This is not a classical example of situational ethics but the point is similar. The idea I want to explore here is the notion that the situation dictates the ethics of an action. In other words, for purposes of what I want to talk about, if turning the other cheek is Biblical and ethical but doing so in a particular situation leads to undesirable and even deadly consequences, one is not only permitted but perhaps morally obligated to set aside ethics in response to the situation. That would seem to be silly on its face but I see it employed all the time whenever someone brings up “turn the other cheek” as a binding principle on Christians.
Here is how the argument goes. You point out the clear teachings of Jesus and Paul as well as the martyring of so many early Christians. The response then becomes my old friend, the classic "yeah, but..." defense.
- what if someone were going to kill you?
- what if someone was going to kill an innocent person on the street?
- Or my favorite because it is supposed to be irrefutable, what if they were going to kill your kids, rape your wife or otherwise hurt your family? Isn't it the duty of every red blooded American to double-tap the scoundrel first?!
The point apparently is that non-violence is fine in theory or as something we read about as an ideal but we are free to set that aside if we find ourselves in a situation that justifies us doing so. Perhaps some circumstances are bad enough that they trump Scripture. I don’t think that refusing to return evil in response to evil is just a nice ideal.
Case in point. When the authorities were led by Judas Iscariot to arrest Jesus, Peter came to the defense of Jesus (an innocent man) and struck the off the ear of the high priest’s servant (John 18: 10-11). That seems perfectly understandable and justifiable. It didn’t please Jesus though. Instead Jesus rebuked Peter for his attempt to defend Jesus with these famous words that are a part of our culture: Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. (Matthew 26:52). We all recognize what Jesus is saying and applaud. But if someone breaks into your house and threatens your wife, we would also applaud putting a bullet in his head as heroic and manly . Why the disconnect? I think it is because we treat Scripture differently than “real life” and in fact see no reason why we cannot let our cultural prejudices rule over Scripture. Our hermeneutic is far more cultural that we like to admit. We read something in Scripture that doesn’t jive with our cultural prejudices and rather than submitting to it, we assume it doesn’t mean what it says or we explain it away. They had all things in common? That doesn’t sound American to me, it must have been a unique situation. “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.” Paul must mean each family bringing a dish to pass at the potluck. So on and so on.
Back to non-resistance. I find it disappointing that when confronted with this issue the response is so often to throw out a situation that is supposed to negate the principle instead of engaging with the text. That we who own nothing, not our property and not even our lives, should be so quick to insist on our right to commit violence to defend them strikes me as horribly and tragically inconsistent. The witness and example of Christians throughout the centuries who have chosen to give their own lives rather than kill another should serve as more than a quaint story we tell. Of course the greatest example is Christ Himself, who permitted Himself to be crucified when it is clear that with nothing more than a thought He could have freed Himself and turned His persecutors into dust. Shouldn't the forbearance and submission of Christ, when resistance was not only in His power but His prerogative, give those who clamor for violence in defense of self, of others and of property pause? I certainly think it should but that is a pretty lonely position.
3 comments:
Arthur,
As always I applaud your willingness to take an unpopular stand. This is a hard issue for me, and the "trump card" you mentioned is what always comes into my head. On the one hand, as the head of my household it is my responsibility to lead my family. speaking from a natural perspective, I have a hard time with the thought of not protecting my family when threatened by a violent person. In fact, I have had conversations with my wife regarding an individual who strictly held this view, and the terrible effect that had on this individual's wife, who no longer felt safe, knowing her husband wouldn't protect her if called upon. I know this is not a scriptural argument, but this is why I struggle with this concept. It is one thing, in my mind (again no scriptural basis) to be martyred as christians by the status quo (religious leaders, political leaders, etc.). It seems another thing entirely to be killed by a random drug addict or thief on the street. Definitely our mentality as American men plays a big part in how we see this issue.
Mark,
This is a tough one for me. I am an NRA member and own, um, multiple firearms, some for hunting and some for self-defense. Everything about me and how I was raised rebels against this idea of non-resistance.
As far as the wife that feels unsafe, I would say (and not trying to be unkind) that she needs to put her trust in God's sovereign providence and not her husband to protect her. I would rather die and even permit my wife to die, comforted by our assurance of salvation in Christ Jesus, than take the life of another who more than likely would be condemned to an eternal hell.
Ideally your comment about the spouse being able to equally trust in the Lord would be true. From my experience, however, it takes time in one's walk with God to develop those mindsets and that level of trust and understanding. It would be easier if, as husband and wife, we could mutually take that stand (but even then the suffering of my children, who don't have that ability, would be an issue), but when I am there and she is not it makes it harder. There is a part of me that says, regarding the person I might kill in self-defense, that they would be reaping the natural, expected consequences of their own actions, and have thus sealed their own fate. I realize this is not a scriptural stance, but is where I am at present. Tough issue, but again I love your willingness to take an unpopular stance, and highly respect you for that.
Post a Comment