We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
Non-Violence and Police Protection
Question: I am a President of a State University. As a frequent podcaster of your sermons and reader of your books, I’m seeking your advice on a matter. Because our campus is some distance from the police headquarters in our city, many within the State University are arguing that we should hired armed officers for protection. The call, ultimately, is mine to make. I share your views on the call of Jesus followers to love enemies and swear off all violence. So I’m wondering if you think it would be inconsistent for me to grant this request?
Answer. The question you raise is one of the most difficult ones a kingdom pacifist such as myself has to confront. So far as I can see, there is nothing ambiguous about what Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching on loving enemies and setting aside violence entails for a follower of Christ. I don’t believe there are any circumstances where it would be okay for me to kill another person. So too, as a pastor over a Christian congregation, I don’t see any ambiguity in what these teachings imply for a congregation of Jesus followers. There is no circumstance where it would be okay for us to use lethal force.
The ambiguity only arises in contexts such as yours. You are serving people in a context where the rules are completely different than they are within the kingdom. Followers of Jesus love enemies and refrain from violence out of faithfulness to Christ and because we are empowered by the Spirit to do so. But this is precisely what can’t be presumed in your context. Outside the kingdom, people operate on the basis of what seems ethical and on the basis of what makes sense (and/or, perhaps, on the basis of some other religious authority, such as the Koran or the Old Testament). And in this context, most people don’t believe it makes sense to refuse to kill a public assailant if doing so would save the lives of others.
So, it seems to me the question you have to wrestle with is this: Is it right for you to impose your kingdom ethic on a community of people who don’t share your kingdom motivation for embracing that ethic? Could one argue that this would be dictatorial? And if an assailant tragically killed a student, might this not invite people to blame you for the death (whether an officer with a gun could or could not have prevented it)? A related question is this: is it the case that you are personally endorsing the use of deadly force by granting your community’s wish to allow officers to use deadly force if necessary on campus? Personally, I’m inclined to think not.
In fact, while I believe I am called to swear off all violence, I don’t believe it would be hypocritical for me to call the police if someone were to break into my house, even though I know that these police carry guns and may perhaps use them against the thief. Consider that immediately after Paul told Christians to love enemies, to never retaliate, and to leave all “vengeance” to God (Rom.12:17-21), he went on to teach them that one of the ways God “exacts vengeance” is by using the sword of government, which is why Christians are to “submit” to it (Rom.13:1-7).
I hope this helps you as your process how to lead the university forward while you at the same time wrestle with the call to imitate Christ.
Category: General
Tags: Authority, Current Events, Ethics, Non-Violence, Q&A, Security
Related Reading
How do you respond to Ruth 1:13?
Because her husband and two sons had died, Naomi says to her two daughter-in-laws (Ruth and Orpah), “[I]t has been far more bitter for me than for you, because the hand of the Lord has turned against me” (1:13, cf. vs. 20). Some compatibilists cite this passage to support the conclusion that all misfortune is…
Isn’t Open Theism outside of historic orthodoxy?
The Church has never used one’s view of divine foreknowledge as a test for orthodoxy. And while the open view has always been a very minor perspective, it has had its defenders throughout Church history and it has never been called “heresy” (until in mid 1990s when some started using this label). According to some…
What is the significance of Ezekiel 12:1–3?
The Lord has Ezekiel symbolically enact Israel’s exile as a warning and remarks, “Perhaps they will understand, though they are a rebellious house” (vs. 3). Though Israel repeatedly surprised God by their persistent rebellion, he nevertheless continued to hold out hope and thus to strive with them to participate in a covenant relationship with him.…
Jesus and the “Eye for an Eye” Command: A Response to Paul Copan (#10)
As I noted in my 9th response to Paul Copan’s critique of Crucifixion of the Warrior God (CWG), Copan argues that Jesus merely repudiated wrong applications of OT laws in his sermon on the mount, not any OT law itself. He thus thinks I’m mistaken when I argue that Jesus placed his own authority above…
Why do you espouse Open Theism?
Open Theism refers to the belief that God created a world in which possibilities are real. It contrasts with Classical Theism which holds that all the facts of world history are eternally settled, either by God willing them so (as in Calvinism) or simply in God’s knowledge (as in Arminianism). Open Theists believe God created…
Does the Old Testament Justify “Just War”?
Since the time of Augustine, Christians have consistently appealed to the violent strand of the Old Testament to justify waging wars when they believed their cause was “just.” (This is Augustine’s famous “just war” theory.) Two things may be said about this. First, the appeal to the OT to justify Christians fighting in “just” wars…