How about self-defense?
Introduction. The subject of the Christian and self-defense is often complex, especially on the more advanced levels. The subject of individual self-defense easily moves to the area of carnal warfare.
The Christian and non-resistance. The scriptures plainly teach that in certain conditions, the godly are to be non-resistant. "...whosoever shall smite thee on thy right check, turn to him the other also," Jesus taught (Matt. 5: 39). Jesus also said to give to those who sue and to offer no resistance in other areas (Ibid.). If carried to its logical end without some understood qualification, the child of God would be utterly susceptible to every parasite without any recourse or right of resistance. If total non-resistance is meant, how could teaching such as found in 2 Thessalonians 3: 10 be obeyed (the lazy who asked would have to be supported)? Those who promote total pacifism point out that when Peter sought to physically defend Jesus, he was told: "...for all they that take the sword shall parish with the sword? (Matt. 26: 51, 52).
Qualified pacifism. The same Jesus who rebuked Peter for using the sword also earlier instructed his disciples to purchase a sword (Luke 22: 36). Could it be that Jesus only taught total pacifism in matters of religious persecution? Could it also be that the teaching of Matthew 5 regarding non-resistance is hyperbolical having an attendant qualification understood?
Other factors. If the individual is allowed self-defense commensurate to the endangerment, would not, then, a government be allowed the same right? In the case of warfare, though, the justification is often more difficult to establish. Also, one usually is forced into attempting to rationalize the matter of defensive versus offensive and the "offensive is defensive" argument. Relative to "carnal warfare," the Christian also is faced with obeying Hebrews 10: 25, etc., in view of often military life.
The Christian and non-resistance. The scriptures plainly teach that in certain conditions, the godly are to be non-resistant. "...whosoever shall smite thee on thy right check, turn to him the other also," Jesus taught (Matt. 5: 39). Jesus also said to give to those who sue and to offer no resistance in other areas (Ibid.). If carried to its logical end without some understood qualification, the child of God would be utterly susceptible to every parasite without any recourse or right of resistance. If total non-resistance is meant, how could teaching such as found in 2 Thessalonians 3: 10 be obeyed (the lazy who asked would have to be supported)? Those who promote total pacifism point out that when Peter sought to physically defend Jesus, he was told: "...for all they that take the sword shall parish with the sword? (Matt. 26: 51, 52).
Qualified pacifism. The same Jesus who rebuked Peter for using the sword also earlier instructed his disciples to purchase a sword (Luke 22: 36). Could it be that Jesus only taught total pacifism in matters of religious persecution? Could it also be that the teaching of Matthew 5 regarding non-resistance is hyperbolical having an attendant qualification understood?
Other factors. If the individual is allowed self-defense commensurate to the endangerment, would not, then, a government be allowed the same right? In the case of warfare, though, the justification is often more difficult to establish. Also, one usually is forced into attempting to rationalize the matter of defensive versus offensive and the "offensive is defensive" argument. Relative to "carnal warfare," the Christian also is faced with obeying Hebrews 10: 25, etc., in view of often military life.