administer capital punishment, without jury trial, for an attempted attack? If not, this paragraph is irrelevant. In any case, after Christ shed His blood, the shedding of blood is no longer appropriate. See more here: A Theonomic Argument Against Capital Punishment |
| However, nowhere does the Bible advocate weapons control. The Bible does record the control of weapons by the Amalikites and the Philistines (Judges 5:8 and 1 Samuel 13:19-22) but it condemns these restrictions on individual defence as a pagan attempt to centralise excessive power. | It is true the Bible does not advocate theft. I do not have the right to steal your shield. An organized crime syndicate, like a
"government," does not have the right to steal your means of self-defense.
But "weapons control" may be a different story. The Bible says we ought to beat our "swords into plowshares" and not prepare for war (Micah 4; Isaiah 2). If you knew that your neighbor was a terrorist, and was building a nuclear bomb in his garage, do you have a right to engage in "weapons control?" I would think so. |
| Our Lord Jesus Christ told His disciples that: “He who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” Luke 22:36 | Most scholars see that Jesus was not speaking literally here. There is no evidence that after His disciples were given the Holy Spirit they sold their clothes and bought swords. If Jesus was speaking literally, then the entire tradition of Christian martyrs were disobedient. More: Scholarly Commentators on Luke 22 - Did Jesus Command His Followers to Buy (and Use) a Sword? |
| The Law of God is clear. “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.” Exodus 22:2 | This passage says that if someone breaks into your home to steal your TV and you kill the intruder, you must be put to death.
Unless the break-in occurs at night. Then God will cut you some slack. |
| The Law of God establishes the basic right of self-defence. Any person is justified in defending himself, or his family, whenever they are attacked or their lives are endangered. Any weapon is permissible for use in self-defence. The Law of God does not say that the home owner is guilty if he uses a sword, but innocent if he uses a club. The issue is not one of weapons, but the right and duty of self-defence. | Again, the controversy is not over defending yourself by locking your door, running away, using a shield, or setting your phaser to "stun." The issue is lethal self-defense. Is it more like Christ to kill, or to be killed? |
| Foundations for Freedom | |
| To limit a person’s access to lethal weapons is to limit his ability for self and family defence. Gun control interferes with our basic right and responsibility for self-defence. Ultimately gun control can deprive you of your right to life. The right of citizens to use lethal force to defend themselves is a great deterrent to hijackers, rapists and murderers. Those who choose not to have firearms still benefit from those who do. If only one in twenty people are armed, it still acts as a restraint on potential attackers who are not certain who is armed, and who is not. The deterrent value of armed citizens against crime cannot be overestimated. “Do not be afraid of them, remember the Lord, great and awesome, and fight for your brethren, your sons, your daughters, your wives and your houses.” Nehemiah 4:14 | The deterrent value of one in twenty people having a phaser set on stun is just as great a deterrent as people who are willing to
kill. There is no Biblical justification for killing rather than tranquilizing. It is true that phasers are more expensive than handguns, but that's because we live in a
post-Christian "culture of death." The market demand for instruments of killing is greater than the market demand for instruments of non-lethal defense, and so
capitalists respond accordingly.
What is the value of a human life? What is the value of a potential Christian? When you stand before "the Supreme Judge of the World," will you say "I thought a couple hundred dollars was more valuable than 50 years of my attacker's life" and expect to be exonerated? |
| From these, and many other, passages of Scripture (including Numbers 32:20; Judges 5:8; 1 Samuel 13:19-22), we can see that a man is responsible to be armed and prepared to protect his household. “A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.” Proverbs 25:26 | There were reasons for Israel to commit genocide of all the nations in the Promised Land. These reasons no longer apply today. See: "Holy War" and "Capital Punishment" vs. Jesus |
| English legal tradition has always recognised the right of free citizens to possess and carry weapons for self-defence. King Alfred the Great (871-899) laid the foundation for English law. The Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 formed the preamble for these laws. While abuses, such as disturbing a meeting by drawing a sword, were prohibited – the basic right to bear arms was entrenched. | The right to defense is not being challenged here. The right to kill is what is being challenged. |
| The laws of King Cnut (1020-1023) declared self-defence to not only be a right, but a duty. Those who failed to assist a person under attack were to be fined. Similarly, anyone who “illegally disarms a man” were to be fined. | The right to assist is not being challenged here. The right to kill is what is being challenged. |
| Magna Carta of 1215, the first written restriction on the powers of government and the grandfather of all Bills of Rights, guarantees the right of all free men to bear arms. | Magna Carta guarantees the right of all free men to bear arms. What about slaves? Did they have that right? Over the last thousand years, has Christian civilization advanced in some areas more than others? Do we frown on slavery more than we frown on killing? |
| The English Declaration of Rights of 1689 recognised “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” Other free states entrenched this right to obtain, own, carry and use weapons for self-defence, including most notably the United States of America and its Bill of Rights. | Again, the issue is not defense, but lethal defense. |
| If these foundational principles for freedom seem extreme, or outdated, then consider recent history: | |
| Rwanda was a Gun Free Zone | |
| On 6 April 1994, one of the most dreadful campaigns of mass murder was unleashed upon the Tutsi people of Rwanda. In just over 6 weeks more people were killed with machetes and clubs than have died from atomic weapons in all of history. The MRND Hutu government of Rwanda instigated, organised and launched the systematic slaughter of the Christian Tutsi minority after enforcing a rigorous gun control. As the population had been previously disarmed, they were helpless to defend themselves against the state which now had a monopoly of weapons. Over 800,000 Tutsi Christians were murdered. The confiscation of weapons made the massacres possible - by disarming the targeted victims. The holocaust in Rwanda again confirmed that limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families is an open invitation to criminals to attack the innocent. | The same thinking which justified lethal self-defense tends to justify killing in the interests of "national security." The solution to problems like Rwanda is not to send the Marines, but to send Missionaries armed with the Gospel and the message of "swords into plowshares." Individuals who think they have a right to kill in "self-defense" think they have a right to create "governments" which will use lethal force to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." |
| Gun Control Precedes Genocide | |
| The genocides perpetrated upon the Christian Armenians in Ottoman Turkey from 1915-1917 were preceded by gun control and gun confiscation. The massacres of Christian farmers in the Soviet Union from 1919-1953 were preceded by gun control and gun confiscation; against Christians in Red China from 1949-1976; against Christians in Uganda from 1971-1979; against educated people in Cambodia from 1975-1979 were all preceded by gun control legislation, which effectively disarmed the targeted victims. | It would be wrong for an organized criminal cartel to confiscate all defensive tranquilizers. |
| The Greatest Killer | |
| A gun free sticker would not have helped these people, because the greatest threat to life is not from firearm accidents, nor even from criminals. The greatest killer in the 20th Century was secular governments who had disarmed their own citizens. Approximately 160 million people were killed by their own governments, in over 40 communist states, just in the 20th Century alone. These were not foreigners killed by invading armies during times of war, these were citizens killed by their own governments, in times of peace. | This is an important point: The greatest killer in the 20th Century was secular governments. But the same mentality behind lethal "self-defense" is behind the creation of governments, which always tend to be secular because they are in direct conflict with the commands of Christ. "Governments" do not exist because people want to love their enemies. They exist because people feel they have the right to kill. |
| Tyrants Prefer Unarmed Victims | |
| Gun control deprives potential victims of their best means of protection. A free people need to be armed. Disarmed people can be easily exploited and oppressed. If a government does not trust its citizens with weapons, then the citizens cannot trust that government with power. A government that fears its people is itself to be feared. No government should ever have a monopoly of force, or weaponry. | Eliminating a monopoly of force is eliminating the entire concept of "government."
No individual has the right to kill. "Governments" are individuals organizing themselves into a collective killing machine. |
|