I am aware that the sixth commandment requires us to defend our own lives against attackers, but there is clear Biblical warrant for not always doing this, e.g. Jesus and Stephen.

(1) What are the various conditions which make it permissible not to defend one's own life, and (2) do these conditions make the non-defense of one's own life not only permissible, but obligatory?

__________________
Ben Maas. . . . .Facebook
In college, attending First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), Ada, OH, and
Belle Center Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA), Belle Center, OH
When at home, attending Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC), Mansfield, OH

“Prayer is as natural an expression of faith as breathing is of life.”
-Jonathan Edwards-

I think that it is permissible to neglect your own life if you are doing it to save another life. For example, a parent running in front of a car to push their child out of the way; a pregnant woman opting out of the treatment that could hurt her unborn child; one person throwing themselves in front of a bullet for another.

I think there is pretty clear scriptural warrant for this. First of all, you are still following the sixth commandment because you are defending a life (its just not your own). It would also seem that you are following Christ's example in sacrificing your life to save another.

__________________
Kathleen M
nondenominational
Montana

That's a good point; it's clearly permissible to sacrifice one's life for another. Do you think that would ever be obligatory?

I'm not sure that Jesus or Stephen gave no defense. They both testified to the Truth but darkness hated the light they had to offer at their respective trials.

Is your question along the lines of physical resistance?

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Yes.

Hmmmmm.... I'm actually not sure that I know the answer to this question. Its hard to say without having a specific example in mind. I wouldn't rule it out, but I can't think of a situation in which one would be required to sacrifice one's life - although there are many in which it would seem to be the right or more favorable thing.

If you are unlikely to be successful in your self-defence or escape bid, it may bring more glory to God to go passively like your Lord to the stake or the gibbet.

If you were unsuccessful in your escape bid/struggles with the hangman, people might say this Christian is a coward; his Lord isn't giving him strength to die well.

You may also get the opportunity to say some last words that may glorify God down through the centuries.

I've just read Jochem Douma's, "Responsible Conduct". The word "euthanasia" used to be connected with the Christian's prayer that he/she would have a good death i.e. a death that would glorify God. I suppose this is related to your Q of how far to take self-defence.

__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)

In a case of being put on public display after capture and offered to deny Christ or hang, I'll take the rope.

__________________
Rich Koster
1689'er
Browns Mills NJ USA
Often Goofy Reformed Eccentric
Romans 7:14-25

Ben,

Good question, and one which I haven't spent a lot of time considering. As has been aforementioned, I would agree with:

1. When sacrificing one's life to save another
2. When it has to do with religious martyrdom (i.e. recant or die, etc.)

Of course, I'm not saying it necessarily stops there, but this is just off the cuff.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

We don't believe in "vitalism" as Christians which means clinging on to life or preserving life at all costs, as if life was some kind of god.

E.g. the Christian who has undergone treatment for cancer and knows that the next treatment will be very painful and arduous and yet will only yield a very short extra period of time on this Earth. Are they obliged to take the treatment to save their lives for a couple of weeks?

E.g. Samson who knew that he could spare his life and miss an opportunity to take a good number of God's enemies with him, or risk almost certain death, and do a great deed for God's Kingdom. He was commended for doing the former.

Christ of course is in an ethical realm of His own here, because he told us that He had a command from His Father to lay down His own life (John 10:18).

Why did Christ ask if there were any swords, and then say that two were enough? Although He wasn't going to defend Himself because of the above command, and because He was carrying the guilt of His people, did He expect His disciples to defend themselves if they needed to? (Luke 22:35-38).

Clearly if those are our only two options, then death is to be chosen -- but what if the options are recant, die, or fight back?

I would think that if your act of self defense actually would cause the death of innocent people, then you are obligated not to act in self defense.

__________________
Josh Taylor
Verde Valley Reformed Chapel, OPC
Cottonwood, AZ

So you don't believe in the theory of just war, since there will always be collateral damage?

__________________
Edward
Deacon
PCA
Texas

I am unsure how war equates with self defense. Perhaps you mean national defense?

Quote from Richard
This may not be the correct expression for the ethical position that places considerations of one's life or that of others' above all else (?)

I'm not sure that we could say that Stephen didn't put up physical resistance and went passively. I mean, he was clearly outnumbered and I can't imagine that physical resistance would have gotten him anywhere. That's like facing the firing squad unarmed. Sure, you'd fight if you could, but what can you really do except utter some final words?

I would think that there were some cases in which people were morally obligated to sacrifice their life to save someone else--if, for example, they were the ones who got them into the situation to begin with (example: I was the one who let the tiger out of his cage, and now it is after me and my friend George, who can't run as fast as I can). Or if it is someone who is under my care and protection. As a parent, I feel obligated to save my children at the cost of my own life, and as a teacher, I would feel obligated to protect the students in my classroom with my life. I cannot imagine, for example, if there was a gunman on campus, that a teacher with any moral values would dive out the window and leave the students to the mercy of the gunman.

__________________
Caroline
OPC
Schenectady, NY
Blog: The Unlikely Calvinist

I've never made a moral distinction between collective defense and individual defense.

So it's ok to kill innocents if it is done on a large enough scale? And what about the case where innocents will be killed in defense of yourself and others?

Good question! I know there are many ppl in other countries who are dying for Christ and they don't fight back. Are they sinning for not trying to defend themselves? I have a hard to believing so.

__________________
sarah
WI
OPC
My Pastor's Sermons: Mark Jenkins...he's awesome!!!

Ok.

Only if you say so.

Not sure what your point is here.?

If the issue has been plainly decided, and the attack is against Christ, that is, against me (or my family) for being Christ's, for being Christians, then I think the biblical and historic example that carries the greatest instruction is patiently bearing and suffering a martyrs death.

This was the policy that brought the heathen Roman empire to its knees. It is obvious to EVERY human moral conscience that brutality in service of power is indefensible. The Roman empire fell to Christ and the Christians (in the proper sense) because it lost on the only battlefield that matters: the moral "plain".

And that is the one place that the Christians fought. They didn't take up arms, they didn't play the insurrectionists. They hid or disappeared when possible, or they bravely faced the lion, the fire, the sword. They died as sacrificial lambs, in imitation of their Christ. And in so doing they exposed the BEASTLY nature of human empire. This is what they were supposed to do.

The Word of God is our only sword, as Christians.

Self-defense, or its corollaries, fall under a separate head, the DUTY to keep the 6th commandment, in your personal area of responsibility. Note, too, the distinction between keeping and enforcing the 6th commandment. Duties respecting the first may be very different from duties related to the latter, which are ordinarily the exclusive purvue of Ministers of Government (law) and their legally defined deputies.

Ordinarily, passive and non-violent resistance, peaceful non-compliance is the Christian citizen's sole recourse. With the addition of the doctrine of interposition (the concept of lesser magistrates, equally beholden to the highest Law as the the king above), one may discover a right to resist evil powers has been provided by God, on occasion, as relief from oppression. But this right is not always available to the oppressed. God doesn't always provide a judge to benefit his people or the rank-and-file citizenry. Actions do have consequences in the cause-effect world God made, which aren't always interdicted by Providence.

In any case, there is an antithesis between the Christian citizen's inalienable right to self-preservation (life), and his calling to die for Christ's sake. His willingness to defend his life, or his families life, or his civil brethren may result in a few (good) lives saved at the expense of one or many (evil) foes. This is an extremely difficult and awful decision, which will frequently be decided differently by those of the same faith committment.

However, as a Christian on trial for his faith, his willingness to be crucified a victim for Christ's sake is certain, in the long run, to result in vastly more lives saved at the cost of nothing but his own pain, and ultimately recoverable body (in improved condition).

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

If it's wrong to collaterally kill innocents when you act in self defense, is it less wrong or equally wrong to have the same body count if you are defending not only yourself but others? Do you count how many could be saved vs killed with and without the act of self defense? Or were you just shooting from the hip and haven't really developed your position?

I think I stated my opinion. Whatever conclusion you seem to be driving toward is of your own creation. I really see no point, since you can't distinguish between some one being mugged and an act of war.

Since I don't know your definition of an act of war, I agree we have no basis for discussion. I can't see the moral distinction between an army vet bombing a building in OKC, a muslim trying to bomb a building in Dallas, or the same events happening in Iraq. Would the moral imperatives change if the woman driving down the suburban expressway waving a grenade had been from a street gang rather than a suburban muslim housewife?

You, not I, are the one drawing lines, and I've asked you where the lines are drawn. You haven't been able to show that.

If I am arrested and condemned for Christ's sake I am going to go to my death for His glory. On the other hand, if a criminal attacks my children (family, self) with the intent to kill them (which I would have to assume) and it is within my power to do so, I'm going to put a bullet between his eyes.

__________________
Kevin - PCA - Mississippi

"What, for some, is sin, others do to the glory of God. And the good Dr. Pentecost's remarks notwithstanding, I intend to go home tonight and smoke a cigar to the glory of God. It is a kind of incense drifting to Heaven." - Charles Spurgeon

"Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!" - 2 Corinthians 9:15

Can I muddy the waters a little more? I have a friend, (a huge, hulking, manly Marine friend to be precise) who has taken the position that if he were to be attacked he would not defend himself by stopping the assailant. (Even though he has more than enough strength and experience to stop someone.) His thought is this, if I kill my attacker he will go to hell. If he kills me I will go to heaven. In essence he sees that he is laying down his life sacrificially for someone else, (i.e. his attacker.) Now of course he is a Marine so he's not a pacifist. He would gladly fight and defend the rights and lives of others, but what about in this kind of situation? What do y'all think? Have I stated my question clearly?

__________________
Ben Franks

I attend: Ketoctin Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC)
in Purcellville, Virginia
I'm a member of: Heartland Community Church (PCA)
in Wichita, Kansas
I blog here (along with my Dad): http://rrfranks.blogspot.com/
And I'm a student here: www.phc.edu

"Remember the speeches we have spoken so often over our mead, when we raised boast on the bench, heroes in the hall, about hard fighting. Now may the man who is bold prove that he is."-Aelfwine at the Battle of Maldon

Exodus 22

2 “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.

I interpret this passage to mean that if a thief breaks in at night and you don't know whether or not he is trying to kill you and your family you should fight, not with the intention of killing him, but to defend yourself. If he dies so be it - you are not guilty. If he breaks in after sunrise (in broad daylight) there is much less confusion and you may be able to avoid such violence and allow law enforcement to takecare of the situation.

While I might be caught short of supporting verses at the moment, I would think that a man that would not at least risk his life (even if it were near certain he would die) in order to save his family is close to being a coward. I know I would feel valid guilt and shame if I were not willing to do whatever it takes to save my wife and children from harm.

-----Added 9/27/2009 at 02:01:27 EST-----

Bruce, I'm truly amazed. I cannot disagree more. If the threat to life is from an authority (the government) as was the case for the Christians and the Roman government, then there is submission to authority which is a duty. But if one of my neighbors looses it, and decides to attack my family, then it is Christian duty to protect them within whatever limits I can within the law of God. The passage in Exodus 22:2-3, quoted by kalawine, is just as valid today as any other time in the sense of the principle behind it (yes, it was law to the nation of Israel, and passed with that nation, but the principle taught is still the same).

When an evil man kills a good man and done with nothing but passivity, evil has won that battle ... and we should strive to have good win. If your life were lost, it is not just your life, but those that you support that are also diminished by that loss.

The testimony of scripture is not uniform on this either. Acts 16.37-38 show that Paul and Silas did not just mutely submit to the illegal acts done to them, but made demands of even those who were authorities, when those authorities acted illegally. In Act 9.23-30 shows Paul not just submitting to violence, but finding a way of escape. In both of these cases, the violence was explicitly because Paul was preaching the gospel of Christ ... yet he did not go as a sheep before the shearers or a lamb to the slaughter. And just as Paul, I believe we have an obligation to defend our life as well as those around us from evil.

From a practical standpoint, if someone were to break into my house, I would not wait to find out if the person was attacking my home because I call on the name of Christ, I would defend my home from violent attack because it is the right thing to do.

-----Added 9/27/2009 at 02:13:52 EST-----

I do not shoot from the hip. I take the gun in both hands; I take quick, but careful aim, and use all the skill and training I have to dispatch the criminal while minimizing the risk to others.

I do feel it is necessary for to learn carefully the tools one uses in all endeavors, especially when those tools could be lethal to innocent people if they are used improperly. When you first get behind the wheel of a car, you need to be careful and properly trained, practice under the watch and control of an experienced driver. You need to train so the 2000 pound bullet that flies down the road at 70 mph does not become lethal to those around you. The same is true of defensive tools. One should train, practice often, and learn how to minimize collateral damage. It is not possible to be 100% positive when you drive a car that you won't make a mistake or that some unforeseeable event will cause a fatal crash; 100% certainty is not needed to drive a car. Neither is 100% certainty available in any area of life, but that does not excuse inaction.

__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia

You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.

You seem to try to drive my position to your own conclusion. Which is fine for you, I guess. I do find your illustrations to be pointed as if those examples are the only situations one would find themselves in to act in self defense. I realize you can't make the distinction, but the it seems that the thread is about self defense not group defense. You claim I have drawn lines, but I don't think I have. Maybe you have misunderstood me. I really see no need to argue with you about the moral distinctions between self and national defense. You have made your position clear and that is not what the thread is about.

That was what was said of Jim Elliot and co. When facing imminent death from the hands of the people they were trying to reach, they chose not to defend themselves even though they were armed with rifles and the attackers bows and arrows. Reason being they knew they (Elliot) were ready for heaven but the people were not.

I think this is admirable, the highest missionary call and sacrifice. But facing a deranged man on the streets of USA? If it's possible to subdue without causing death I think that should be our first mode of action.

__________________
Ewen
1689 LBCF
Assemblies of God Bible College
Singapore

Brian,
with all due respect, I'm not sure you read my post closely enough to catch the three-fold nuance to my reply.

I think we have to start by figuring out first when and where, under what circumstances we will follow Christ to the cross. We should be very clear to ourselves on this point. If you haven't decided how to be a lamb led to the slaughter, or you are frankly unwilling to EVER be (or allow your wife and children to be!) this submissive under any circumstances, without violent refusal--now would be a good time to think about it, not when the potential suddenly comes upon you.

Other (criminal, warfare, etc.) situations will draw forth from each of us a variety of responses, bearing in mind self-defense, self-preservation, family, brotherhood, etc.

Maybe we should all just start carrying these:

Can law enforcement get there faster in daylight?

__________________
Curt Lovelace
Pastor, Covenant Baptist Church (CBA)
Acton, Maine
Director, Lifework Forum
Sermons at SermonAudio.com/CBCActon
Blogging at Coffee with Curt

I might be wrong, but I believe the daylight is supposed to let you know that the person in your house is merely a thief and not someone intending to physically harm, in which case the head of the household would be inflicting unreasonable harm.

I probably didn't catch it. Sorry about that. I'll reread it. But I also will see if it seems that we are to be sheep lead to the slaughter. While it may be that those that were totally overpowered did not fight a futile fight, I think of Paul's defense "If I have committed a crime worthy of death, I do not refuse to die ..." He appealed to law to defend his life, and did not willingly go to death. The early church had to differentiate between true martyrs and those that sought death. A martyr from my standpoint is one that has done everything they can to survive, but is steadfast in faith, and refuses to curse those that kill him. I would not necessarily call someone that could defend themselves or their family with legal means (without denying the faith) and yet does face death a martyr.

We are called to take up our cross, and follow Christ, but I do not believe that means we should ever submit to illegal threat to life without resisting. The ten commandments are binding for all time, and that includes the protection of innocent life commanded in the sixth includes defending our life when possible without denying faith. And while I see it possible for me to give up my own life, I would think it heinous to not defend my family to the same extent. Might there be a time where I realize there are no options? Where nothing I have the power to do will make a difference? Yes. But if I can save an innocent life without denying faith, then I should do so.

Elijah when confronted with 51 armed men, called down fire from heaven to consume them. He only went with the captain of the third group (after destroying the first 102 men that came to him) when the man pleaded for his life and begged mercy. We might not be able to call fire down from heaven as Elijah, but we should be no less concerned to protect ourselves when innocent than Elijah, and no less ready to face death if we have done something worthy of death than Paul.

-----Added 9/27/2009 at 11:17:19 EST-----

While the person teaching me this could have been wrong, what I heard was that if someone breaks in at night, and you kill them while they are there in the act then you are not guilty. If you wait until the next day (or even discover the theft the next day) and then go hunt the man down, then you are guilty. Most thefts did not occur during "broad daylight" (the idea of it is that someone committing crimes in broad daylight is even worse than the man that sneaks in and steals) and so the night/day is not when the theft is occurring, but when the killing occurred with the theft presumed to be done at night.

This is also the interpretation I have heard. It seems to make sense.

Aye, I think that makes more sense.

Actually it definitely was Christ defense.

John 15 9-17 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. This is my command: Love each other.

It was needful for Christ to die so that we might have life. Steven was captured because he loved his neighbor so much that he couldn't stop talking about Christ so that they too might live. Neither Christ nor Steven was suicidal, for they did not die at their own hands. They died so that we would have life. They truly loved.

__________________
Michael McNeil
PCA
Ellicott City, MD
www.spepchurch.com

I think you're right Ben. I didn't mean that you should depend on law enforcement if the guy is a murderer and you have to take care of it yourself. I couldn't kill someone for taking something from me. But if I thought I or my family was in danger I'd think nothing of killing a murderer.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your interpretation.