Round Table

Round Table: Christian Self-Defense and Lethal Force

Gun violence and lethal force have been hot topics on the evening news and the subject of debate in the social and political spheres for quite some time. Because of this, people are often categorized in one of two camps: those who are for and those who are against lethal weaponry. Instead of jumping into a heated political debate, we here at Conciliar Post asked our authors how they believe Christians should understand lethal force in self-defense. We encourage you, also, to add your voice to this conversation in the comment section below.

Question: When is it appropriate for a Christian to use potentially lethal force in self-defense?

Ben Cabe Photo bwBen Cabe

Eastern Orthodox


Lord have mercy.

There is a story of an Orthodox priest who, some years prior to his ordination, was a high ranking army officer. He was tall and well-built—a formidable soldier in his previous life, but a gentle and kind priest. One day as he and his wife were walking through an ally to get home, several men appeared at the opposite end, blocking their way out. It was obvious they were of ill intentions. The priest and his wife turned back to avoid a confrontation but another set of men had already blocked their way out. They were trapped. The two gangs of men began closing the gap, all the while insulting the priest and shouting inappropriately at his wife. The ex-soldier priest, who burned with desire to protect his wife, successfully beat the men to a pulp, even though he was greatly outnumbered. The following day, he humbly ran to his spiritual father to confess, with tears, his actions. His spiritual father did not condemn him but only said something to the effect of this: “you have a responsibility to protect your wife, but had your wife not been with you, a greater cross may have been required of you.”

To a great extent, this summarizes (in my opinion) the Orthodox way of thinking toward self-defense. The issue is, I believe, far less black-and-white than many, on either side, may suppose (with self-defense in general; but lethal self-defense should be clearer, more black-and-white: Avoid at all costs). There are many roles of responsibility that may press upon a man the necessity of defensive action but none of these roles involve the defense of only himself. The role of a police officer is, in essence, a defense of the people of the community—his action in defense should be one of selflessness. For it is, indeed, one of putting himself at risk in order to protect the defenseless. Similar is the role of the husband and the father. However, such roles can often be exaggerated in an unhealthy manner, giving way to hero-type fantasies and ego; and any kind of “hero complex” seems to me egotistical and unhealthy, ultimately leading poor souls to insanity, control tendencies, and a head full of false authority and power.

We see many instances in Church history where entire families submitted to Holy Martyrdom. If the family is of great faith and the parents and children can accept it, let them do so. It seems to me that, for this, they will be doubly crowned. This is the Christian spirit, the essence of Christianity: the defeat of the forceful with Holy un-force. The cross cannot be defeated. If you use force against the cross you only reinforce the essence, and power, of the cross. If a man does not lift his hand against a petty band of robbers and they leave him for dead, taking only his money and his clothes, this man is a martyr—even though they did not beat him for the sake of his faith. This is a hard teaching, but he who can accept it, let him accept it. If someone cannot accept it, though, let him not judge his brother who cannot. God’s measurement scales are not our scales.

A number of us will likely never be put in a situation where we have to submit to physical martyrdom or self-defense. But everyday we face a corollary battle. When it comes to our sins, we should never defend ourselves or make excuses, but, as Saint Paisios and other Holy men say, we should always make excuses for our brothers. According to the Holy Fathers, if we can accept blame for things we did not do, or accept blame for something our brother did, this is the most perfect path, the clearest imitation of Christ. Certainly, however, as is clear in my own sullied life, it is difficult to accept blame for our own actions, let alone from which we are humanly justified or free from fault. But the Christian life is one of constant humbling: we must bow before our brethren and heal the relationship through humility, by accepting as wrong our actions instead of constantly justifying ourselves.

And this is where most of us find ourselves: our hands our clean but our minds are full of blood. We wish our brother dead with our complaints against him, our internal anger towards him. But this is spiritual suicide. And we wonder why we do not experience God. Let us always remember that each day is a day for us to die. For we will only gain true life if we give up our lives. Truly blessed is he who gives his life for his friend not only once but many times; not just physically, but by preferring his brothers will to his own.

The first kind of self-defense (physical self-defense) is related in some way to the second. For if we cannot help but lash out at our brothers when he wounds us internally, how are we to to know if thrashing him physically is not, at least in a minor way, related to our internal anger, though masked in the clothing of self-defense, when he slaps us across the cheek? Truly, to turn the other cheek, internally and externally, is the most perfect way.

I write as if I know about these things. In truth, I only feign knowledge by writing about it and not putting it into practice. My dear brothers and sisters please forgive me and pray that our our good God will have mercy on my poor and foolish soul.

Ben Winter

Ben Winter

Roman Catholic


Violence begets violence. If you run around wild, you get smacked and that’s it; that’s the laws of the universe … Do everything for peace. —John Lennon

In one sentence: It is not appropriate for a Christian to use potentially lethal force in self-defense. There are times when non-lethal force can be used in clear conscience, but such force is still never the most appropriate course of action.

First, life is always a gift, and our goal as Christian individuals should be to preserve life in all possible circumstances. If someone is attacking and threatening you, your response should not be to seek to end this person’s life.

That being said, and second, there are situations when the use of force is justifiable. When your life (and/or the life of another) is threatened with immediate destruction, force can be used as a last-resort option. But the end goal of this force cannot be to end the life of another.1 Non-lethal force can thus be used in clear conscience, yet it is never the appropriate “first response” to a dangerous situation. This is due to: 1) the risk inherent in non-lethal violence, namely, that it will escalate the conflict and bring about more violence; and 2) the preferability of deescalating the situation, fleeing the situation, or committing to pacifism full stop.

Third and finally, we must keep in mind that self-defense scenarios are often high-stress situations in which the ethical course of action is difficult to determine. Acknowledging that each case is unique,2 I have laid out these general principles because I think they make us worthy of our calling (Eph 4) and prevent us from descending into evil actions.

One of our rationalizations for violence is the illusion that we have control over history. Let us prayerfully strive to avoid the path of domination and instead follow the example of our Lord, who turned the other cheek (Matt 5:39).

Show Sources


Chris casberg

Chris Casberg

Attending a Free Methodist Church

When/Is it appropriate for a Christian to use potentially lethal force in self-defense?

Before answering any such question it helpful to first clarify our terms. “Christian” and “lethal force” are both obvious to me, but “self-defense” suffers ambiguity. In our age, depending on the state, this might mean thwacking a home invader on the head with a commemorative baseball bat, or it might mean shooting a child on the street and receiving no legal penalties.

Not to be pedantic, but self-defense is a phrase constituent of two words, self and defense. The self is comprised of both body and soul, a fact I think is largely forgotten when this debate inevitably arises. The body may be harmed, even destroyed, by an external force; this is the principal argument for self-defense, that one be entitled to take measures to prevent said harm. What I am more concerned about, as was our Lord, is that which may destroy the soul. Obviously an invader cannot shoot my soul, and likewise I cannot shoot his. We do not yet have this technology.

However, I have sometimes heard proponents of lethal self-defense hesitate only for the idea that taking the life of their assailant might result in that person’s damnation in the event they are not yet “saved”, as if soteriology were a matter of good aim and not the individual’s relationship to God. This, of course, is preposterous, as one person does not have the power to effect the salvation or damnation of another. There is still a soul in danger despite this. It is the soul of the victim, and herein lies my main concern with the question of Christians and lethal self-defense.

The danger comes in the assumption that lethal response is not only permitted, but is somehow even righteous. This allows a person to cultivate fantasies about taking the life of another and remain, in their mind, the hero of their story—or even a champion of the Lord. Yet Christ taught that even daydreams of sin imperiled the soul as much as the deed itself. I cannot say that lethal self-defense is all good or all bad at all times, but I can say that a dark temptation lurks in the idea. We may do great evil under the assumption we are being righteous.

The prospect of taking another’s life must be loathsome and repulsive. It must sicken us and drive us to pray for alternatives, to search them out with all our heart, soul, and mind. An individual may decide in the end that he has no alternative to lethal violence when faced with such a horrible decision. I will not begrudge them their decision to fire if done in the spirit of regret and reluctance. I am not ignorant of the depths of evil in the world.

However, for the individual who has long enjoyed the fantasy of taking the life of another while being declared righteous for it, judgment awaits in the end. Killing in the spirit of self-righteousness, pride, or bloodlust is simply murder, and murderers will be brought to account.


Jeff-Reid_75pxJeff Reid

Reformed / Reformed Baptist

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”1 Gandalf’s sobering reminder puts the discussion of self-defense in an important context: even when talking about taking out a bad guy, we’re talking about ending a life. It is not something that to be considered glibly.

This is all the more the case when we have a command from our Lord to love our enemies: “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:44-45).2 This raises a question that I think precedes the question we are asking, namely, can Christians justify lethal force in the face of the command to love our enemy? From my perspective, when we consider the entirety of Scripture, the answer needs to be yes.

As a first instructive example, it is helpful to head to Genesis. Specifically, we want to look at Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his image.” Out of the other things that could be inferred from this passage, it should be noted that God is commanding the end of human life. God, as the giver of human life, can authorize us to end life. The use of the death penalty in Old Testament law and Paul’s references to secular rulers bearing the sword3 provide additional support to this conclusion. Does this give individuals the option to lethal self-defense, though? The fact that a government can do something does not de facto mean that individuals can do the same thing (and, it should be noted, this works in reverse as well). One potentially helpful starting point is Exodus 22:2-3a, “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him.” If I’m reading this passage right, we see a clear example of lethal self-defense justified in Old Testament case law. While not proving that all instances of lethal force are condoned, it does provide an instance where lethal self defense was justifiable.

Balanced alongside loving our enemy, the preceding thoughts paint a picture that is more nuanced than merely violence or no violence. What we have found is that there are times where ending a human life is necessary and, further, that it is possible that some of these times will fall on an individual’s initiative. What are these instances? Well, here’s the interesting catch. When I try to think of instances where lethal force might be required of an individual, the vast majority involve defending others. Those situations are fairly easy to justify. Merely defending myself though . . . that’s tougher. I’ll float the one situation that has struck me as falling in line with God’s nature: Protecting oneself to allow for further protection of and care for others (particularly one’s family). Given the importance of family in Scripture and God’s hatred for evil, using lethal self defense so that one could continue the provision and protection of their family seems to fit with the overarching messages of Scripture.

Could there be other scenarios when lethal self defense is justifiable? Possibly. That’s part of why I’m looking forward to reading my fellow authors’ contributions. At the same time, the difficulty that I have experienced thinking through these issues serves to highlight the wisdom in Gandalf’s words. This life isn’t one of those games where you can get a fresh life and start over. Once a life is ended, it’s chapter is closed. Justified or not, that final pen stroke is one that should be soberly considered.

Show Sources

TJ HumphreyTJ Humphrey

Christian Reformed

When I was 15-years-old I drove my grandparents and my younger brother to Nashville to spend time with my father for Thanksgiving.  My parents had recently divorced and my father had just moved in with his mistress.  This was the very first time that I went to visit him in his new place and in the new sphere of life that had caused him to abandon his covenantal commitments to my mother and our little family.  I had only met my father’s new lover a handful of times.  I didn’t know much about her at the time.  However, I knew one thing for certain: I absolutely hated her.  Every fiber of my being wished her harm for what she did to my family and for how she had wooed my dad away from his fidelity to my mother.

My father had arranged for us to all have a “family” Thanksgiving dinner together, seeking to awkwardly cram all of us neatly into this new life that he was seeking to forge for himself.  Dad worked hard to prep his new home to be hospitable for us and he cooked up a delicious Thanksgiving feast.  The only problem was that his girlfriend was running late and he couldn’t get ahold of her.  She missed dinner.  She missed dessert.  She missed my father’s anxious pacing through their living room as the end of the day drew nearer and nearer.  She missed it all and I remember thinking that I was truly grateful.  The less I had to do with her the better, in my mind.  My brother and I put ourselves to bed as my dad continued to anxiously pace.

I awoke in the middle of the night to my father’s shouts for help.  At first I thought it was a dream.  After he persisted and his shouts got louder I snapped awake.  I rushed downstairs to the sight of a horrific display.  My father had his girlfriend pinned down to the floor.  She was flailing about uncontrollably spouting a bunch of vulgarities at him.  He had a gash in his shirt and his stomach from where she had sought to run him through with a butcher knife.  The knife itself was only about a foot from her left hand.  My father urged me to grab the knife and get it away from her.   So, I picked it up.  Then, still pinned down by my father, she began to insult me.  As she looked up and cussed me, everything in me wanted to end her.  I mean everything.  The power was in my hands and I knew that if I didn’t do something in that moment she would try to finish the job later.  I felt like I would be defending my family and especially my father by acting upon my inner raging voice.

Yet, I couldn’t follow through with it.  Whether it was cowardice or faintheartedness, I don’t know.  It certainly didn’t flow from an ethical conviction to love my enemy because I didn’t become a Christian until the following year.  As a confessional Calvinist now I will certainly say that it was providential.  In our Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 1, we profess that, “not even a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven.”  It is also equally true that I cannot harm even the slightest hair upon the head of my enemy apart from the will of my Father in heaven.  Even though I didn’t believe in Him at the time God held my actions at bay.

After that evening this woman’s offenses had caught up with her and she spent the next several years of her life in prison.  Not too long after that evening something else happened.  I came to know the Lord.  By God’s grace I gradually learned how to better manage her unique and troubling place within my heart.  Loathing gradually shifted to compassion for her.  Vile hatred melted into a desire to forgive her.  She was still an enemy to me but she quickly became the enemy that I had a duty to pray for.  Who was I to withhold forgiveness whenever God had forgiven me so much?

When is it appropriate to defend oneself and one’s family?  I am not sure that I know the answer to that question.  I am truly grateful, however, that God kept me from acting upon my violent impulses that evening.  Had He not, I am not sure I would have ever learned the deeply painful, yet powerfully transformative, victory that accompanies forgiving one’s enemies.


Previous post

By the Waters of Babylon

Next post

A Calvinist Reads Calvin: Knowing God Entails Relationship



Round Table discussions offer insights into important issues from numerous Conciliar Post authors. Authors focus on a specific question or topic and respond with concise and precise summaries of their perspective, allowing readers to engage multiple viewpoints within the scope of one article.

  • George Aldhizer

    So, if I’m understanding something of the consensus opinion here, it is that (1) we ought to seriously hesitate in using any sort of violence, (2) we ought to hesitate even more in using lethal violence, (3) lethal force in self-defense of oneself or one’s family is justifiable under certain conditions, and (4) pride in lethal force is a pervasive sin and temptation in this world.

    What interests me is in how this consensus ought to affect our political theologies. A couple of initial thoughts. It seems this would mean Christians ought to be distinctly anti-nationalistic especially in regards to military activity (no matter whether you are pacifist or just war) and skeptical of state-sponsored violence (e.g. police brutality, drones, torture). What do y’all think? It seems we have controversy here as it relates to the death penalty, particularly between Ben Winter and Jeff Reid, the former being committed to the Catholic church’s teaching and the latter justifying it based on Old Testament practice.

    (Thank you, TJ, by the way, for writing of your experience, it was arresting to read)

    • I also found the seeming consensus fascinating. I wondered if the death penalty would come up. Personally my stance is in line with Ben Winter’s: against death penalty.

      • The death penalty would be an interesting discussion to have—I’d appreciate hearing more about your perspective here. Who knows…it might make for a great follow up Round Table! 🙂

    • Can you expand on “Christians ought to be distinctly anti-nationalistic”, George? I’m probably just a bit slow, but I’m not sure that I’m getting what you meant in that phrase.

      And, I’ll add, I’d be interested in hearing more about how Ben Winter (and the Catholic Church generally speaking) view references similar to the Old Testament verses I quoted. I didn’t run down that trail since it seemed like we might end up veering away from self-defense…but it would still be a good discussion to have.

      • George Aldhizer

        Sorry, I didn’t explain myself. I’m meaning the term in the definition of “the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.” It seems that this is a political conclusion to y’all’s reflection on personal self-defense, and would mean Christian’s would be against any military activity that privileges American interests over and against other interests.

        I’m also interested to hear Ben and Ben’s (or is it Ben’s and Ben’s? Bens’? Lol) hermeneutic to say that Christians ought to be against the death penalty being administered by the state. Personally, I’m not sure I’m against the death penalty in principle, but probably against it in the reality and potential for killing an innocent person.

        • I’m wondering out loud here: when we talk about the Old Testament “law” are we just talking about the chosen people here? Or was the law given (and given to be executed—literally) by all on all (for all time?).

          Orthodoxy couldn’t be further from any kind of dispensationalism. But I wonder if there is a difference here—after all, man’s laws change. But I, and certainly you, would not stand with someone like Kevin Swanson who says scripture commands us to “kill the gays.” It seems bazaar—but if we are going to apply the OT “death penalty” and law by the letter and superimpose it on today’s Christian worldview, would this require something like Swanson is propounding?

          I cannot imagine it’s super beneficial for the death penalty administers’s soul—much less for the family of the victim’s if they come to watch, etc. On a political note: it’s actually not “cheaper” for the state to execute the death penalty over life in prison.

          Should we try to take this role from God?

          Honestly, I think it’s heinous. I use to think the death penalty was “fine” but have since changed my views, as I have with war: we should avoid war at all costs. It’s not pacifism—I would say it’s more along the lines of what Lewis says about pacifism in the Weight of Glory. He doesn’t agree with pacifism as an extreme, but he doesn’t promote war. Nor should we.

          • 1) It’s interesting that Jeff asks me about “references similar to the Old Testament verses I quoted,” because in reading his post I gut-reacted against his citation of Exodus 22 as a “helpful starting point.” 😀 In line with what Ben says in the most recent comment (about the differences between OT Law and the New Covenant), let us remember that Ethics is not the same thing as Theology. As all of the contributors above allude to or mention, we cannot apply a *single* course of action to all possible self-defense situations; there are simply too many particular and historical contingencies to allow such a universal approach. On a more general level, we know that the Ten Commandments must be our guide in Ethics. Yet we see Jesus expanding on the Commandments in many passages/situations (i.e. “thoughts can kill”). So, I think it’s quite clear that the way Ethics were proscribed by God in the OT *cannot* be transferred into today’s world with a 1:1 correlation. God was leading his chosen people Israel, not the New Israel of Jews and Gentiles, in times where violence was necessary for their survival. All of this leads into my second point:

            2) History and humankind change, while Scripture stays static (at least, for Protestants!). To quickly follow up about the death penalty (and I would be happy to look into this further for a future round table), it is my understanding that the Church has developed in its understanding of Scripture on this issue. First, let us clarify that it is an Ethical issue: Whether or not a person deserves death depends on his/her (mis)deeds, where he/she lives, the government of that place, the general state of peacefulness or turmoil in society at large, etc. If these situations are NOT amenable to the peaceful rehabilitation of the offender (i.e. if there are not enough resources to confine and [hopefully] rehabilitate that person), it is my understanding that a government can authorize his/her death in order to prevent drastic destruction of the lives of others. This is not an ideal course of action, and not the way it “should be.” Thus, this understanding is very similar to Catholic teaching on just war (exhaust all possible peaceable options before you go to war, and go to war in a way that certainly saves more lives than loses them). In the modern age, however, most countries have the resources to attempt rehabilitation for violent/death penalty offenders. Thus, it is absolutely wrong for them to simply end the lives of offenders–oftentimes because of political gain, financial expedience, or a pessimistic outlook on that person’s ability to repent or be forgiven. I think all authors above agree that taking a human life is a very serious matter, and that all would also agree that God never gives up on anyone while they are alive–even the most heinous. Shouldn’t our laws (at least strive to) reflect the value that God places on every life, given the caveat that we can safely remove others from harm’s way? Does this help clarify anything? Thanks to all for a great conversation thus far!

            Tangential but interesting: Many Catholics today question whether just war is reaching a point where there are enough “other options” that war should never be undertaken. The argument goes like this: just as the death penalty used to make sense or only makes sense when rehabilitation/confinement are impossible, so just war only makes sense when there is no United Nations (i.e. no possibility of outside arbitration to end conflicts), etc. (there are many other lines of reasoning in this argument, but I don’t have time to list them all right now, since I’m only providing this as an interesting note!).

            • Excellent—there is definitely some good food for thought here between your comments and Ben’s. 🙂

              To try and sum up your thoughts briefly here, references to the use of lethal force in Scripture are not a mandate, but rather a practical course of action used to help establish order in the world. This being the case, if violence is not needed to establish that order, it should not be used.

              Referencing my thoughts on OT law in response to Ben above, does this thought process seem to make sense to you: God’s law reflects God’s character; God’s character doesn’t change; therefore there is some applicability from the OT law to our lives, even if it isn’t a 1:1 application? If that is a good reading of OT case law, would it also then be plausible to posit that killing a person is not inherently opposed to God’s nature, leaving open the possibility that lethal force may be justifiable in some circumstances?

              If both answers to the above questions are yes, then the question facing is determining when lethal force is the only means for maintaining order/how effective our other options are.

              • Yes, I agree with this logic. I would add that although God’s character does not change, *our* (human) understanding of God, and God’s character, has grown since the time of the Old Testament: “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds” (Heb 1). In this since, God is the Divine Pedagogue Who reveals more and more of Himself in the fulness of time.

          • I think your comment raises a great question: what is the role of OT in the life of a Christian? I’d be interested to hear how you’d answer this question, Ben. I know at least part of what you don’t believe it is (aka, not a 1:1 direct application), but I’m not sure how you (and, by extension I’d assume, the Orthodox Church) read/understand OT law.

            I’m honestly still working through that question, and to my understanding you’ll find a variety of responses in the general “Reformed” world. That being said, I think we can safely say that the OT laws are a reflection of God’s character. Because God does not change, we cannot just ignore them. They have to apply to and inform our lives on some level, even if we are not applying them literally in our lives.

            This is why I ended up coming back to the OT to cautiously argue in favor of lethal force—we see God providing direction for the ending of human life, so it can’t a priori be against His nature. This would seem to indicate that there are times where lethal force is permissible.

            Of course, it’s always possible that I’m wrong here—which is why I’m grateful for this conversation. One of the few things worse than being wrong is being wrong and not having others willing to correct you!

            • I think, perhaps, the “nature” or “character” of God is where we differ. I am not sure it is accurate to read the “death of the sinners” back into God’s character (or into the purpose of the law for that matter). When we are talking about lethal force, or death penalty, we are not talking about the reason for God’s giving of the law or God’s character. God does not desire the death of the sinner but that he turn from his sinful ways and live. It goes back to how we understand death entering the world, really. Let me try to explain succinctly:

              God desired that Adam and Eve repent, and he gave them many chances, but they shifted the blame. Adam to Eve, and Eve to the Serpent. In fact, the entire Old Testament can be looked at as God constantly seeking the people to repent and turn but the people refusing. From Adam and Eve, to Cain, to the world before Noah, to the Children of Israel etc. The fact is, when Adam sinned, he died. That is, he separated himself from the source of life. Any decision or choice on our part to turn away from God or not “follow his commandments” (or law, if you will) is voluntary death. We are becoming our own judge (see Fr. Gregory’s article: )

              This is perhaps, though, where we differ—between Orthodoxy and Calvinism. And you are right—it’s the character of God that’s on the line. And that’s why it’s important (especially) to Orthodox that one does not fall into the (heresy(?) (forgive me) of believing man does not have a choice. Similarly, we must guard against the idea that we can save ourselves (pelagianism) which surely is not true in the slightest. It’s not one extreme or the other.

              Forgive me, also, if this does not make sense. I’m attempting to shake off the results of several sleepless nights (and not having a full pot of coffee this morning:)

              I guess what I am saying is: the Fathers tell us that in the time of Noah, God designated the years of man as 120. But that this does not mean that immediately after man will only live 120 years, as is often understood by the passage. It means that God was giving the people of the world 120 years to repent. They did not. And it follows the same pattern, in a sense, as what happened with Adam . . . “We must cast them out . . . Lest they eat of the tree of the life . . . and be eternally damned . . .” Obviously God is sovereign and God knows . . . But God also respects man’s free choice. The two are inseparable. And God redeemed mankind (as a species, in a sense) through Noah and the Ark (which we are told by the Fathers represent Christ and the Church).

              There is much more here that I could say but I must wrap it here for now.

              Forgive me.

              • I like this comment, Ben, but since you have highlighted an area where Jeff can be disagreed with on his statements about God’s nature (one that I hadn’t initially thought of, and yet would stand on your side if this becomes the crux of the issue); allow me to succinctly explain why I agreed with Jeff’s logic above!

                Jeff said: “God’s law reflects God’s character; God’s character doesn’t change; therefore there is some applicability from the OT law to our lives, even if it isn’t a 1:1 application?” I think this is a statement all Christians should agree with, and that it is not controversial. In my read of what Jeff is saying, when God allowed for the death of sinners in the Old Testament (i.e. the divine mandate for Israel to exterminate other nations and/or to kill many of their men–and sometimes even more than just their men), this allowance must fit into our understanding of Divine Justice. We can’t “sideline” this issue and say God was different back then, or that Israel, in all of these cases, was ‘actually’ acting without God’s approval. Hence, I believe it is correct to say that–at least in some of the instances–Israel served as an instrument of God’s judgment against the wicked. Now, stating this does not imply or mean that God’s judgment is *currently* exercised in this way–far from it! As you state above, God does not desire the death of the sinner, but that he turn from his sin and live. So we are back to the way in which we understand OT events and actions as not being contradictory to God’s nature, but also not revealing God’s nature to us in its fullness–that task is reserved for the God-man Jesus Christ.

                • I agree with you; I don’t think the statements have to be at odds. I was more reading it with respect of the character differences / where he might be going than with the word for word statement. But then, I’m
                  Not sure if what I’m saying makes sense

                • Or I guess it may be more of the ambiguous of the use of “God’s nature” which could mean any number of things

                  • Hey Ben 🙂

                    No, what you were saying does make sense–I was just writing to clarify where *I* agreed with Jeff, and to put the ball in Jeff’s court vis-à-vis whether his use of “nature/character” would fall under the line of logic that you espoused above! We’ll see what Jeff opines… 🙂

        • So, to put it even further into layman’s terms, Christians should be against aggressive military action that is designed to add to American advantages, vs., say proving for defense or working to achieve justice in other parts of the globe. Would that be an accurate rephrasing? If so, that sounds right. I’m mainly concerned with avoiding the stance that national affiliation is of no consequence, so we shouldn’t support/should actively resist any defensive use of military force.

  • C.T. Casberg

    The most stunning thing I ever heard in my five years in the Marine Corps was from my drill instructor, who one night screamed out of the blue: AND I PRAY TO GOD THAT NONE OF YOU WILL EVER KNOW WHAT IT’S LIKE TO TAKE THE LIFE OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

    It was unexpected, surprising, and haunting. I don’t know what made him say that, and it never came up again, but it’ll stick with me the rest of my life.

  • I feel, perhaps, in my contribution I lost track of the “lethal” and focused mainly on the self-defense in general. However, I would certainly agree with what Chris and others have said. Lethal force is heinous, hideous, ugly, horrible. (The it was not clear but the priest in the story did not use lethal force. Just self-defense in general).

    Chris, this is excellent: “The prospect of taking another’s life must be loathsome and repulsive. It must sicken us and drive us to pray for alternatives, to search them out with all our heart, soul, and mind. An individual may decide in the end that he has no alternative to lethal violence when faced with such a horrible decision. I will not begrudge them their decision to fire if done in the spirit of regret and reluctance. I am not ignorant of the depths of evil in the world.”

    More comments to come in a bit