# Defending your family vs. being a witness for the Gospel....



## jd.morrison (Sep 29, 2008)

> Hypothetical <

Let us say that you and your family are doing missions in a place like Pakistan. Your home is attacked by a group of angry Muslims with the intent on beheading or some other gruesome violent end for you and your family.

Where do you draw the line? Would it be moral to defend your family or would it be a witness to the cause of Christ to sacrifice yourself and your family?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 29, 2008)

Would it have been moral for Lot to allow the men of Sodom to come into his house?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 29, 2008)

This has been addressed recently in two other posts. Can anyone link them?



It is moral to defend one's family. But also, we have the examples of the martyrs in the coliseum who sang hymns while the lions attacked. Still trying to reconcile this.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 29, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> This has been addressed recently in two other posts. Can anyone link them?
> 
> 
> 
> It is moral to defend one's family. But also, we have the examples of the martyrs in the coliseum who sang hymns while the lions attacked. Still trying to reconcile this.



Not even remotely the same situation. In my humble opinion.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 29, 2008)

Yes I agree that they are different. How different, I am not sure. If assaulted as a citizen I will pound the guy's face. If asaulted in the pulpit I think I might not.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 29, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Yes I agree that they are different. How different, I am not sure. If assaulted as a citizen I will pound the guy's face. If assaulted in the pulpit I think I might not.



Agreed but the floor of the coliseum is not the pulpit.


----------



## jd.morrison (Sep 29, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Yes I agree that they are different. How different, I am not sure. If assaulted as a citizen I will pound the guy's face. If asaulted in the pulpit I think I might not.



That is another question... What if you are being assaulted for pulpit while not being at the pulpit?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 29, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I agree that they are different. How different, I am not sure. If assaulted as a citizen I will pound the guy's face. If assaulted in the pulpit I think I might not.
> ...



So, were the roman martyrs sinful for being passive? 

If they were obligated to fight but just figured "what's the use" then they were not doing their duty. They could have clawed and bit some of the lions to death and died in resistance rather than just allowing themselves to be killed - which would normally be looked at as sin.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 29, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



I do not even want to surmise or question the motives of those in the coliseum. I am just saying that it is not even remotely applicable to J.D.'s original question.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 29, 2008)

I think it is VERY applicable. The roman soldiers drag you and your family into a pit to be eaten by lions. DO you resist or sing a hymn passively while your family gets chewed on?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 29, 2008)

How are the Roman Soldiers equitable to the angry mob which Jd referenced in the original post?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 29, 2008)

Both are aggresive, antagonistic to the Gospel and might drag you off and kill you.

How are they different? Because one is the arm of an evil civil state?


----------



## CDM (Sep 29, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Both are aggresive, antagonistic to the Gospel and might drag you off and kill you.
> 
> How are they different? Because one is the arm of an evil civil state?



Those in the pit were sentenced to that lot by the State. This must be understood if you are going to compare and contrast.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 29, 2008)

Those killed in the middle east and other repressive places are sentenced my local Mulahs or tribal leaders. How much difference does it make?


If an angry mob came atcha, you must resist? 

But if that angry crowd was the family members of one of the 500 feudal tribal warlords of Somalia led by some mad mullah and came at you after the mad mullah incited them, then no resistance?


----------



## larryjf (Sep 29, 2008)

It depends on if it is legal to defend your life and your families life.
I think we can learn a great deal from the example of Esther. The Jews did not take up arms to defend themselves until a law was passed that they could do so.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 29, 2008)

Interesting Larry. Can you elaborate more?


----------



## larryjf (Sep 29, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Interesting Larry. Can you elaborate more?



I'll try.
This is one of the questions that i posted on a while ago, and it really got me thinking.

Under the official persecution of the Church it would have been illegal for Christians to take up arms against the state. Therefore in such a situation we have no biblical warrant to defend ourselves since God, in His providence, has put us in such a state.

This is seen by example in the book of Esther. We see that the people of God did not take up arms to defend themselves until a law was passed allowing them to do so.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 29, 2008)

Okay, how do we distinguish between mob actions and gov't sanctioned persecution in places like Indoensia where restrictive laws are used as covers by which angry mobs burn churches (noting some legal technicality), or where places where Shariah law is taking hold and the region is divided between civil powers and Islamic clerics?


----------



## jd.morrison (Sep 29, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Okay, how do we distinguish between mob actions and gov't sanctioned persecution in places like Indoensia where restrictive laws are used as covers by which angry mobs burn churches (noting some legal technicality), or where places where Shariah law is taking hold and the region is divided between civil powers and Islamic clerics?



I watched the movie "The Mission" and that got me thinking about this question. While my question is out of the context of the movie, in the movie you have a former mercenary turned monk Mendoza who wants to defend a tribe of people he used to hunt for slaves, then you have Father Gabriel who takes a pacifist position. <Spoiler> They all died. So the movie begs the question, who made the right choice.

You have people who didn't defend themselves in the face of a mob, such as the "Auca Five" and now you have the church flourishing.

I was just thinking about how that would apply with your family and your duty as the head of the household.

<am I making sense, I am really tired... I hate insomnia...>


----------



## larryjf (Sep 29, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Okay, how do we distinguish between mob actions and gov't sanctioned persecution in places like Indoensia where restrictive laws are used as covers by which angry mobs burn churches (noting some legal technicality), or where places where Shariah law is taking hold and the region is divided between civil powers and Islamic clerics?



It is the civil power who has the God-ordained power of the sword, so i would not think that where there was a division among the state and religion that religion should win out in this respect (your shariah point).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by restrictive laws being used as a cover. If you can't defend yourself or your property without going against the civil law to do so then i would think it is an unbiblical action.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 29, 2008)

jd.morrison said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, how do we distinguish between mob actions and gov't sanctioned persecution in places like Indoensia where restrictive laws are used as covers by which angry mobs burn churches (noting some legal technicality), or where places where Shariah law is taking hold and the region is divided between civil powers and Islamic clerics?
> ...



We should be careful not to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action by the outcome of that action, since that's in God's hands. God can grow His Church in many ways, not only in persecution.

I guess we should consider whether the power of the sword is ever acceptable outside of the civil government unless that civil government allows it.


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 29, 2008)

> If you can't defend yourself or your property without going against the civil law to do so then i would think it is an unbiblical action.



How on earth is this a Scriptural position? I just don't see it at all.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 29, 2008)

the laws of many nations are unclear, contradictory and inane in many respects. 

Whether you broke a law or not if often in the eye of the beholder (or the holder of the highest bribe). 

If the laws for building churches and assembling is that there must be neighborhood approval - what does that mean? If a few thugs demonstrate loudly, versus the silent majority of peaceful citizens, has the church then broke the law or not by building with/without neighborhood approval?

Or if the local judges are members of radical groups or can be bribed, then the church suffers without legal remedy.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 29, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> > If you can't defend yourself or your property without going against the civil law to do so then i would think it is an unbiblical action.
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth is this a Scriptural position? I just don't see it at all.



Because it's based on the example found in the Book of Esther as noted in an earlier post.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 29, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> the laws of many nations are unclear, contradictory and inane in many respects.
> 
> Whether you broke a law or not if often in the eye of the beholder (or the holder of the highest bribe).
> 
> ...



The Church is not called to go without suffering in this world.

You may get persecuted even while still following the law. Being condemned because of bribery is completely different from being condemned because of breaking the civil law.


----------



## jd.morrison (Sep 29, 2008)

larryjf said:


> We should be careful not to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action by the outcome of that action, since that's in God's hands. God can grow His Church in many ways, not only in persecution.
> 
> I guess we should consider whether the power of the sword is ever acceptable outside of the civil government unless that civil government allows it.



Point taken...


----------



## Davidius (Sep 29, 2008)

Jesus didn't fight back when the mob came for him, and he kept Peter from defending him as well.


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 29, 2008)

larryjf said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > > If you can't defend yourself or your property without going against the civil law to do so then i would think it is an unbiblical action.
> ...



I overlooked your earlier reference. The inference that you are making is not analogous. The king was giving the Jews legitimate authority to form their own armies. This is different from a man protecting his family. Further, just because this pagan king gave them the 'permission' to defend themselves does not mean that they did not posses it already in God's economy.


----------



## jd.morrison (Sep 29, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Jesus didn't fight back when the mob came for him, and he kept Peter from defending him as well.



That is a bit different. When the mob came, that was "their hour", and it was precisely what Christ was at the place for.


----------



## Davidius (Sep 29, 2008)

jd.morrison said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus didn't fight back when the mob came for him, and he kept Peter from defending him as well.
> ...



No, not really. It's the exact same thing, otherwise Jesus would have said to Peter, "Don't strike them. Don't you know this has to happen?" instead of "Those who kill with the sword die by the sword."


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 29, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > the laws of many nations are unclear, contradictory and inane in many respects.
> ...





So when the angry crowds come to burn your church, based on an extreme intepretation of a fuzzy law and after the angry mob pays off the local cops, then the church goers should resist or passively allow this to happen?


The lines are not as clear cut as you would like to make them


----------



## larryjf (Sep 29, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > LawrenceU said:
> ...



But it was the people of God who waited until it was legal to protect themselves. It was Esther who begged the king for this law of defense.

It was no army that was created...the Jews never became the sword of the civil magistrate. This was a law inacted to defend the Church from persecution not to create an army.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 29, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



One doesn't have to act in accordance with bribed authorities.
It's not so clear to me because i don't have the law that you're speaking of. But if you post it i could answer your question.


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 29, 2008)

Haman bribed the king. And it was Mordecai who instructed the Scribes regarding the Jews, Esteher 8.9

Alright, not an army, but it was a militia. Look at the fact that they were allowed to organise. 

Is it not eisegesis to say that the Jews would not have attempted to defend themselves if they had been attacked?


----------



## larryjf (Sep 29, 2008)

Pergamum,

Let me put it in the context of my situation.
I live in America where we have a great deal of religious freedoms.
If a mob were to come to my church to burn it down i would protect the lives of those in the church, but most likely would not protect the building itself. I feel that life always trumps property.

If some came into the church to kill members i would be perfectly comfortable killing such a person in order to save life since it is legal for me to do so.

If i was in a Muslim country where it was legal to kill folks who converted to Christianity i would not kill the civil authorities who had the job of executing such converts any more than i would kill doctors who legally perform abortions in the U.S.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 29, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> Haman bribed the king.
> 
> Alright, not an army, but it was a militia. Look at the fact that they were allowed to organise.
> 
> Is it not eisegesis to say that the Jews would not have attempted to defend themselves if they had been attacked?



If you believe that life can always be protected with lethal force, no matter what the civil law says, then are you defending the life of unborn infants by killing the doctors who are murdering them?


----------



## jd.morrison (Sep 29, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Pergamum,
> 
> Let me put it in the context of my situation.
> I live in America where we have a great deal of religious freedoms.
> ...




I never really thought about that. The individual is then operating and an instrument of the state, hence the state is actually the one killing the convert...


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 29, 2008)

larryjf said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Haman bribed the king.
> ...



That is a straw man. I've never said that. I asked the questions to understand what you were saying and were your reasoning was coming from. We may not disagree as much as you think. 

I do believe that innocent life of the unborn should be protected with lethal force; the death penalty for those who are guilty of the action. There is a difference between the protection of those assaulted by a mob, evil army, armed intruder, etc. and vigilante justice directed toward a criminal which is what your strawman would actually be.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 29, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > LawrenceU said:
> ...



The difference is in the civil law. Are we to abide by the civil law unless it condones murder of a select group of people (whether Christian or infant)?

The point for me is that we must stay within the limits of the civil law whenever we seek to take lethal force into our own hands.

If we won't fight for the life of those who can't even defend themselves if they wanted to because what is being done is legal, how can we defend other who are being persecuted legally?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 29, 2008)

Gov'ts and civil laws do not always rsemble what we have in the West.It is not blackand white - It gets a lot grayer in other parts of the world. 

What about contradictory laws, fuzzy laws and local policemen and judges who are laws unto themselves, not to mention the competing fiefdoms and tribal gov'ts that rule locally,plus some areas where the law is a mixture of civil and shariah law and both constantly compete for power.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 29, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Gov'ts and civil laws do not always rsemble what we have in the West.It is not blackand white - It gets a lot grayer in other parts of the world.
> 
> What about contradictory laws, fuzzy laws and local policemen and judges who are laws unto themselves, not to mention the competing fiefdoms and tribal gov'ts that rule locally,plus some areas where the law is a mixture of civil and shariah law and both constantly compete for power.



Contradictory laws: that's what happened in the book of Esther. One law said to kill the Jews, the other said for the Jews to defend themselves. That seems pretty contradictory, and yet it was this that allowed the Jews to be spared from persecution.

Fuzzy laws: that happens in the West as well. You simply have to interpret them as best as you can.

policemen and judges being laws unto themselves: If they are not acting in the name of the civil authority then they can be resisted, but only in so far as the civil law allows. That also happens in the West.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 29, 2008)

Clearly under some situations you would have to use your own understanding and the wisdom of others to decide how to react to persecution.

But when the civil law clearly prevents you from defending yourself or others, that's a different story.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Sep 29, 2008)

Pergamum brings up a good point that as a man he will defend himself but in the pulpit he might not. Are these people attacking you because you are Christian or because they don't like your face/you are a westerner/you yourself has done something wrong?

To suffer in the first case for Christ is nobel, to suffer in the second case when Christ is not involved is a bit of a shame.

As examples we have Jesus not resisting his arrest on in the garden along with the testimony of all the martyrs. In the second case we have the Jews in Esther and the fact that Jesus told his apostles to take swords with them (hence probably to defend themselves against thieves or bandits but not martyrdom).


----------



## jd.morrison (Sep 29, 2008)

Abd_Yesua_alMasih said:


> Pergamum brings up a good point that as a man he will defend himself but in the pulpit he might not. Are these people attacking you because you are Christian or because they don't like your face/you are a westerner/you yourself has done something wrong?
> 
> To suffer in the first case for Christ is nobel, to suffer in the second case when Christ is not involved is a bit of a shame.
> 
> As examples we have Jesus not resisting his arrest on in the garden along with the testimony of all the martyrs. In the second case we have the Jews in Esther and the fact that Jesus told his apostles to take swords with them (hence probably to defend themselves against thieves or bandits but not martyrdom).



The implication was that they were after you with the intent to kill you and your family because of your faith and the fact that you are a Christian and/or you were trying to convert some local Muslims.


----------

