Template:Selfdefense2

Self Defense 2

DO CHRISTIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE? – PART 2

As we saw in Part 1, it is clear by an honest reading of the Bible that while the men of the Old and New Testament were consistently armed their motives were equally divided between defending themselves and defending others. Their mandate by Moses and Jesus was always to love others as much as they were to love themselves. This meant they were to diligently tend to what Jesus called the “weightier matters of law, justice, mercy and faith” or lose the rights endowed upon them by God and end up serving those who by nature are not gods.

Paul said there were gods many and of course both the Old and New Testaments tell us that those gods were "ruling judges" who ruled the people. Men often are cunningly coerced into into giving other men power by waiving their own rights in exchange for personal benefits or security.

People from the beginning were not to oppress the stranger in their midst, nor deprive the workmen of the value of his labor, nor do anything to their neighbor that they did not want done to themselves, nor covet their neighbor's goods in any way. They were to even love their enemy, being just to all people, defend the weak, and care for the needy without using force. The gods of the “world” often disregard these precepts.

Are Christian soldiers and policeman not to have their weapons any more and give beasts and bullies of society the right to rob and murder with impunity?

That is not what John the Baptist said.

“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse [any] falsely; and be content with your wages.” Luke 3:14

There is a difference between violence and using strength to put yourself reasonably in harms way to defend the needy.

Recently in California several men raped a 15 year old girl on school grounds while dozens of people stood around doing nothing. Those who did nothing were just as guilty as the criminals. They did not love their neighbor nor tend to what Jesus' “weightier matters.” Their apathy, sloth or cowardice was an act of violence.

“Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.” Jermiah 22:3

In a pure Republic the obligation of good government falls on the shoulders of everyman who must come to the aid of his neighbor by every means at his disposal. To righteously defend the lives of others who are unjustly violated by the brutes and criminals of the world is a duty and an obligation of everyman. It is not violence to do so, but violence to fail to do so.

These precepts define and limit the power and authority of the people and therefore it also limits the power and authority of governments defined and ordained by men.

Rep. Fred Maslack with a stricter interpretation of the Second Amendment and the Vermont's Constitution proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners."

The bill would require them to pay a $500 fee to the state for the privilege of not owning a gun. That would seem reasonable if the citizenry will not answer the “Hue and cry” of their neighbors in distress then they should bear the weight of hiring more police.

Should the government have a right to take money from non gun owners?

There are governments that exercise authority one over the other and force the compliance and contributions of the people, but these institutions are ordained by the selfish and self indulgent nature of men, not by God. Those governments are here to punish the wicked who create them.

Those who reject God by stealing, murdering, or merely coveting their neighbor's goods are in violation of God's law already, and are and will be judged accordingly.

Those who are slothful in the exercise of their responsibility to God and their fellow man, those who have gone away from the precepts of God by “consent” deserve the governments their own evil hearts create. The slothful should be under tribute and have no right to rebel, but only repent.

In a recent NWV article “The Republic is Dead; We Are Ready to Fight, Now What?” Greg Evensen wrote "We as a nation of citizens, have been brutalized so badly by criminals inside the government, that we could have easily justified the use of deadly force to beat back the pillaging of our homes and communities."

I beg to respectfully disagree. The truth is we have brutalized and pillaged our neighbor through wanton social schemes and our personal apathy and avarice. We have no right to rebel against the so called government benefactors which we have elected time and time again for our private gain.

To protest that we have been violated is a point of hypocrisy when we are just as guilty of sloth and coveting our neighbor's goods through those schemes created by our own democratic hands and consent. The first chapter of Proverbs warns us not to “consent” with others who desire to take from one another for personal benefit or welfare or we would be snared in the net of our own making.

In Part 1 of this series I attributed the legal maxim "Protection draws to it subjection; subjection protection" to Plutarch. While I have no doubt he would agree, what I meant to quote was his statement, “The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.” No man can be free in society until he frees his neighbor from the tyranny in his own heart.

Government today is a product of our own greed and sloth. We have no right to fight for liberty until we set our neighbors free from our own wanton desires. We must turn around, repent, and form a society that frees our neighbor from our own covetous schemes. We must learn to live again by faith, hope, and charity under that perfect law of liberty we claim to seek as the early Church once did.

Consent of the people is created in a variety of ways, but the offer of benefits is one of the most common. Peter the apostle warned people that they would become merchandise, human resources, if they coveted each others wealth. He warned that with “feigned words” they would be seduced into giving up their liberty. He knew some men would promise liberty and bring in a corruption that would bring the people back into bondage to the “world.”

Although, Thomas Jefferson never said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have," it is undoubtedly true.

Thomas Jefferson did say "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." The only thing that can keep governments in check is the due diligence of virtuous people.

The standards of virtue required are set by God and it is the job of those who serve God including the Church to point out when and where the people and their institutions stray from the moral and virtuous character of God. One problem is that the modern Church has strayed from even the most basic commandments of Christ as a matter of policy. Coveting your neighbor's goods through the agency of others that exercise authority has become commonplace and acceptable while living by faith, hope, and charity has been, for all practical purposes, abandoned except for lip service.

Even William Pitt, Prime Minister of Great Britain, knew that “As long as we look to government to solve our problems we will always suffer tyranny.” Yet we still look for state or Federal governments to solve all our problems. Could there be a better way?

William Penn said it “If we will not be governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants.”

I know the people want to believe all their natural rights are retained by them, but the people have delegated or relinquished the responsibilities correlative to every natural right. Those who bear the responsibility wield the right.

After almost a hundred years of a steady increase of socialism in the “world” are there any natural rights that have not fallen under the regulating powers of men with power?

After all, if you delegate the authority to others to take from your neighbor for your personal benefit and security then it only seems reasonable that those who protect you may also regulate your right to protect yourself.

That may not be a popular concept of law for many, but that is exactly what has happened and in part three we hope to show that there is neither a state nor federal government that you may rely on to retain the rights God has granted you.