Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?

[chipbennett]

Now to bring us back on topic, maybe people in Christian leadership positions need to be careful about making statements that could easily be interpreted as calls to a vengeful attitude - causing those following to stumble.

If this had been the scope of Piper's statements, I would have almost no problem with it.

 

[steveh_131]

As said already: none of this has anything to do with believers vs non-believers. But I think that was probably an unintended mis-statement on your part.

I explained that upthread.

Piper inferred that "teach them a lesson" = "vengeance". You inferred that "teach them a lesson" = "punishment". So, the two of you don't even agree on the inference.

Webster:

Full Definition of vengeance
: punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense

"It is wrong to act out of vengeful intent against those who would perpetrate violence against us" is the straw man, because no such thing was ever suggested.

The fact that he disagrees in his interpretation of the 'teach them a lesson' comment does not constitute a straw-man. Especially considering that his interpretation is likely the interpretation of many youthful Christians who heard it.

"...because the Bible speaks about enduring being persecuted for our faith" is a non sequitur, because being persecuted for our faith is completely separate from being victimized by a violent criminal.

Falwell was addressing his university students when he made that statement. If somebody decided to attack a small Christian university, it's not unlikely that they would be doing so because of a hatred of God or of Christians. Without hearing his entire address, he may have been speaking to that exact circumstance. Regardless, it is perfectly plausible that someone attacking the university could be doing so in order to persecute Christians.

And in the end, when addressing the hypothetical question about whether a husband can use deadly force against someone violently attacking his wife, and Piper comes to the conclusion, essentially, that "it depends", tells me everything I need to know about his viewpoint, and whether or not it is biblical.

I think it's great that he encourages us to look at a question whose answer may seem obvious to us, but to consider it in a different light. To try to look at it the way God sees it. To try to see it from the perspective of eternity.

Obviously, my human instinct is to say SHOOT THE ********!! TEACH THEM A LESSON! But is that what Jesus would say? Did you recall Jesus ever instructing us to use mortal violence to teach anybody a lesson?

 

[chipbennett]

I explained that upthread.



Webster:

Full Definition of vengeance
: punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense

First, not all punishment is vengeance; second: how can one have a mindset to retaliate against an injury/offense that has not taken place?

The fact that he disagrees in his interpretation of the 'teach them a lesson' comment does not constitute a straw-man. Especially considering that his interpretation is likely the interpretation of many youthful Christians who heard it.

It is a straw man, if it is not the implication of the original speaker. He didn't present it as an admonishment regarding how he interpreted the statement, but rather as an accurate assessment of the intent of the statement.

Falwell was addressing his university students when he made that statement. If somebody decided to attack a small Christian university, it's not unlikely that they would be doing so because of a hatred of God or of Christians. Without hearing his entire address, he may have been speaking to that exact circumstance. Regardless, it is perfectly plausible that someone attacking the university could be doing so in order to persecute Christians.

He may have been. Even if so, I do not view the biblical references cited as being applicable to a sociopath intending to shoot up a bunch of Christians. I'm fairly certain any references to martyrdom were in the context of persecution by the state/authorities. Those passages are not talking about simple murder, regardless of motivation.

I think it's great that he encourages us to look at a question whose answer may seem obvious to us, but to consider it in a different light. To try to look at it the way God sees it. To try to see it from the perspective of eternity.

Again, I agree with you here. Such introspection is always beneficial.

Obviously, my human instinct is to say SHOOT THE ********!! TEACH THEM A LESSON! But is that what Jesus would say? Did you recall Jesus ever instructing us to use mortal violence to teach anybody a lesson?

That's not my instinct. I have no desire to participate in the use of deadly force, for any reason. But I am willing to do so, if my life or the life of a loved one is put in jeopardy. And such an act would not be a matter of teaching anyone a lesson, but of defending innocent life against evil.

As I said above: to me, "teach them a lesson" is passive, not active. The lesson is that the school is not a soft target - the same way that we as individuals use situational awareness, comport ourselves in a manner that implies that we are not an easy mark, and carry firearms to bring to bear should someone decide to try to victimize us. We are "teaching a lesson" to would-be violent criminals, in a way that does not involve injury or death to the would-be violent criminals, but rather that leads to an avoided interaction of any kind with the would-be violent criminals.

And again: I would very likely use a different phrase than "teach them a lesson". It absolutely can be taken the wrong way - just as it has been.

 

[steveh_131]

First, not all punishment is vengeance;

I'm tired of arguing semantics.

second: how can one have a mindset to retaliate against an injury/offense that has not taken place?

Dwelling on such things in your mind is equivalent to doing them, according to the Bible.

It is a straw man, if it is not the implication of the original speaker. He didn't present it as an admonishment regarding how he interpreted the statement, but rather as an accurate assessment of the intent of the statement.

Meh. Falwell made a statement. Piper disagreed with it, as he interpreted it. I don't know how to go about life if you don't interpret statements to the best of your ability. If I misinterpret someone's statement and respond to it, that is not a straw-man unless I am willfully misrepresenting it.

He may have been. Even if so, I do not view the biblical references cited as being applicable to a sociopath intending to shoot up a bunch of Christians. I'm fairly certain any references to martyrdom were in the context of persecution by the state/authorities. Those passages are not talking about simple murder, regardless of motivation.

Murder is murder. Persecution is persecution. The state is nothing more than a collection of people. I fail to see how that person's organization alters what he is doing or how we should respond to it.

That's not my instinct. I have no desire to participate in the use of deadly force, for any reason. But I am willing to do so, if my life or the life of a loved one is put in jeopardy. And such an act would not be a matter of teaching anyone a lesson, but of defending innocent life against evil.

I agree. You were clear that you have no interest in teaching anyone a lesson through this force. I think that anyone approaching this with the proper mindset wouldn't ever describe it as teaching a lesson.

If someone does describe it that way, I think it should be called out as John Piper did.