Is There Any Reason Why, or Occasion When, a Christian Would be Right to Carry a Weapon for the Purpose of Self-Defense?
Pastor Larry L. Long
Fellowship Community Church, Midland, Texas
larry.long2605@sbcglobal.net
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 (Mt. 5NIV).
In Matthew 5:39 Jesus taught that we should not resist an evil person. If someone strikes us on the right cheek, we should turn to him the other also. So for obvious reasons, a personal commitment to passive non-resistance has been a basic tenet of the church’s ethos since its beginning, being summarized succinctly in the slogan to “turn the other cheek.”
In general terms the teaching is uncomplicated and clear—retaliation, revenge, and resistance (whether lethal or non-lethal) against those who would treat us with an evil intent is entirely out of step with our calling. We are to be people who not only pray for our enemies, but who do good to them because we love them (Mt 5:44).
Throughout the history of the church many have so lived their faith in more than just general terms. Innumerable are those who have surrendered their very lives rather than resist evil people. Five missionaries in Ecuador’s jungle made that choice back in 1956 when they decided not to defend themselves with modern weapons against the primitive spears and arrows of the Waodani Indians. Some days later their bodies were found downstream. They died willingly
rather than kill their aggressors in self-defense (a pact they had made beforehand). They knew they already had the promise of eternal life, but the Waodanis didn’t.
A foolish decision? If they could speak to us today, I don’t think they would say so. Many of the Waodani they were trying to reach are in fact following Jesus today because of the testimony of their surrendered lives and the loving forgiveness of their surviving family members who followed them into the same jungle to reach their murderers with the gospel. Examples like this can be multiplied many times over.
So is there any reason why, or occasion when, a Christian would be right to carry a weapon for the purpose of self-defense? Many Christians would say no, and in general terms I am inclined to agree. Like Christ, Christians must be ready and willing to lay down their lives for friend and enemy alike. This is the highest of all Christian values.
But I would also point out that life is lived in more than just general terms, and the biblical teaching on the subject is far more developed and nuanced than a simple “turn the other check” allows.
I have elsewhere gone into some detail as to why I think it is biblically appropriate for Christians to personally participate in the use of lethal force when such force is just. I’ll not cover that same ground here, except to say that some of the principles that apply there apply here too, but with one possible exception: The just use of deadly force when it comes to national defense or the legal imposition of law and the protection of society as a whole is undertaken not so much for self-preservation but corporate (i.e., societal or national) preservation. A law officer or soldier who takes the life of another is acting according to a legal mandate given by society at large. He or she is protecting not just self, but the community as a whole.
In the case of a Christian facing down an assumed non-Christian in a “whoever-shoots-first-lives” scenario, the situation is much less clear, because eternity is in the balance. Christian love and self-sacrifice are not meant to be embraced only in theory, but in reality. To illustrate the difficulty, let’s ask the same question from the other side—Is there ever an occasion when it might be contrary to the will of God for a Christian to take the life of another for the sake of self-preservation? I hope most Christians would easily answer “yes” to that question.
And so the moral dilemma grows. I understand why some would, in theory, take the “easy road” by saying that self-defense is always wrong (easy in theory, sometimes deadly-hard in practice). But the Bible doesn’t reveal God’s heart and mind to us in theory only. We are called to live a real faith in a real world. Our question needs to be answered in a manner that reflects that reality.
What I mean is this: While it is true that one of the highest biblical values is self-sacrifice for the eternal preservation of others (even our enemies), and while it is true that Jesus taught us to “turn the other cheek” in response to a personal
assault on our person and pride, biblical teaching also recognizes the need to use physical force for the sake of what is right.
The account of Jesus making a whip for the purpose of running off the money changers from the temple is one such example. Though by no means lethal, the event implies the legitimate use of physical force in defense of what is right.
On another occasion, which is perhaps just as subtle but even more telling, we find Jesus at the end of his life teaching his disciples that things are about to change due to his pending death and resurrection. In Luke 22, beginning at verse thirty-six, Jesus tells them that they should no longer travel without a purse or bag as they had been previously instructed, and if they didn’t have a sword, they should sell their cloak and buy one. When the disciples produce two swords that were already in their possession, Jesus said, “That is enough.”
Just a few verses later, when Peter attempts to use one of these swords to defend, if not his own life, then at least the life of his Lord, Jesus rebukes him and miraculously heals the wound so amateurishly inflicted. One might be tempted to argue that Jesus’ intent all along was to do this very thing, that he wanted a sword in the group to teach the very opposite of the need and right of self-defense. But this is by no means clear in the earlier context, especially when one wonders how it pertains to the exhortation to also start carrying a purse and a bag (v. 36).
In fact, a sword in the hand of a disciple had only one purpose, and that was self-defense. To be sure, wild animals were always a threat when traveling between cities, but so were bandits. If Jesus meant to distinguish between the two, he nowhere made that clear, and it was unlikely that just wild animals were in mind. I think Jesus was making the point that lethal self-defense is sometimes the right and necessary course of action, even though that may not always be the case.
Take, for example, this possible scenario, which is believable because it has happened with tragic results more than once. You and four other people are in a restaurant at closing time when two bandits with guns enter to rob the place. As the robbery commences, the lead gunman tells the other to take everyone to the freezer and kill them in order to eliminate witnesses. But you have a concealed weapon that you are legally licensed to carry, and while the murdering gunman is herding you all to the back, you are able to retrieve your gun. Once around the corner and out of the sight of the head bandit, you quickly turn and kill the other gunman. This then allows you to remain in a secure position and call for the other gunman to surrender. While the police are called, he surrenders, flees, or is at least held at bay because you now have two guns to defend your position. Instead of five people dying, only one is dead.
Would a Christian be justified in not only taking such an action, but being prepared to do so? I find nothing in Scripture or Jesus’ teachings to warrant a negative answer. I believe the individual ethic of non-resistance (in dependence upon God) must be held in biblical balance with the equally-important biblical call for corporate justice (also in faithful dependence upon God). Arming a legally-qualified, law-abiding citizenry is a strong deterrent to violent crime, and Christians, of all people, should be willing to put themselves in harm’s way to protect innocent lives from the criminal and narcissistic insanity that seems to be sweeping our nation.
I would therefore answer the question in the affirmative: Yes, there are reasons and occasions when a Christian would be right to carry a weapon for self-defense—especially when the innocent lives of others’ are at stake, but Christian love may preclude his using that weapon in many cases.
Pastor Larry L. Long
Fellowship Community Church, Midland, Texas
larry.long2605@sbcglobal.net
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 (Mt. 5NIV).
In Matthew 5:39 Jesus taught that we should not resist an evil person. If someone strikes us on the right cheek, we should turn to him the other also. So for obvious reasons, a personal commitment to passive non-resistance has been a basic tenet of the church’s ethos since its beginning, being summarized succinctly in the slogan to “turn the other cheek.”
In general terms the teaching is uncomplicated and clear—retaliation, revenge, and resistance (whether lethal or non-lethal) against those who would treat us with an evil intent is entirely out of step with our calling. We are to be people who not only pray for our enemies, but who do good to them because we love them (Mt 5:44).
Throughout the history of the church many have so lived their faith in more than just general terms. Innumerable are those who have surrendered their very lives rather than resist evil people. Five missionaries in Ecuador’s jungle made that choice back in 1956 when they decided not to defend themselves with modern weapons against the primitive spears and arrows of the Waodani Indians. Some days later their bodies were found downstream. They died willingly
rather than kill their aggressors in self-defense (a pact they had made beforehand). They knew they already had the promise of eternal life, but the Waodanis didn’t.
A foolish decision? If they could speak to us today, I don’t think they would say so. Many of the Waodani they were trying to reach are in fact following Jesus today because of the testimony of their surrendered lives and the loving forgiveness of their surviving family members who followed them into the same jungle to reach their murderers with the gospel. Examples like this can be multiplied many times over.
So is there any reason why, or occasion when, a Christian would be right to carry a weapon for the purpose of self-defense? Many Christians would say no, and in general terms I am inclined to agree. Like Christ, Christians must be ready and willing to lay down their lives for friend and enemy alike. This is the highest of all Christian values.
But I would also point out that life is lived in more than just general terms, and the biblical teaching on the subject is far more developed and nuanced than a simple “turn the other check” allows.
I have elsewhere gone into some detail as to why I think it is biblically appropriate for Christians to personally participate in the use of lethal force when such force is just. I’ll not cover that same ground here, except to say that some of the principles that apply there apply here too, but with one possible exception: The just use of deadly force when it comes to national defense or the legal imposition of law and the protection of society as a whole is undertaken not so much for self-preservation but corporate (i.e., societal or national) preservation. A law officer or soldier who takes the life of another is acting according to a legal mandate given by society at large. He or she is protecting not just self, but the community as a whole.
In the case of a Christian facing down an assumed non-Christian in a “whoever-shoots-first-lives” scenario, the situation is much less clear, because eternity is in the balance. Christian love and self-sacrifice are not meant to be embraced only in theory, but in reality. To illustrate the difficulty, let’s ask the same question from the other side—Is there ever an occasion when it might be contrary to the will of God for a Christian to take the life of another for the sake of self-preservation? I hope most Christians would easily answer “yes” to that question.
And so the moral dilemma grows. I understand why some would, in theory, take the “easy road” by saying that self-defense is always wrong (easy in theory, sometimes deadly-hard in practice). But the Bible doesn’t reveal God’s heart and mind to us in theory only. We are called to live a real faith in a real world. Our question needs to be answered in a manner that reflects that reality.
What I mean is this: While it is true that one of the highest biblical values is self-sacrifice for the eternal preservation of others (even our enemies), and while it is true that Jesus taught us to “turn the other cheek” in response to a personal
assault on our person and pride, biblical teaching also recognizes the need to use physical force for the sake of what is right.
The account of Jesus making a whip for the purpose of running off the money changers from the temple is one such example. Though by no means lethal, the event implies the legitimate use of physical force in defense of what is right.
On another occasion, which is perhaps just as subtle but even more telling, we find Jesus at the end of his life teaching his disciples that things are about to change due to his pending death and resurrection. In Luke 22, beginning at verse thirty-six, Jesus tells them that they should no longer travel without a purse or bag as they had been previously instructed, and if they didn’t have a sword, they should sell their cloak and buy one. When the disciples produce two swords that were already in their possession, Jesus said, “That is enough.”
Just a few verses later, when Peter attempts to use one of these swords to defend, if not his own life, then at least the life of his Lord, Jesus rebukes him and miraculously heals the wound so amateurishly inflicted. One might be tempted to argue that Jesus’ intent all along was to do this very thing, that he wanted a sword in the group to teach the very opposite of the need and right of self-defense. But this is by no means clear in the earlier context, especially when one wonders how it pertains to the exhortation to also start carrying a purse and a bag (v. 36).
In fact, a sword in the hand of a disciple had only one purpose, and that was self-defense. To be sure, wild animals were always a threat when traveling between cities, but so were bandits. If Jesus meant to distinguish between the two, he nowhere made that clear, and it was unlikely that just wild animals were in mind. I think Jesus was making the point that lethal self-defense is sometimes the right and necessary course of action, even though that may not always be the case.
Take, for example, this possible scenario, which is believable because it has happened with tragic results more than once. You and four other people are in a restaurant at closing time when two bandits with guns enter to rob the place. As the robbery commences, the lead gunman tells the other to take everyone to the freezer and kill them in order to eliminate witnesses. But you have a concealed weapon that you are legally licensed to carry, and while the murdering gunman is herding you all to the back, you are able to retrieve your gun. Once around the corner and out of the sight of the head bandit, you quickly turn and kill the other gunman. This then allows you to remain in a secure position and call for the other gunman to surrender. While the police are called, he surrenders, flees, or is at least held at bay because you now have two guns to defend your position. Instead of five people dying, only one is dead.
Would a Christian be justified in not only taking such an action, but being prepared to do so? I find nothing in Scripture or Jesus’ teachings to warrant a negative answer. I believe the individual ethic of non-resistance (in dependence upon God) must be held in biblical balance with the equally-important biblical call for corporate justice (also in faithful dependence upon God). Arming a legally-qualified, law-abiding citizenry is a strong deterrent to violent crime, and Christians, of all people, should be willing to put themselves in harm’s way to protect innocent lives from the criminal and narcissistic insanity that seems to be sweeping our nation.
I would therefore answer the question in the affirmative: Yes, there are reasons and occasions when a Christian would be right to carry a weapon for self-defense—especially when the innocent lives of others’ are at stake, but Christian love may preclude his using that weapon in many cases.