War Ethics

Sovereign Grace Family Church

6 views

October 10, 2019

00:00: Good evening.
00:02: We are now on class 5 of 8 so we have made it over the hill and we're on our way down the other side.
00:11: It is a very short 8 weeks when we consider the subject matter that we're dealing with, especially on a subject like tonight.
00:20: We have already dealt with life ethics where we talked about abortion and reproduction and genetic tampering and last week we dealt with death ethics which was suicide, euthanasia and capital punishment and certainly those six things are very difficult subjects indeed but tonight we're going to go to something that I think may even inspire even more conversation among us and possibly some inter-debate among us and that is the subject of the ethics of war and that includes things like the use of force, the necessity of force and the righteousness of force.
01:07: We're going to talk about those things tonight.
01:09: But the outline of tonight is very simple if you want to write down an outline.
01:13: We're going to look first at the subject of pacifism then we're going to look at the subject of just war theory and then we're going to finish by looking at the subject of personal protection and defense.
01:33: So pacifism, just war theory, personal protection and defense.
01:38: And I intentionally have less notes tonight because I figured there's going to be some interjection and if we finish early we just finish early but I just had in my mind that there's probably going to be some opinions that folks want to share and on this subject there tends to be.
02:00: So let's begin first with the subject of pacifism.
02:05: Pacifism is defined loosely as opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes.
02:24: A pacifist would not be willing to serve as a combatant in the military though some of them would believe that it would be okay to serve as a chaplain or as some kind of a military doctor or nurse or possibly in some other type of record keeping duty.
02:52: So there is no universal sense of what it means to be a pacifist but I do want to give you two different categories of pacifism that you should know.
03:06: The first is called the nonviolent pacifist which sounds like it's superfluous like you're saying the same thing twice but there is a different category that we would call a non-participatory.
03:35: Here's the difference between the two.
03:37: Nonviolent would say that they are opposed to violence but that they could serve in capacities that are nonviolent in nature such as what I just said, nursing, filing, anything like that.
03:51: Non-participatory would say that they cannot participate in anything that would support a war effort therefore they couldn't participate in the military at all.
04:04: They could not be a part of any type of a service and that goes to an even further issue and that is the issue of how far are they not participating.
04:15: So for instance a non-participatory pacifist might own a company that sells tires and they might say well because we do not believe in the use of force we're not going to sell tires to the military.
04:31: That would be an example of an extreme case where someone would say not only am I not going to participate I'm not going to do anything that would support or if my company that I work for is a tire company and they begin to sell tires to the military or the company that I work for is a steel company and they begin to produce steel which is used for the making of bayonets or bullets or something else.
04:55: If that begins to happen I'm going to step away because of my absolute aversion to anything that would have any relation to a use of force.
05:05: So you see there's not it's not a monolith.
05:09: There's not one type of pacifist.
05:11: There are several categories and these are just two but in general when we talk of pacifism we're talking about someone who at least in theory would say that the use of force should not be necessary for the settling of disputes.
05:27: There should always be another way.
05:29: There should always be a better way and that the use of force is not something that they are willing to participate in.
05:36: Desmond Dawson.
05:38: Who's that now? Desmond Dawson, non-violent.
05:41: Hacksaw Ridge, the movie.
05:42: Oh yes, yeah, okay.
05:43: I haven't seen the movie that's why I didn't know his name but I have heard it's very, very good.
05:49: But he still was in the military.
05:50: So he would be non-violent pacifist not non-participatory.
05:56: He participated.
05:56: He was in the military but he was not willing to take up an arms and so I'm not in any way decrying or saying they're wrong.
06:05: I'm saying that's their position.
06:06: For tonight we're labeling that as pacifism.
06:11: Now there is also Christian pacifism and it is not always the same.
06:19: Just because someone is a pacifist does not mean they're a Christian and just because someone is a Christian does not mean they're a pacifist.
06:25: So tonight we're going to define why someone would define themselves as a Christian pacifist.
06:31: This is Christian ethics so we want to define why would somebody call themselves a Christian pacifist.
06:35: Open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 5.
06:38: I'm going to give you the passages that are most clearly linked to the Christian pacifist movement or the Christian pacifist belief.
06:49: I call it a movement.
06:51: It's within several movements.
06:54: Matthew 5 verse 38.
07:00: This is Jesus speaking in the Sermon on the Mount.
07:07: You have heard that it was said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
07:12: But I say to you do not resist the one who is evil.
07:16: But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
07:20: And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
07:24: And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
07:30: And he goes on to talk about those who beg from you.
07:33: And he says in verse 43, you have heard it said you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.
07:38: But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
07:44: So this passage is almost universally used by the Christian pacifists to say that Jesus is here decrying any and all use of force as a legitimate means of dealing with evil.
08:01: Now, let's look at another passage.
08:03: Go to 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 verse 15.
08:14: 1 Thessalonians 5 verse 15.
08:28: It says in verse 15, see that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone.
08:40: Pretty simple.
08:42: Now, turn back a few pages to Romans chapter 12.
08:52: Now again, I'm giving you the classic passages that are used for this position.
09:20: Alright, so we're looking at the subject of pacifism.
09:22: We've already looked at Matthew 5, 38, 39.
09:26: 1 Thessalonians 5, 15.
09:28: Now we're at Romans 12, 17 to 21.
09:32: Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.
09:40: If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
09:44: Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.
09:50: To the contrary, if your enemy is hungry, feed him.
09:54: If he is thirsty, give him something to drink, for by doing so you will heap burning coals on his head.
10:00: Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
10:07: Alright, one last passage.
10:08: I know I seem like we're doing Bible drills tonight, but these are all building on the argument.
10:13: This is their position.
10:15: Go to 1 Peter 2.
10:21: And in 1 Peter 2, verse 18, we'll begin reading.
10:33: It says, servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the unjust.
10:41: For this is a gracious thing.
10:44: When mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.
10:49: For what credit is it when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it, you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.
10:59: For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.
11:10: He committed no sin, neither was there deceit found in his mouth.
11:13: When he was reviled, he did not revile in return.
11:15: When he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.
11:21: He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness by his wounds.
11:28: You have been healed.
11:30: So these four particular passages are among those that are used by Christian pacifists, and we can see why.
11:42: In the fifth chapter of Matthew, Jesus clearly states that we are not to retaliate and return evil from evil, and that is essentially what is stated in the first Thessalonians passage and in the Romans 12 passage.
11:57: And then when we get to Peter's passage, there adds another dimension, and that is the dimension of suffering unjustly.
12:09: And what does Peter say if we are suffering unjustly? We are to see that as suffering with Christ who suffered the most unjust of punishments when he was suffering at the hands of the Romans, and yet he did not respond violently or with any type of physical recourse.
12:31: So these are the passages which are used typically to make the argument.
12:37: Now, Christian pacifism varies widely, much like traditional pacifism, in that it is not a monolith.
12:50: There are those who simply say, well, these passages say we are not to be violent people, therefore we should not engage in any type of violence, even in the act of self-defense.
13:00: We should not do that.
13:01: We should always just be willing to take our punishment or lumps or whatever if we are the object of someone hurting us.
13:11: But they would say if a Christian is in the military or if a Christian is in the police or some other type of duty that requires the use of force, then they would not be forbidden from using force in the execution of their jobs.
13:28: That is a pretty standard position.
13:30: However, there are those who would say because those jobs require the use of force, a Christian cannot serve in those jobs.
13:38: Therefore, you cannot have Christian military men who are fighting.
13:43: You cannot have Christian police officers who are sometimes required to use force in the execution of their duties.
13:50: Therefore, the occupation of those jobs would be given over to unbelievers.
13:58: Furthermore, if a person were to become a believer in the midst of his executing of those duties, he would be forced then to resign because those duties would be antithetical to his position.
14:10: This is Christian pacifism.
14:12: And as I said, it is not a monolith.
14:14: It is varied.
14:17: Yes.
14:21: Well, we are not getting to the argument back yet.
14:24: For now, I am just trying to present their case.
14:27: Obviously, we are going to give both sides and I am not telling you I don't want to answer and I don't want to give you the answer, but I don't want to yet because of course there are responses in all of these passages.
14:40: But as of now, I am just trying to present what they are saying.
14:44: But we will get to the question of just war and those things in a few moments.
14:50: One of the arguments that you will hear from Christian pacifists is that for the first 300 years of church history, Christians were pacifists and were not serving in any military functions.
15:11: You will hear that.
15:13: In fact, part of my reading for preparing for this was reading those arguments.
15:19: And the argument usually goes like this.
15:22: We have the church as 2,000 years of church history.
15:26: Those of you who took the church history class know that we did it in 300 year sections.
15:30: And the first 300 years of the church was what was going on right after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
15:38: You had the first century church, the second century church, the third century church, and then it was in the fourth century that there was a very important political change in the history of the church.
15:49: And that was the conversion of a man named Constantine.
15:53: Constantine believed that he was saved in battle by the sign of the Cairo, which is a Christian symbol.
16:01: And he believed that because that symbol was what saved him, that he was going to then conquer in that name.
16:09: And so he began to be the one who was an outspoken voice on behalf of Christianity.
16:18: He made Christianity legal, whereas before it was religio elicita, meaning it was an illegal religion.
16:25: It was not something that was legal to practice.
16:28: And because of making Christianity legal, it would later go on to become the religion of the empire, as it were.
16:39: And so if someone says all Christians were pacifists for the first 300 years, because Christians weren't serving in the military for the first 300 years, I would respond by saying that is a non sequitur, meaning one thing does not follow the other.
17:03: And here's why.
17:05: If you say, well, Christians didn't serve in the military, therefore Christians were pacifists, I would say, is there possibly another reason why they were not serving in the military? Could it be that service in the military required a religious commitment to Caesar? And because they were unwilling to make the religious commitment to Caesar, they were unwilling to serve in the military.
17:31: Therefore, that is why we don't see military service among Christians in the first 300 years.
17:37: Not because of a commitment to pacifism, but because of a commitment to not bowing down and worshipping at the foot of the god man Caesar.
17:48: They considered Caesar to be a divine personality.
17:54: Kaiser Kodios was the phrase which meant Caesar is Lord.
17:59: It was stamped on the money.
18:01: And the Christians would say no, Jesu Kodios, Jesus is Lord.
18:05: That was the response to the demand to call Caesar Lord.
18:11: So I want to read to you from Andrew Holt.
18:15: I didn't know about this guy until I started putting my notes together.
18:18: This guy is actually a professor of history at Florida State College of Jacksonville.
18:23: This guy is over at FSCJ, and I really like what he wrote.
18:26: I want to read to you his quote.
18:29: He says, a new framework needs to be established for the study of early Christian views of war that excludes the notion of pacifism.
18:36: With the exception of the historian Roland Baten, writing 60 years ago, it is mostly modern theologians, ethicists, philosophers, and political scientists who have adopted the term with apparently few reservations.
18:49: In doing so, they have co-opted alleged early Christian views to relate to modern issues.
18:54: When examined through such a framework, such studies are most likely to be skewed historically, and these scholars would benefit from a careful, contextual, historically sensitive treatment of the topic.
19:05: Basically what he's saying is this.
19:07: He's saying they're taking modern pacifism and reading it back into the first 300 years of the church, and they're essentially reading history anachronistically.
19:17: They're taking a modern concept of pacifism, and they're forcing it into the first 300 years of the church, and they're basing it on things that do not follow logically.
19:27: So, the idea that the first 300 years of the church was necessarily pacifistic because they didn't serve in the military just doesn't hold water.
19:36: It's not a logical deduction.
19:41: So, it could be rightly pointed out that it was difficult, if not impossible, for Christians to serve in the military because of their religious association and because of something I said just a few minutes ago.
19:53: Christianity was an illegal religion.
19:57: It's not as if you could just go and serve being part of the religio elicita.
20:03: My wife and I were talking about this on the way here.
20:06: I said, imagine if to serve in the Air Force, my son had to bow down at the feet of Donald Trump and call him the God Man.
20:16: Well, he wouldn't have been able to serve.
20:19: Thankfully, we don't have such a requirement in our military.
20:24: We could argue the benefits and detriments of other types of devotion that are taught in military and other types of service, but for the most part, you can be a Christian and practice your Christianity and still be in the Armed Forces without there being a necessary conflict of your religious affiliation.
20:45: We would agree.
20:46: You understand what I'm saying? Like I said, Donald Trump is not like Caesar.
20:50: You don't have to worship at the feet of Donald Trump.
20:54: It sounds just so funny to even say.
20:57: But I want to add another thought.
21:01: When Jesus was ministering and John the Baptist was ministering, on multiple occasions, they were in a situation where they were ministering to military men.
21:17: Probably the best example is when John the Baptist is baptizing and the military men are there and he says to them what? He says, don't misuse your power and don't extort money.
21:33: But notice what he doesn't say.
21:35: He doesn't say, put down your sword and give up your soldiering.
21:41: So there is a sense in which if it were a necessary thing to do, we think we would have heard it from John first and then Jesus who on several occasions had interactions with soldiers.
21:55: And what did He say of the one who had the sick servant? Not even in Israel have I seen such faith.
22:04: And again, He didn't say, but you need to go home and repent of your being a soldier.
22:09: Peter in Acts chapter 10 was called by God to the house of a centurion named Cornelius.
22:20: A centurion, that word centurion means he was in charge of a hundred soldiers.
22:25: That's where you get the centurion name.
22:28: So he had a band of a hundred soldiers that were under his command.
22:33: So not only was he a soldier, he was a soldier's soldier.
22:37: He was a leader of men among soldiering men.
22:40: Peter did not walk into his house and say you need to repent of your soldiering.
22:47: So that is to me, again, that is not evidence, that is circumstantial.
22:53: It's not proof, well I'm going to back up, it is evidence.
22:55: It's not proof, it's circumstantial evidence, but I think it's very convincing circumstantial evidence.
23:01: When we do not ever see a call for a soldier to give up his soldiering or a man of military to give up that position ever.
23:11: It's just not called for.
23:12: Even among those who were Christians.
23:14: Cornelius was a believer, would you agree? I mean he got filled with the Holy Spirit and Peter used him as the example in Acts 11 as to why he believed the Gentiles were now receiving the same Holy Spirit we received.
23:27: So there is certainly a believer there.
23:33: So if we look at church history, up until the first 300 years, yes, there were not Christians in the military.
23:40: We've talked about the historical reasons why.
23:43: After the 4th century we do see what we call the empire, the Holy Empire.
23:51: And we see the rise of the Holy Roman Empire.
23:53: And as a result of this there are those who serve in the military and the justification for that service was most eloquently described by Saint Augustine.
24:06: Now we'll get to that in a minute because that's just war theory.
24:09: But before we get to just war theory I want to bring out another group that would later arise.
24:16: This group I would say is another form of Christian, is a form of Christian pacifism and it arose after the Reformation.
24:23: So let's look at this historically, just very quickly.
24:30: Okay, so we have the first 300 years we'd say there was no military service.
24:38: Then you have the empire and so we would say there is certainly military service in this period of time.
24:44: After the 16th century though we have a new group that arises known as the Anabaptists.
25:00: The Anabaptists were pacifistic.
25:06: They were opposed to the use of force.
25:09: But the reason why they were opposed to the use of force is often historically misunderstood.
25:16: So I want to read to you from an article by Paul Carter on this subject.
25:22: So please listen as I read.
25:27: Speaking of the Anabaptists, their association with pacifism came about largely as a result of their one experience with political power when in 1533 they gained temporary control of the city of Munster.
25:42: They persecuted and expelled all non-Anabaptists and established what they believed was the Messianic kingdom under the leadership of John of Leiden.
25:52: The city was subsequently put to siege by both Catholic and Protestant armies and was captured in 1534 at which point the leaders of the movement were tortured, killed, and displayed as a further deterrent against similar undertakings.
26:07: This disaster led to a revolution within the movement under the leadership of such figures as Mino-Simons.
26:14: From this point on, most of the streams within the Anabaptist movement would be committed to some form of Christian pacifism.
26:25: The original Anabaptist confession known as the Sleightheim Confession did not forbid the sword to the civil magistrate even while it did encourage all true believers to abstain from participating in potentially violent occupations.
26:38: Article 6 of the Sleightheim Confession reads as follows, and I quote, The sword is ordained of God outside the perfection of Christ.
26:46: It punishes and puts to death the wicked and guards and protects the good.
26:49: In the law, the sword was ordained for the punishment of the wicked and for their death, and the same sword is now ordained to be used by the worldly magistrates.
26:58: So, here's what happened.
27:02: In 1533, the earliest group of Anabaptists, one of the earliest group of Anabaptists, came to power in the city of Munster, and they became totalitarian and were awful in their behavior.
27:16: No other way to say it.
27:17: They were just tremendously awful.
27:19: You can read some of the stories of what happened there, and it's pretty atrocious.
27:24: Well, they were punished for it by both Catholics and the Protestants who were not going to put up with that.
27:30: As a result, the groups that came away from that found themselves to be pacifistic as a knee-jerk reaction to the totalitarianism of their predecessors.
27:44: So, it was like, no, that violence was not good.
27:46: We don't want that.
27:47: We're going to become more pacifistic.
27:50: So, that's part of the issue there.
27:54: Modern-day expressions of the Anabaptists...
27:57: Oh, by the way, a lot of people say Baptists are the descendants of Anabaptists.
28:05: It's actually not true.
28:08: Baptists in America are the descendants of the 17th century English Baptists, which were established in England as a result of Calvinistic preaching, and there's a history that you can go back there.
28:22: That's why most modern American Baptists believe in things like eternal security, which is a clearly Calvinistic-inspired or encouraged doctrine.
28:32: The Anabaptists are not Baptists today.
28:34: The Anabaptists are found in the Mennonite movement, the Amish movement, the Quakers, and other groups like that, which tend to find themselves where? Outside of the communities.
28:49: Normally, like Amish, set themselves up outside of the progressive communities, and so too do many Mennonites and others.
28:59: So, they will say, and Mennonites specifically, or rather Amish specifically, will say they believe that they are...
29:08: They say we're not pacifists, we believe in non-resistance, which is just another way of saying that they're pacifists.
29:16: And Amish will say they will not serve in the military, they will not serve in law enforcement, they will not hold political office, but they don't think that it's wrong for the world to do it.
29:28: They say we believe that it's necessary, the state is ordained by God, we just can't participate.
29:37: I mean, you read that, you heard what I read earlier, right? It's okay, we know God has given the state the sword, we know the state has to wield the sword, we just can't participate in it.
29:47: But here's my response, and again, I'm not trying to be like jumping to a response quickly, but one of the things I've always thought about is that is why the Amish people tend to live in countries where they're protected by law.
30:01: You don't see too many Amish people in Iraq.
30:06: You understand why? Because they require, if you are not willing to take up the sword, you have to live under the umbrella of somebody who's willing to.
30:16: And that's ultimately what they do.
30:18: They live under the umbrella of the protection of somebody else who's willing to take up the sword on their behalf.
30:25: And their attitude is, that's perfectly fine, we'll let the unbelievers do it, but we're not going to participate.
30:32: So, that is the modern expression of Christian pacifism.
30:38: Now, it's not the only one.
30:40: You will find Christian pacifists in every denomination, but you will likely not find it as part of denominational teaching as much.
30:49: It's people that are pacifistic.
30:52: It's people that believe in non-resistance.
30:54: Among the groups that find themselves as a group of non-resistant, that again, typically is found in the Anabaptist tradition.
31:04: Now, that is a short overview of Christian pacifism.
31:08: Now let us turn our attention to just war theory.
31:12: Just war theory.
31:33: I mentioned earlier that just war theory is typically attributed most to the writings and the teachings of Augustine, who was not really an early church father.
31:48: He was more of a 4th, 5th century church leader.
31:51: But he is considered to be, by many, including myself, to be one of the greatest theologians that the church has ever produced.
31:58: So, just war theory begins with this simple notion.
32:04: Loving your neighbor supports the use of force under certain circumstances.
32:14: And here was Augustine's simple scenario.
32:17: This was his position.
32:19: He said, imagine you came upon someone being beaten by someone else, and that person was about to be killed would you be morally obligated to stand by idly and not intervene based upon a commitment to non-violence, or would you then be righteous to use force to protect that person? There is the foundation of just war ethic.
32:58: As he would say, you would have not only the ability but the responsibility to act on behalf of the person who cannot help themselves.
33:11: Yes sir, Daniel.
33:19: Loving your neighbor supports the use of force under certain circumstances.
33:27: And the easiest circumstance that Augustine gives is you come across a person who is being injured.
33:34: You have the power to stop them, but you have to use force to do so.
33:40: Are you justified in the use of force? And that is Augustine.
33:44: Augustine is saying it is more loving to use force to protect the person than it would be to stand idly by and do nothing.
33:56: That's the argument.
33:57: That's his position.
34:02: The advocate of just war theory would state that the passages which are normally cited by pacifists, which we read them earlier, we looked at four, regard retaliation not protection.
34:29: That is the typical just war argument against the passages we discussed, is that those passages are dealing with the concept of retaliation, not protection.
34:45: Is there ever in Scripture a responsibility given by God that someone protect someone else? The best and easiest one is the one we looked at last week, Romans chapter 13 verses 1-4.
35:05: Romans 13 1-4 gives the government the responsibility to protect its citizens.
35:14: Let's read it again.
35:16: Let every person be subject to the governing authority, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
35:22: Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
35:29: For rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad.
35:32: Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good.
35:40: But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.
35:45: He is God's servant and avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
35:52: So right there the government has the responsibility of carrying out vengeance from God.
36:00: That is literally the language that is used.
36:11: Well, there are people who believe that the police should not be able to use force in any case.
36:17: Have you seen a guy on meth? Well, let me say this about that.
36:29: There are people who have a really ignorant understanding of violent people and the ability for men to be awful, and women, but mankind to be awful.
36:46: One of the things that I heard one of our great politicians say, she said, if we would just be good enough to give up our guns, then the criminals would realize they don't need guns anymore, and they would give up their guns too.
37:03: That's hilarious.
37:05: That's a level of ignorance that's like Rocky and Bullwinkle level of stupidity.
37:10: I mean, it really is.
37:12: That's a level of stupidity that is so hard to even grasp.
37:16: She probably has a bodyguard.
37:18: Who carries a very well equipped firearm and a very heavily...
37:24: She really doesn't believe that.
37:25: No, she doesn't.
37:27: Huh? Yeah.
37:28: No, I agree 100%.
37:30: But that's what I'm saying though.
37:32: There is an ignorance level.
37:33: There are people who say, yes, the police should never have the ability or right to use force.
37:37: They should only say please and thank you.
37:39: If you go over to certain countries, the police have been, their guns have been taken away.
37:45: They only have batons and maybe pepper spray or some other kind of electrical device, but they don't have the ability to take a life anymore.
37:56: Alright, so I want to make a point.
38:00: The government is one of three spheres of authority that God has established in the world.
38:11: Okay, you guys got this.
38:12: Just War is about protection, not retaliation.
38:16: Let us now look at...
38:18: There's three spheres of authority that God has established in the world.
38:27: The first one is the authority of the family.
38:33: Did we do this last week? No, we didn't do it on the board, but you didn't say that.
38:38: Okay, alright.
38:39: Because I want to show you in a moment why I think each one of these has sort of a governmental function.
38:44: But we're going to talk...
38:44: Okay, so the family is the first sphere of authority.
38:48: Father, mother, children, there's a sphere.
38:50: God established it very well defined in scripture.
38:54: The husband and wife relationship is well defined.
38:56: The children obeying the father and mother.
38:59: Very well defined relationship.
39:00: The next one would be the church.
39:03: Within the church is a very well defined relationship.
39:05: The elders, the deacons, the membership, there is a well defined role, authority, and responsibility.
39:11: Then you have the government.
39:15: Alright, so we have three spheres, or you could say the state.
39:18: So you say the family, the church, and the state.
39:21: I do believe in the separation of church and state.
39:23: I don't remember mentioning that last week.
39:26: I also think there's separation in all three of these.
39:29: Because each of these is a different sphere of authority.
39:31: That is not to say there aren't times where the family and the church might not overlap.
39:35: And there are times where the church and state might not overlap.
39:38: But ultimately these are three different spheres of authority, each with their own structure.
39:42: So, with that being said, when we go back to Romans 13, and it refers to the responsibility of the governing authority.
39:50: We could look at these spheres and say within each one, there's a certain type of governing authority that exists.
39:55: Now I'm not interposing this onto the text.
39:58: I'm just saying if we use the text as the example, and say okay, there's authority here.
40:02: We have three spheres of authority.
40:03: It's reasonable to assume that a certain type of authority that exists within each one is also given a responsibility for protection.
40:14: So, within the home, who's got the responsibility to protect the home? The father.
40:20: I already said it.
40:22: Primarily.
40:24: Well, it might be if the father is absent or dead or whatever.
40:29: It might defer to her, but in general, it's the father first.
40:34: This is why in our house we have a very simple understanding.
40:38: If somebody tries to break in, I go to them.
40:41: Mom goes to the kids.
40:44: I'm not going to hide.
40:46: I'm going to be the wall of defense.
40:47: I'm going to be between them and the person.
40:49: I've already given you my position personally.
40:51: I'm not trying to interpose my own ethic on this, but my job is to be the bulwark.
40:57: The wall of defense.
40:58: That's my job.
40:58: If I die doing it, so be it.
41:00: That's my job.
41:02: In the church, the elders serve as a defensive wall doctrinally and even morally.
41:11: If there are those who are trying to bring amoral or amoral or immoral things into the church, the elders can stand as a bulwark of defense and fight that off.
41:20: And that's their job.
41:21: They're the shepherds.
41:22: They are to fight the sheep.
41:22: The shepherd should have two voices, one for calling the sheep and one for yelling at the wolves, sending out the wolves.
41:29: So that's that twofold role of the elder, the pastor.
41:34: The government, of course, has its responsibility.
41:36: So just war theory states that the authority and that has a responsibility, and particularly in regard to the government.
41:48: The government has a responsibility in protecting its citizens.
41:52: And as I said, I think that is also true of the other two spheres.
41:56: Just war theory states that the use of force.
41:58: Now, this is a very important sentence, so I want you to hear it.
42:01: The use of force is not a necessary evil, but is a moral good in certain circumstances.
42:13: This is just war theory explained.
42:16: We are not talking about the lesser of two evils.
42:19: We are talking about a moral good.
42:23: Because if the use of force is necessary to protect life, it's not an evil.
42:28: It's a good.
42:31: This is part of the theory.
42:33: We're not asking you to choose between the lesser of two evils.
42:36: We're saying that when it is imposed to protect life, it's good.
42:45: That's the difference.
42:46: Because a lot of pacifists would say, well, violence or force is a necessary evil.
42:51: That's not what just war says.
42:53: Just war says it's a good if used.
42:56: Like Paul talks about the law in 1 Timothy, the law is good when it's used lawfully.
43:02: The just war theorists might take that same idea and say, well, force is good if it's used righteously.
43:09: There's a righteous use of force, and it's not the lesser of two evils.
43:14: Remember how I told you earlier in the class, we're not seeking the lesser of two evils in most cases.
43:17: We're saying what's the right thing to do.
43:19: And just war theory would say sometimes it's right to do this.
43:26: Where just war theory becomes the most difficult is when it is applied to modern concepts of war and warfare.
43:38: I want to quote the textbook Scott Ray, the one that I've been looking at.
43:44: He says, quote, traditional just war theory maintains that a just war is strictly one of self-defense against an imminent threat, but extensions of the just war doctrine can include preemptive strikes given an enemy's impending attack and wars that either prevent or reverse injustices.
44:05: So, for instance, was Hitler an immediate threat to the United States? Not necessarily an immediate threat.
44:16: Now, was he a potential threat in the future? Oh, absolute.
44:20: But he was not necessarily an immediate threat to us.
44:25: So was it still within the bounds of just war theory to go and engage him in military combat? Just war theory would say, yes, it's still possible that it could still be righteous if you consider him an imminent threat.
44:42: You don't have to wait to be hit before you can hit the idea.
44:46: But the other side of it is you are also protecting others.
44:51: So in the situation with Hitler, there are those who are suffering under him, and you're coming in on their behalf.
44:59: So there is a secondary, you're not the one being threatened.
45:03: America, in this sense, talk America-Germany.
45:05: America is not the one that's immediately being threatened, but there are Germans who are being killed and injured.
45:12: Therefore, there is the righteousness of protecting them.
45:17: And so it becomes an issue of human rights.
45:21: But that can be dangerous.
45:24: Because think about today how many wars are started on the basis of quote-unquote human rights.
45:32: You see the danger.
45:33: You see how that can quickly become an issue of interpretation.
45:39: Yes, sir.
45:40: You could also get even more complicated.
45:55: If you have to take their life, they don't even want to be there.
45:57: Yeah.
45:59: Yeah, that's a difficult thing.
46:03: One of the things I thought about this week, or when I wrote this a few weeks ago, was the issue of the dropping of the atomic bomb.
46:11: We dropped two atomic bombs, one on Nagasaki and one on Hiroshima.
46:18: And in doing so, there were many people who died who were noncombatants.
46:25: The justification was we had been attacked.
46:32: The justification was that we had been attacked.
46:37: We had been attacked.
46:38: Pearl Harbor had been attacked in a vicious and malevolent attack where many Americans, both military and nonmilitary, died.
46:50: And in response, we went and won the war handedly with two drops of two bombs.
47:00: Yes.
47:01: We also knew we had to take their spirit because the Japanese would never stop.
47:04: But, again, that's a justification, right? That's what we're doing.
47:08: We're saying, okay, this is the reason why.
47:10: Another justification that's typically given for the dropping of the atomic bombs is that even though many several thousand were killed, had there been a land invasion of Japan, many more than that would have been killed.
47:26: So there's a secondary issue of the question of now we are dealing with sort of the lesser of two evils.
47:32: If you can kill 10,000 but save the lives of 20,000, what's better? And so that becomes an issue on the question of just war.
47:43: But then we get, I think it becomes even less easy to navigate when we begin to get into my lifetime.
47:52: All those things that I just mentioned happened prior to my birth.
47:55: But in my lifetime, the wars have been much less concrete as far as the reasonings as to why we're even going to war.
48:08: Was it necessary to instigate war with Iraq following the attacks of 9-11? Now, I'm not asking you to answer because we don't have time.
48:17: I just want to go ahead and say.
48:19: My point is to say that that is a more difficult situation to find the justification in the traditional position of just war theory, which is either you have an imminent threat or you're protecting someone or you're in a situation where you are having to do this because there's really no other option.
48:46: So the question of what happened after 9-11, had we been attacked? Absolutely.
48:53: Had we been attacked by Iraq as a country? No.
48:58: I mean, I'm not debating that.
49:00: It's just not what happened.
49:02: However, it is something that people still have to deal with and people have to address.
49:09: When a man joins the military, he doesn't get to choose what battles he fights.
49:14: And that's one of the things.
49:15: My son is in the Air Force right now, and one of the things we knew with him going into the Air Force was that he was not going to get to choose where he was stationed.
49:23: He was not going to get to choose what aircraft he would work on.
49:28: He was not going to get to choose whether or not he was going to participate.
49:32: The only time he has any choice is if he's ever given a command that violates the military code of justice.
49:40: He can deny doing that particular thing, or he can become a conscientious objector, and in such a case would probably lose his position or would be demoted or something.
49:54: It would not be a good situation.
49:57: Yeah, I mean, there's all kinds of things that could happen.
49:59: So we have this situation where when you join the military, you are committing yourself to the government.
50:07: Is the man with the M-16 on the battlefield going to be judged by God, or is the man sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office going to be judged by God? I'm not asking you to answer.
50:19: I'm just saying this is the question that you have to consider because the man in the Oval Office will certainly be judged, but how does the man with the M-16 see his role? That's part of it.
50:35: The ethical issues can also be expanded further to the question of methodology in warfare.
50:43: Even if one concedes that a war is necessary, certain ethical standards must be maintained.
50:49: We've all heard the term, all is fair in love and war.
50:52: Not exactly true.
50:55: The Geneva Convention was established as a series of international diplomatic meetings that produced a number of agreements, in particular the Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, which is a group of international laws for the humane treatment of wounded or captured military personnel, medical personnel, non-military civilians during war or armed conflict.
51:15: The agreements originated in 1864 and were significantly updated in 1949 after World War II.
51:21: You know what one of the most interesting things about the Geneva Convention is? It establishes what kind of ammo we can use.
51:30: Now, not specifically by wording, but we can't use hollow point ammunition and military firearms.
51:38: I'm a firearms instructor, which I'm going to mention in the next portion.
51:42: They make them use full metal jacket ammunition because they say it's less dangerous because hollow points are designed to hit and open and they become a fragment and they turn when they go inside when they hit anything that's fluid, and they become more dangerous inside.
52:03: What they don't say and what they don't understand is that hollow points are actually safer for warfare than full metal jacket because full metal jacket creates a through and through problem.
52:15: It doesn't have anything to slow it down, so it doesn't stop, and it continues through and hits something else.
52:21: Whereas a hollow point will open up and stop.
52:26: So just because there are attempts to try to make things more humane, oftentimes it's an ignorance.
52:32: We're still talking about something to kill somebody.
52:34: Yeah, oh yeah, a bullet's a bullet.
52:37: It's a very small piece of lead traveling at 2,200 feet per second.
52:40: Yeah, but it could kill one person.
52:48: Yeah.
52:54: Not kill you.
52:55: You're talking about the full metal jacket.
52:56: Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
52:57: They consider it more humane.
53:07: Our Constitution says that we do not believe in cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore we have to consider that as well.
53:19: One of the major themes that comes up on the subject of just war is the question of enhanced interrogation.
53:31: You like that term? Enhanced interrogation.
53:33: Enhanced interrogation is sometimes referred to as torture.
53:41: This is a process of using techniques to get information from people, and waterboarding is one of them, not the only one.
53:51: There are many others they do.
53:52: I've heard that they put them in a room and play Justin Bieber music.
53:56: That's a bad joke, but there are deprivation of food, deprivation of sleep, loud music, putting them in rooms alone, being quartered by themselves in small areas for long periods of time.
54:13: Yeah, lighting.
54:14: Again, that's all part of keeping them awake.
54:18: The point is, an ethical question would be, if a person held the information that was necessary to save the lives of many other people, would such interrogation methods be virtuous? Again, I'm not asking you to answer.
54:37: I'm saying this is one of the questions of just war theory because there are people on both sides.
54:41: But it does get away from the simple answer that Augustine gives, right? I walked up and I saw someone being beaten.
54:49: I can intervene, and I can use force in a righteous way to stop.
54:56: That gets magnified in a huge way when we begin to ask the question of, was it right to engage in a war with Iraq or whatever? And so this is not a simple issue.
55:13: Some people would treat it as one, but it's really not.
55:18: We're going to take our break now, and we're going to come back, and we're going to talk about how this works on the personal level, the level of individual self-protection and defense.
55:28: All right.
55:29: Take five.
55:35: Okay.
55:38: We come to the last part of war ethics.
55:41: And again, none of these classes are long enough to really – I'm introducing you.
55:45: This is called Intro to Christian Ethics.
55:46: These are the things that Christians are struggling to come to grips and answers to.
55:54: And my wife and I were talking on the way here.
55:56: She said, you know, we know some people who would come in and say, oh, that's easy.
56:00: This is the answer.
56:00: I hope to have shown you, if nothing else in this class, that none of these are really easy.
56:06: It takes a struggle to come to a conclusion sometimes.
56:10: And I'm going to say about what I'm about to say on the issue of personal protection and defense that some might say that I do not have the right to talk about this because I have a personal stake in the game.
56:26: I have a personal bias.
56:29: Why? Well, I have 25 years as a martial artist and instructor.
56:37: I have black belts in two different systems of martial arts, one which teaches empty hand self-defense and the other which teaches self-defense with sticks and knives.
56:47: It's a system that was used by the Filipinos to protect their island from the invading Spaniards.
56:54: And it's a system which teaches the use of sticks and knives for defense.
57:00: I'm also certified with the National Rifle Association to teach firearm safety, personal protection in the home, personal protection outside the home, and I'm a certified range safety officer.
57:14: I am also certified with Saber International, which is a group which allows the teaching of the use of pepper spray, saber spray.
57:25: I was certified with them years ago on how to not only use it but how to teach other people how to use it.
57:30: I have an organization that I am the leader of.
57:35: It's called Kodiak Life Protection Systems.
57:38: I developed it about 10 years ago.
57:40: I train personal protection instructors and give certifications in personal protection instruction.
57:48: Therefore, some might say that I cannot speak fairly on this subject.
57:55: Yet, I have yet to meet a person who did not have some position going into this subject.
58:02: It just so happens that I would say, as an instructor, I can at least speak from a position of authority from one side.
58:13: Personal protection is a step beyond just war theory.
58:20: In the classic scenario given by Augustine, the justification for war or force or the use of force was that you were protecting someone else.
58:32: However, what happens when you are the person who is being beaten? Does it change the ethical conundrum? If I am being beaten, should I wait and hope that someone is going to come along to protect me? Or can I, in good conscience, take matters into my own hands? We are going to go back to our three circles because I did not write these up for no reason.
59:12: We mentioned earlier that the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens.
59:21: I think it is clearly enunciated in Romans 13.
59:27: The whole reason why they would bring vengeance on the wrongdoer is that that person has done wrong and needs to be punished.
59:35: Therefore, they have a role, if nothing else, a role of deterring bad behavior.
59:42: Because they are going to bring punishment.
59:43: You do wrong, the government is going to come and punish you.
59:48: The government is allowed to use force to stop people from doing evil.
59:55: Some people see personal protection as the individual's being given temporary ability by the government to act as an agent of the state on their own behalf.
01:00:11: Here is how that works.
01:00:14: If I am in the world and a man comes up and accosts me with a knife and a police officer is present, the police officer would have every right to take out a firearm and stop that person from accosting me with a knife.
01:00:32: If I am in the same scenario and a man comes and accosts me with a knife and there is no police officer, but I have the ability to respond as the police officer would in my place, then the state recognizes my place as that of the officer.
01:00:53: And I become, at that moment, an agent of the state acting on behalf of the state to bring justice against the adversary of the state.
01:01:04: That is the foundation for the self-defense laws that we have.
01:01:09: That in the moment that you are acting in self-defense, you become an agent of the state.
01:01:15: You are doing what the police would have done were they present.
01:01:21: So you at that moment, in a sense, become somewhat deputized to act on your own behalf.
01:01:28: And therefore, you get to become an agent of the state.
01:01:33: Now, some people don't like that analogy because they don't want the state involved at all.
01:01:38: Especially those of a more libertarian bent.
01:01:41: They would hear everything I just said and they would vomit.
01:01:44: They would say, I don't want the state involved.
01:01:46: I don't want the power of the state.
01:01:48: I want complete human freedom and autonomy.
01:01:51: And that is the heart of libertarianism.
01:01:55: Which is fine.
01:01:56: Which is fine.
01:01:57: But my point is this.
01:01:59: If we consider it that way and we look back to Romans 13 as the role of the state to protect the person and the person then has the ability to protect himself as an agent of the state, I think that sort of gives us at least a set of principles upon which we can build a case for personal protection.
01:02:19: So the question is, is the person who protects himself sinning? Because that is really the issue for Christian ethics, right? Am I sinning by protecting myself? And here is how I answer that question.
01:02:36: And again, I know I may sound biased on this, but I have given this a lot of thought over the years.
01:02:39: I have to be able to think about these things.
01:02:41: I teach these things.
01:02:42: I have given this a lot of thought.
01:02:46: If I hear someone say, personal protection is sin.
01:02:51: I say, okay, let us begin the very large span of how we understand what it means to protect oneself.
01:03:00: Is locking my doors an act of personal protection? Yes.
01:03:06: Is wearing a seatbelt an act of personal protection? Yes.
01:03:10: Is not going to certain neighborhoods at night an act of personal protection? Yes.
01:03:17: Is avoiding interaction with certain people an act of personal protection? Could be.
01:03:23: I mean, so we can begin a continuum of when does it become right and wrong.
01:03:29: Someone says, well, when use of force is applied, it becomes wrong.
01:03:36: So then I begin again my continuum.
01:03:40: Okay, if a man swings his hand at my face and I lift my hand to protect my face, is that an act of force? If you have never been punched in the face, you will not know this.
01:04:00: But the answer is yes.
01:04:03: Because nobody has ever stopped punching me in the face just because I put my hand in the way.
01:04:10: They just keep hitting or the hit keeps coming.
01:04:13: You actually have to put something behind it.
01:04:16: In karate we say, put your rear end into it.
01:04:19: You got to put a little something on it to stop that blow.
01:04:23: Therefore, force is being met with force, right? And so there goes that continuum.
01:04:31: Is it wrong to block a punch? If it's not, is it wrong to hold the man's arm so he can't hit me again? Do you see where I'm going? Do you see what I'm saying? It's a personal protection, it's a continuum.
01:04:46: We keep going down the line.
01:04:48: You say, well, Pastor Foskey, you teach people to counter punch.
01:04:54: That is true.
01:04:56: You teach people to use the leverage on the elbow to dislocate the arm.
01:05:01: That is true.
01:05:05: That's a sin.
01:05:08: Say, okay, why? That's the next step, right? If it wasn't wrong to block the punch, if it wasn't wrong to grab the arm, why is it wrong now to apply force to stop him from doing it again? Right? That's where the step becomes, right? Because the only reason why I would punch him in the solar plexus or the only reason why I would dislocate his elbow would be for the purpose to stop him from doing it again.
01:05:41: But Jesus said to turn the other cheek.
01:05:45: I understand that.
01:05:47: What was our conversation earlier about how does just war understand that passage? Retaliation, not protection.
01:05:59: When Jesus talks about someone striking another man in the face, I do think that can be physical.
01:06:05: Some people think that Jesus is only talking about insults there, and it is true that striking a man in the face, a slap to the face in the first century, it was an insult more than it was an attack.
01:06:19: But I think it could still apply to a smack.
01:06:22: If a man smacks me, I don't necessarily have the right to drop him.
01:06:30: Mine would be probably not good.
01:06:36: That's what I'm saying.
01:06:37: That's what I'm saying.
01:06:38: And that's what...
01:06:40: We could go...
01:06:42: We could really...
01:06:46: It's all part of it, right? But again, there are all kinds of ways to protect ourselves, and the issue is when does it become sin? And I think when we consider the words of Jesus in Matthew 5, when he says, if a person strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, he is telling us something that a lot of us don't want to hear.
01:07:17: And that is we should be willing to take abuse and not abuse back.
01:07:26: But I do not believe that what he is saying is that another man can take my family, my family's father away from them.
01:07:38: That's where I think the line is drawn.
01:07:41: I don't think Jesus is dealing with life protection.
01:07:46: I think he is dealing with retaliation.
01:07:49: And I know this, if a man slaps me on the face, I'm going to want to eat his face.
01:07:55: I mean, I'm just going to...
01:07:57: Maybe this shouldn't be on the recording.
01:07:58: My flesh is going to be like a pit bull.
01:08:04: And it's going to take everything, every ounce of godliness that God has instilled within me to not want to do that.
01:08:13: But that is different than a man who is in my house at night who has broken through my first level of protection, which was that locked door, which is locked for his protection, not mine.
01:08:26: And when he gets in, the situation has changed.
01:08:30: Because I am now no longer simply dealing with an insult or even a man who is trying to abuse me, but I'm dealing with a man who is trying to kill me or my family.
01:08:47: And as this role is given, I think also is given here.
01:08:56: And you say, well, you're just saying this.
01:08:58: You don't have any Bible verses.
01:08:59: All you've done is given your talk.
01:09:01: Let me give you a few verses because I do think this is important.
01:09:06: The first one, and you might argue, well, this is Old Testament, but I think this applies.
01:09:11: Go to Exodus 22.
01:09:17: Exodus 22, verses 2 and 3.
01:09:24: This is part of the civil law, but it gives us a principle that I think applies cross-covenantally.
01:09:32: It's a principle of law.
01:09:34: Here's the principle.
01:09:35: I'll read it to you.
01:09:36: Exodus 22.
01:09:38: If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no blood guilt for him.
01:09:46: But if the sun has risen on him, there shall be blood guilt for him.
01:09:51: He shall surely pay if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
01:09:55: Okay, so here's the situation.
01:09:58: Middle of the night, a guy breaks into my house.
01:09:59: I kill him.
01:10:00: I'm innocent.
01:10:02: That's what it says.
01:10:03: There is no blood guilt for him.
01:10:04: He was in my house in the middle of the night.
01:10:06: I killed him because he startled me or he came in and threatened me or whatever.
01:10:12: He is killed.
01:10:13: I am innocent.
01:10:16: There's no blood guilt for him, meaning that I'm innocent.
01:10:20: But it says, if the sun has risen on him, there shall be blood guilt for him.
01:10:26: Why? Because that is assuming that he broke into my house, left.
01:10:32: The next day, I go find him and kill him.
01:10:35: That's retaliation.
01:10:38: It's not saying he breaks in during the day.
01:10:40: What it's saying is the sun has risen.
01:10:41: That is an idiomatic phrase which means time has passed.
01:10:47: This guy has broken into my house.
01:10:49: Time has passed.
01:10:51: He is now somewhere else.
01:10:52: I go find him.
01:10:53: I kill him.
01:10:54: That's murder.
01:10:57: I don't have the right to do that.
01:10:58: I'm not an agent of the state anymore.
01:10:59: I'm an agent of vengeance, personal revenge.
01:11:05: Yes? Do you think that right there is where a lot of the bear arms...
01:11:18: Well, I mean, there's a lot that goes into the idea of bearing arms.
01:11:25: The idea of bearing arms in the Constitution is that every citizen a soldier.
01:11:32: Every citizen a soldier.
01:11:33: Notice that within that Second Amendment is the statement regarding the well-equipped militia.
01:11:41: Why? Because every citizen should have an ability to be part of the fighting force of the country if needed.
01:11:50: One of the generals in the Japanese Army was quoted as saying, there's no way to invade the American homeland because there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
01:12:04: He said, you just can't invade America because everybody has a gun.
01:12:08: And the whole idea behind that is so that everyone can, at a moment's notice, take up arms in protection of the nation.
01:12:16: So I'm saying the Second Amendment is based on the idea that the citizenry has a responsibility to act on behalf of the nation if necessary.
01:12:24: Or to act against the nation if the nation were to become so corrupt.
01:12:29: So that's part of that too.
01:12:32: But as far as self-defense, I do think these verses speak to defense.
01:12:35: What's that? I said, let's do that.
01:12:38: Well, a long time coming, but be careful what I say there.
01:12:43: Alright, well let's look at a few New Testament passages.
01:12:46: Did you have a question about that one? No, I have a question.
01:12:52: It's a Bible verse.
01:12:55: But did you have a question about the Exodus 22 passage? Go to Luke 22, verse 36.
01:13:05: This is a classic passage that is difficult to interpret.
01:13:10: And I'm going to say right off, I'm not certain I know what it means.
01:13:13: But it's almost unanimously used by those who defend the right to bear arms.
01:13:18: So I want to mention it because it's there.
01:13:21: Luke 22, verse 36.
01:13:23: Jesus is speaking to His disciples.
01:13:25: This is on the night before He's crucified.
01:13:27: And He says this, but now let the one who has a money bag take it and likewise a knapsack, and let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
01:13:40: That was Jesus telling His disciples if you don't have a sword, go buy one.
01:13:47: Not exactly.
01:13:50: So a lot of interpretations about that passage.
01:13:53: And I'm not going to come down hard and say I know exactly what it means because I don't.
01:13:57: I'll tell you.
01:13:57: I'd like to think that Jesus was telling them they had better be ready to protect themselves because things were about to get tough.
01:14:02: And that's how most people that take my position tend to interpret it.
01:14:06: But other people would simply say Jesus is saying one of the necessary requirements for living at that time was to carry a small blade with you wherever you go.
01:14:13: And sort of like today, most guys I know who are Calahanians, my home bred town, we all carry pocket knives or guns or both or whatever.
01:14:22: And it's just a natural part of living.
01:14:26: But what doesn't sit well with me is if Jesus is just saying go get what's normal to have, why even say it if that's such a normal thing? So I go back to the question of why is Jesus telling these guys to get a sword? Is it because they're about to be thrust out of their home? They're going to be pushed into areas where they're going to be living in dangerous places and they may need to protect themselves? I'd like to think that's what it means, but I'm not going to be the one who says that's absolutely what it means.
01:14:59: But certainly many people interpret it that way.
01:15:02: Another passage is Matthew 12.29.
01:15:04: I'm going to give you time to get there because I've got to get through this.
01:15:08: Matthew 12.29 says, How can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.
01:15:17: This same passage is in Luke 11.21.
01:15:21: When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe.
01:15:25: I love that.
01:15:26: It's Jesus speaking.
01:15:27: He said when a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe.
01:15:34: That's a pretty strong passage.
01:15:36: The problem with using these passages is that Jesus is talking about the devil.
01:15:43: In both of those passages, He's addressing the issue of the devil.
01:15:47: He says the devil can't fight against the devil.
01:15:50: He's going to defend his own house just like any man would defend his house.
01:15:53: And He's using that as an illustration of the devil.
01:15:56: The people were saying Jesus is the devil.
01:16:00: And Jesus says the devil can't fight against himself.
01:16:04: He's going to defend himself.
01:16:06: But He uses the example.
01:16:07: I don't think it's wrong to use the example because here's the example.
01:16:10: The example is a strong man does defend his house.
01:16:12: And He uses it in a way that makes sense.
01:16:16: A man who is a strong man is going to arm himself and protect his home.
01:16:20: And when he does, his goods are safe.
01:16:22: His palace is safe.
01:16:24: So I think there's virtue in that.
01:16:27: This is, though, not a necessary understanding.
01:16:32: I'm giving you my understanding.
01:16:34: This is how I understand these passages.
01:16:38: Please give me two more minutes of your time.
01:16:41: I want to say a few things.
01:16:43: When I first got saved, I was 19 years old.
01:16:47: I've been in the martial arts for five years at that time.
01:16:50: No, longer.
01:16:51: I've been for a while.
01:16:54: I wondered if I should give up self-defense training.
01:16:59: And I really did consider it.
01:17:01: I never would have considered pacifism because even if I were not training in self-defense, I wouldn't think pacifism would be...
01:17:09: It just doesn't make sense to me to never use force at all, especially when I see people hurting other people.
01:17:19: I finally reached a point of confidence in what I was doing when I realized that I am not teaching people to be violent, but I am teaching people to protect themselves from violence.
01:17:32: The vast majority of everything that we do is designed to de-escalate and escape a violent situation.
01:17:42: In fact, we have an acronym that we use when I teach, and it is SAVE.
01:17:54: It stands for situational awareness.
01:17:58: That means knowing the situation that you're in, being aware of potential dangers, and the second one is avoidance.
01:18:06: If you're aware of something that is dangerous, you avoid it and you get away.
01:18:11: The V stands for verbal de-escalation.
01:18:16: Use your words first to try to de-escalate the situation.
01:18:23: And the E stands for escape.
01:18:26: Get away as quickly as you can and as safely as you can.
01:18:30: And for 25 years, that's been my fourfold position on life or death situations.
01:18:37: But the reality is, though, it doesn't always happen.
01:18:41: If I'm in my house and I'm protecting my children, the game changes.
01:18:46: The situation changes.
01:18:48: But I do believe my children should expect me to defend them.
01:18:53: I believe my children should be confident that I can.
01:19:00: I once had a man in my church who was trying to have me removed because of doctrinal differences, and he thought the best way to come after me was to come after me regarding my teaching of self-defense classes.
01:19:14: I teach them on Monday night here at the church.
01:19:18: And so he thought, well, a good way to get rid of Keith would be to get rid of those self-defense classes.
01:19:22: Like, that would make me leave.
01:19:24: And we were in a meeting, and he said to me, you teach martial arts, you teach people how to fight.
01:19:34: And I said, sir, do you own a gun? And he said, well, of course I own a gun.
01:19:42: I said, if somebody broke into your house and was going to hurt your wife, would you use that gun to defend your wife? Of course I would.
01:19:49: I said, so what you're telling me is that because I'm able to use my hands to defend myself, I'm somehow less virtuous than you who has to use a gun.
01:20:03: You, sir, are a hypocrite.
01:20:05: And he never mentioned it again.
01:20:10: On the subject of firearms, they are nothing but a tool.
01:20:15: A firearm by itself has no morals, no ethics, and no values.
01:20:20: Neither does a knife, a sword, or anything else.
01:20:24: You are the weapon.
01:20:26: I tell people that all the time.
01:20:28: You are the person.
01:20:30: You're the danger, not the tool.
01:20:33: So when it comes to self-defense, if people say, well, do you have a difference of opinion when it comes to guns or knives or anything else? No, because the weapon is the person wielding the tool.
01:20:43: They're the ones who make the moral decision.
01:20:49: To come to ethical conclusions about war, pacifism, and personal protection, a lot of information has to be considered.
01:20:55: Does your conscience forbid you from using any force? If so, it doesn't matter whether it's correct or not.
01:21:01: You can't do it.
01:21:05: Remember what Romans 14 says.
01:21:07: There are some people who are bound in their conscience to things that the Bible doesn't necessarily bind them to.
01:21:12: If you personally don't feel like you should ever use force, then don't.
01:21:16: But I don't think that that can keep another person from it.
01:21:23: I do not believe the Bible forbids us from using force.
01:21:26: That's my personal position on it.
01:21:28: I believe it can be virtuous because it can save lives.
01:21:33: I also do not believe it forbids service in law enforcement or the military.
01:21:36: If that were the case, we would have no hope of ever having any godly men or women in those positions.
01:21:43: We should be thankful for those who are willing to serve in those positions as men and women of God.
01:21:51: Wouldn't it be a very dangerous world if none of our military and none of our police were faithful to Christ? I know we could talk about corruption and everything else.
01:22:08: But I know of at least some who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and wear a badge.
01:22:14: I'm thankful for them.
01:22:16: Let's pray.
01:22:18: Father, I thank you for this time.
01:22:19: Lord, I pray that it's been useful and will continue to be useful for your people.
01:22:24: In Christ's name, amen.