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

[jd.morrison]

> 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]

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

 

[Pergamum]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Pergamum]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Interesting Larry. Can you elaborate more?

 

[larryjf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...>

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[LawrenceU]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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."